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:12168] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I can understand why the Greens are voting against this legislation but I cannot understand why National and ACT are voting to enable teachers to continue the practice of going on strike and withdrawing their labour and still being paid for it. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It’s a philosophical point. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Dr Mapp said that it is a philosophical point. It is a philosophical point about schools having power devolution of decision-making site bargaining bulk funding and giving real power to boards and teachers. I mention to Dr Mapp that after 9 years of National being in power in the 1990s we ended up having the centralised negotiation of collective employment contracts with the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) and the New Zealand Educational Institute. That is what we ended up with after those 9 years and now National is telling us that it will lead us to a new nirvana. 
Dr Lockwood Smith criticised New Zealand First for not supporting children’s education because of one of the amendments the Education and Science Committee has made to this bill. I ask Dr Lockwood Smith how many days were lost through strikes and how many days and hours of teaching were lost through rostering off in the 1996 negotiations. In the 1998 negotiations that New Zealand First was involved in with the PPTA and the New Zealand Educational Institute not one day was lost. There was not one day of strike action as a result of those negotiations. I ask Dr Lockwood Smith who really does care about the educational well-being of students. 
The point is that in this particular case National is claiming that it wants bulk funding and site bargaining and that that will resolve all the issues yet National had 9 years to put that in practice and it did not advance it. National did not advance that when it had the opportunities to do so. Lockwood Smith’s formula would never have worked because it was based upon the average teacher’s salary—hence there was such resistance by the teachers association and the educationalists who really thought about those issues. It was only when New Zealand First came into the coalition Government and said that if there had to be a formula we should make it a fair one—at the top of the scale—that we had something that might have made the bulk-funding situation work. But the fact is that we went way past that and by the end of the 1990s even National was not prepared to impose the fully funded option of bulk funding. National had the opportunity to do that and failed to do so. 
New Zealand First says that if teachers withdraw their labour—and they should have the right to withdraw their labour—they should lose their pay. That is what this legislation is about. There may also be a reorganisation of schooling in certain areas and people may be offered another job. For example up our way in Northland three schools are being merged on one site and the name of the school will change. Some of the teachers at one school called Punaruku—which will now be called Whangaruru—will have their jobs offered to them. New Zealand First believes that if that offer is made those teachers should be required to take up those jobs and should not be entitled to a full range of redundancy payments. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Stick to the right part. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: This is the right part. I ask Dr Mapp whether he would like me to read out that provision. Obviously he has not read it. New Zealand First says that it is only fair and proper and in line with all other industrial negotiations that if that sort of thing takes place people should not receive redundancy payments. New Zealand First fought in the select committee to make sure that the wording of that provision was tidied up—because there was a need to tidy it up—but it supports the principle at stake. 
The only question New Zealand First really wants to ask the Minister is why he came to the House for the first reading with such a dog of a bill. Why did he not get it right and why did he leave it to the select committee to make all the changes? Other than that I say New Zealand First is flabbergasted at the positions taken by National and ACT. We will support the bill because we believe that given the circumstances left by National in 1999 regarding centralised negotiations these mechanisms are necessary to ensure a level playing field between the taxpayer and teachers.