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:12188] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 The last two speeches have unfortunately rather than focus upon the title of the bill really just poured out a pile of simplistic slogans. The comment by Dr Wayne Mapp that this bill represents a turning away from trusting trustees has to be compared with the statement made by Dr Lockwood Smith that during the 1990s we failed to achieve the breaking out because the point is that this legislation is no turn back at all from anywhere. It only modifies the circumstances that were left behind when National went out of office in 1999 when there was collective wage bargaining by the State Services Commission with powers to delegate that to the Ministry of Education. Dr Lockwood Smith agrees with me there. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What I said was we’d never broken out—we did not succeed. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: There was a difference then in the sense that some schools were bulk-funded for teacher salaries and those schools most certainly would have made sure that their teachers’ salaries were docked if they withdrew their labour. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Topped up salaries. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: So that was a quite different sort of circumstance. But the point has to be made and I think we have to make it again that the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) amends the situation left behind by National. That situation was anomalous in the sense that boards of trustees were the employers of teachers but the State Services Commission had to negotiate their salaries. That situation created an incentive for some boards not to deduct payment from their teachers and that is simply what this bill is about. It is also about trying to prevent that invidious industrial mechanism of rostering off which New Zealand First claims should never have been allowed. It was immoral and unethical. We did something about it during our particular time—it was not employed during that period—because it really does not create a level playing field. 
Therefore far from being a pathway to mediocrity this bill is purely and simply a mechanism to ensure that the forthcoming negotiations are based around the same sorts of relationships that exist in all other industrial negotiations. It may not be perfect for the future. National and ACT can talk about what is perfect for the future by going to the next election telling people what they should have done for 9 years and saying that they are going to do it for the next 3 years anyhow. It is a bit like taking off the surtax is it not? That required New Zealand First to come along and give National a little moral fortitude. But the fact is that in between times there will be industrial negotiations and some pretty untidy legislation will have to operate if this bill does not go through. So New Zealand First says that the bill is OK. It is an amendment to the State Sector Act—as left by the previous National Government after it went out of power in 1999—but it is a necessary amendment to create the least amount of chaos in the forthcoming negotiations. 
We think it is sensible to take this action and so therefore we will be supporting the bill.