Ogilvy Bernie: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Ogilvy Bernie: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12170] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 United Future is concerned about some of the comments with regard to Part 1 of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) which is before us today. We are concerned because of the misunderstanding that exists in some of the statements that National and ACT members have been trying to argue in the Committee. I note that both parties oppose the bill because it reinforces the ethos of “centralised bargaining” in their words. However that can never be the reality unless the boards also have the power to negotiate employee agreements and that is not the case. If it were the case then taking the position that National and ACT have taken may apply but it is not the case so we are looking at the reality here. Otherwise we would do as National proposes which is that teachers should be paid while they are on strike. I am sure that is not the case. Clause 3 “Purposes” states very firmly that teachers cannot be paid while they are on strike and provides for a mechanism to be set in place to ensure that that does not happen. Otherwise it will happen and there will be confusion between the employer—the State Services Commission—the boards of trustees the teachers and worse still the children who are being taught at school. 
United Future is concerned that there has been quite a misunderstanding of the purpose of the bill. To emphasise that a recent case came to my attention that highlights the confusion surrounding exactly whom the employer is when it comes to schools. One could be forgiven for thinking that the board is responsible for employment decisions made by a school but that is not so according to a recent decision by the Employment Relations Authority. This is what happened. A teacher complained that his salary was reduced after his qualifications were found to be incomplete and blamed the board for not following up on the issue of having the salary restored. But it was the ministry and its payment agent that made the decision to cut the salary so they were obviously held to be responsible for it. The judgment was consistent with the intent of this bill but I wonder whether it resolves some of the questions that will continue to exist surrounding the status of boards as employers. 
I pointed out earlier that due to the submissions made on the bill as introduced major corrections have been made to the bill in order to conform to the purposes of the Act so that it can work properly. We now have before the Committee something that is workable something that I would like to commend and something that United Future supports. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 The once-proud Labour Party headed by the Rt Hon David Lange gave New Zealand Tomorrow’s Schools. Today very appropriately a few MPs mentioned that the current Labour Government is fast returning them to yesteryears. I am surprised that Bernie Ogilvy is concerned that National and ACT are voting against this legislation and is confused as to why that is the case. We were hoping to see a movement towards teachers and boards of trustees being able to bargain a fair outcome for both parties on their own terms. All that the Minister has done with the endorsement of New Zealand First United Future and the Greens is to transfer the power to conduct wage bargaining from the boards of trustees to the State Services Commissioner in Wellington. 
Clause 3(c) of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) actually provides that boards of trustees have to report to the State Services Commissioner on the conduct of strikes that affect their schools. Let us think of the unnecessary bureaucracy that is being introduced by this legislation. A board of trustees that is on site at a school will now have to monitor a strike situation and report to the State Services Commissioner in Wellington. That is the person who is supposed to be able to carry out good-faith bargaining with teachers. Why introduce another layer of complication into the situation? I was quite interested to find that members of the Labour Government—which is supposed to trust teachers—today during the debate seemed to be suggesting there has been all sorts of undesirable behaviour by teachers. According to those members teachers are not to be trusted so that is why the Government has to empower the State Services Commissioner to bargain with them. 
National and ACT have taken a very consistent and logical stand in saying that Tomorrow’s Schools was about self-governance by schools together with parents principals and teachers and with input from students in order for schools to conduct their business in an inclusive manner. Today this bill once again introduces a bureaucracy—a centrally controlled structure—into the bargaining process of schools. Does the Labour Government not trust boards of trustees? Does it not believe that if empowered they can carry out those functions? Why introduce a bureaucracy and then have the boards of trustees continue to monitor the situation and report to the commissioner who is based in Wellington? That simply does not make sense to the National Party. 
We will certainly oppose this bill. Tomorrow’s Schools when it was introduced was well intentioned and taking away self-governance from schools is a retrograde step. I hope United Future will take another look at the legislation and study it carefully because after all it claims to be a party of common sense that trusts teachers and principals and believes that people left to their own devices are able to come up with decisions that are acceptable to all parties.