Franks Stephen: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Franks Stephen: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12173] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 We are debating Part 1 of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) and from my left there has been a shrill cry of “School by school!” in astonished tones as the honourable Lianne Dalziel tries to interrupt Mr Simon Power with what she thinks is the killer punch—school by school negotiation. What a shocking idea that boards of trustees—all 2000 of them or however many primary schools there are and another 500 or so secondary schools; I cannot remember the figures—might be entrusted to sort out the terms of employment of their own teachers. That is horror for the left. That horror is what this bill is about and that is why the purpose provisions in clause 3 with their very anodyne words do not really say it as simply as they might. This is the coffee the Minister of Education has when he is drunk. It is a dreadful policy and a foolish reversal of the Picot reforms. To take away bulk funding— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No the member should not say that. He will withdraw that remark. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I withdraw. If I may I will explain to the Minister in case he felt grave offence. Sometimes when one makes a mistake and is drunk—and I think this is typical of teenagers—the way one that tries to cover it up is to drink coffee. One makes desperate efforts to look sober. What we have in this legislation is the inevitable consequence of the State Services Commissioner having to negotiate terms and conditions of employment because the commissioner is responsible when boards will not be responsible. If they are not able to deal with their funds and set their priorities themselves of course they are irresponsible. As a former trustee myself I know that I would do exactly what boards of trustees do in circumstances where they do not have the power to determine the terms and conditions of employment they do not have the power to determine wages and they do not have the power to pay their best teachers what they are worth and to get rid of their worst teachers in the way that an ordinary private sector employer can; of course they conspire with the teachers against the person who has to sign the cheques. 
So we get a bill that still leaves the appearance of an employment relationship between the board and the staff still leaves some selection power but recentralises negotiations and therefore plays directly into the hands of incompetent teachers and the State sector unions—the ones that contribute so much to Labour’s election prospects. The teaching unions are getting a reward. That reminds me of the reward being offered to the prison officers’ union. The only competition that really shows up the poor performance of the State prison sector is being killed off by the Government ending the private prison contract. This bill—and its purpose provisions make it reasonably plain—will make more concrete that the employment relationship between the board and the teacher is a farce. It contains the powers that the Minister needed when he ended genuine employment by school boards of teachers. 
I do not think the Minister has taken a call in this debate but I would be very interested to know just what input the State Services Commissioner intends giving to boards now. I know I cannot debate the next part of the bill but it is very interesting that the powers that the State Services Commissioner will now have include powers to require trustees in effect to jump to the State Services Commissioner’s order. That is disguised in the purpose clause. Paragraph (c) is the only purpose that covers it and it states: “to require Boards of Trustees to report to the State Services Commissioner on the conduct of strikes that affect the schools of those Boards;”. What that little purpose provision does not say is that it can also allow the State Services Commissioner to threaten boards if they do not do exactly as he says. The commissioner now has the power to decide whether they were negligent or not in their dealings.