Donnelly Brian: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Donnelly Brian: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10631] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I make a quick reference to statements made by the new National spokesperson on education Bill English. I have to point out to him that when secondary teachers went on strike during the arguments over the 1996 collective contract on the days they withdrew their labour it was considered that schools were open for instruction. 
Hon Bill English 
: They were getting paid. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: No they were not getting paid. 
Hon Bill English 
: The boards were paying them. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: No the boards do not pay teachers and they did not pay them then—they were paid through a centralised system. During that time the open-for-instruction situation was not applied. I can also tell members that there were hardly any strikes—none in terms of collective contracts—during the time that Wyatt Creech and myself were in the education portfolio together. 
One of the very few strikes was a wildcat strike by a school in Auckland. When we came into Government with National the bulk funding issue was swirling angrily through the educational fraternity and the board of trustees of a secondary school in Auckland was looking seriously at whether it could become bulk funded. The staff decided to go on a wildcat strike. They walked out and kids were told to go home. Then the staff went to the board of trustees—the strike was illegal—and said they wanted the board to ensure that they were paid in order to demonstrate the board’s goodwill towards them. Even though they had withdrawn their labour the staff still believed that the board should not write to the ministry and tell it to deduct their pay. If the board did so the staff said they would go on strike. 
That is the situation boards have been caught up in and boards are much closer to the immediate communities the schools serve. They are much closer to staff than Governments are. For example boards do not have to see the big picture in terms of educational expenditure so are reluctant to upset the staffs they have to work with on a day-to-day basis. So I understand that boards have been caught between a rock and a hard place but it is unfortunately true that many of them did not write to the ministry to say which members should have had their pay deducted. 
It was even worse when the Post Primary Teachers Association started to use the rostering-off system where they said for example that on a certain day teachers would not teach third-formers. That meant that boards of trustees had to go through the whole staff to work out which teachers’ timetables for teaching third-formers on that day to take and how many periods they took. Then they had to go off to the ministry and say: “Look you have to deduct this number of hours from this teacher and this number from another teacher etc.” Once again boards were very reluctant to do it and rostering-off was a very powerful industrial tool. 
We recognised that in 1998 and we nipped it in the bud before it even got under way. The Post Primary Teachers Association threatened it and I put out a press release to say to parents that if they did not send their children to school under those circumstances they were in breach of the law. Paul Holmes picked it up and we had an interview with Martin Cooney. I did not have to do much work because Paul Holmes did most of it for me. He did a snow job on Martin Cooney and the very next day the association withdrew its threats of that sort of action. A day later Martin Cooney resigned his president’s position with the Post Primary Teachers Association—notice of which I think made it probably the best press release I ever put out during my time as Associate Minister of Education. 
But Bill English was right about something—2002 was appalling. Industrial relations and its ongoing effects on students in our secondary schools were absolutely appalling. We have to look at that and ask ourselves whether we are prepared to put up with that sort of carry-on yet again. Secondary teachers must be the only group in this country who believe that they should be able to withdraw their labour and get paid at the same time. There is nothing moral ethical or uplifting about that sort of belief or position. 
At an area school in the 1980s and as Post Primary Teachers Association members we went on strike but we did not withdraw our labour. We continued to teach to ensure that students did not lose their day’s learning. We then donated our money to the Post Primary Teachers Association. 
Hon Bill English 
: Did the kids notice? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Yes they noticed. They thought it was a wonderful self-sacrifice by the teachers at the time. Nowadays teachers want to walk out and still be paid. We were prepared to continue to work and give up our day’s pay to make the point we were making at that time. 
Hon Bill English 
: Did it work? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Stan Rodger was putting through the State Sector Act at that time—I think that was the issue—and no it did not work. The Act still went through so that was a waste of money. 
Nevertheless I say to the Minister that this bill is reactive. Certainly the Government’s performance in handling the round the last time did not bring it great honour and it must be done far better this time. The legislation is reactive in terms of the specifics of how the Government can deal with the next pay round but in this particular case it does not overcome the systemic flaws in the adversarial industrial arrangement between the Government and teachers. There is a unique quite idiosyncratic relationship there. The industrial relations arrangement is simply inadequate in terms of being able to handle things and it certainly leads to a continuation of angst and unhappiness. We cannot have a constructive teaching force that is continuously in that state of low morale. 
New Zealand First will vote for this bill. We believe that in the best interests of the education system we have to have it. We cannot have an environment like the one that existed in 2002 going on into the 2004 round—simply for the well-being of education. The days lost from the education of those students will never be made up. They cannot be—they are lost opportunities to the nation. New Zealand First believes that we need to look at the whole industrial model around which we negotiate teachers’ salaries compared with the one we have at the moment. I do not think that anybody can consider that that model has worked well in the past. 
We believe that the actions taken by certain teachers—not necessarily endorsed by the Post Primary Teachers Association—who withdrew their labour and still expected to be paid were absolutely unethical and immoral. I am surprised that the National Party is supporting that form of unethical immoral behaviour by some of our teaching staff. Therefore we will support the Government in this part of the bill. 
I want to talk about one other aspect of the bill—the closure of schools. An important point is being made in this case but I want to refer to the fact that this Government is hell-bent on closing schools whether they want to be closed or not. 
 We have a situation up in Northland where a school wants to be closed and the ministry will not close it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Which one? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: It is Taipuha. Having had extensive consultation with its community—it is down to seven kids—the school wrote on 3 or 4 August and said it wanted to be closed. About 2 months later the ministry comes along and says it has to go through a process. The school wants to make sure that it is closed in time to get its kids into a new school for next year but no this Minister will not do that. He is too busy out there closing the schools that do not want to be closed and this is a school that wants to be closed. 
I have to point out to the Minister that he really needs to sort out his ministry’s act and that of some of the people in it. If that closure is not gazetted 28 days before the opening of schools for next year those students will be left in a helluva mess. They will have to stay at the school they were at with no transport arrangements. It will cost the taxpayers additional money because the teachers’ salaries will still have to be paid even though they want to move on into the next part of the thing. So I say to the Minister that he had better sort out that part of the ministry’s act. 
In terms of this particular legislation however what is in there is sensible. With the merging of schools a number of small schools coulld merge into one and the principals of each of those schools might not have the requisite educational leadership or administrative skills to be able to professionally lead the larger institution that is formed. Under existing legislation one of those principals has to get the job. Under this legislation where a large school and a small school merge and the principal of the larger school does not want the job the principal of the smaller school—who might not have the experience to carry that job—does not get it. 
The educational leadership role of principals in schools is so critical and important that it is wise—and New Zealand First agrees with the Government on this one—that that position be advertised when we have these school reorganisations. New Zealand First agrees with the decisions that have been made by the Government in this particular case and we will be supporting this bill.