Donnelly Brian: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Donnelly Brian: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12194] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to point out to Dr Wayne Mapp one issue that he seems to be overlooking—that is the New Zealand Law Society which I presume he was once a member of is in fact akin to a compulsory union. I am not too certain how the compulsion in that particular fact reduces the professionalism of lawyers. I would also like to make the same point made by my colleague Pita Paraone who asked how come New Zealand First is defending this bill and why Government members do not get up and try to defend their bill. So it was good to hear a little contribution from Lynne Pillay. 
New Zealand First has been criticised for cosying up to Labour on this bill. That is not true at all. If it had not been for the firm and determined opposition of New Zealand First to some of the draconian measures in the bill I doubt whether we would have been able to force through some of the changes. We are very pleased to see those changes although I have already mentioned that it was through the real effort of the select committee working together as a whole. 
Dr Wayne Mapp once again talks about National coming from a perspective of freedom. It must be that National has had a road to Damascus experience since 1999. As I have pointed out continuously this bill reduces some of the powers of the unions not adds to them and modifies the industrial framework that was left behind when National left office in 1999. 
But in this third reading I want to get on to some of the other points because I think we have made many of the points about the legislation. No party is more supportive than New Zealand First of  
Tomorrow’s Schools 
 and the concepts behind it and of school trustees and the School Trustees Association. There are some concerns and I say to Government members that the school trustees are feeling somewhat sidelined not necessarily over this particular legislation but on a number of other issues where they feel they have not been adequately consulted by this particular administration. Yet it is critical that we maintain the importance of school trustees within our schools. There are elections coming up and I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the many thousands of New Zealanders who have offered their services to represent their communities through the school trustee role to ensure their community values are reflected in school practices and that community priorities are reflected in the curriculum and the budgets of their schools. I believe that  
Tomorrow’s Schools 
 by introducing parents to the decision making and creating a real partnership between the professionals and the parents’ representatives of the communities was a very very favourable step; it strengthened education immensely. Members might remember that I was one who worked under the old education boards and under the new system. 
I also have to mention that I am the only member in this House who was a principal of a bulk-funded school. We have heard a lot about bulk funding from all these people who know the ins and outs of bulk funding but I can say I have had that particular experience. I can say now that I was very very proud of that school and the condition it was in when I left. I can also say that I am still very very proud of that school. It is amazingly successful and a very very good school—even though it no longer operates under a bulk-funding regime. 
So the question has to be asked: is it the bulk funding that created the very good practices within that school or were there other factors? I would have to argue that bulk funding was only a very minor factor within the really important factors that make a good school—and certainly that have made Whangarei Intermediate a very good school. Those factors are the quality of staff the leadership of principals and the quality of school trustees and the way they get involved with schools and make decisions for the benefit of the students and teachers within those schools and the parents. That is what makes a good school. 
We have heard a lot of simplistic slogans—and it really worries me a little bit—about whether this is where what are called the centre-right parties are planning to go. I think it is retrogressive. I believe that if we want to achieve a high-quality education system we have to go beyond some of the simplistic slogans of the 1990s that when put under the test of practicalities and pragmatism actually fall apart. We talk about vouchers. What good are vouchers to Te Hapua? We talk about zoning. In fact it was the National Government with the support of ACT that reintroduced zoning. So all these so-called simplistic slogans which are to be the magic bullets will not be the magic bullets. I say that if that is all those parties can come up with for their future plan when those things have been tested and found to be wanting we will have real difficulties. 
In terms of the legislation itself I believe that rather than focusing on those theoretical issues we need to focus on the issues that will drive our education system forward—and we certainly need to value our teachers. The unfortunate thing about our industrial relations is that it is in the interests of the unions to continue holding our teachers in a state of angst and unhappiness and to have them feeling dissatisfied with their roles so that they can utilise that hostility against the Government in the adversarial model we now use. I believe that we need to look at that adversarial model—at whether it is the sort of model we can utilise in order to have a modern education system. 
How does a nation create an education system that is productive constructive forward-looking and requires so much energy for the children in its care if the teachers—the very ones who drive it forward—are kept in a state of constant hostility? Therefore the adversarial model does need questioning. However between now and the next round of collective bargaining we certainly do not have the time to be able to go through that whole process. So there are practical issues involved. The practical issue simply is: do we maintain the structure that was left behind by the previous National Government which has been shown to be faulty or do we make the necessary modifications so that we can go into the next round with a more level playing field? 
New Zealand First says that common sense and pragmatism say to make those necessary adjustments now. We can go through this big debate—that suddenly National wants to go into again after all these years—between the bargaining time and the next election. At this particular point in time we have to look at what will occur over the next 6 months. As a result New Zealand First supports this legislation—most of all because it will get rid of the invidious tactic which Post Primary Teachers Association members in particular use of rostering students off. They say they will not teach third-formers for example on a particular day. That puts boards of trustees and parents into the position of having to break the law. That is not fair; it is not justified. We need a model and a mechanism that certainly allows for the withdrawal of labour but also allows for withdrawal in such a way that people lose their payment etc. for it. It is a fair arrangement and I think this bill takes us into a much fairer bargaining environment than we had before. Therefore New Zealand First will support the bill.