Peters Jim: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Peters Jim: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12171] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 When Caldwell and Spinks went around the country in 1988-89 talking about self-managing schools we in the education sector knew that that was always going to be limited and limited for one reason—the allocation of funds. Contrary to what I have heard in this debate so far that was always the intention and in 1989 in 1990 throughout the total years of the National Party’s administration till 1996 and during the period of coalition from 1996 to 1999 that was so. So looking at clause 3 of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) I am finding some difficulty in understanding the arguments being pursued in the Chamber—ones of a supposed deep philosophical mind. What are they? My experience in the secondary school system and my knowledge of the primary school system do not tell me there were any changes with regard to salaries maintenance and the bulk of school funding throughout the whole of that time by any of the administrations nor are there so at the present time. 
But the reality was that in 2002 there was a problem. The problem which is reflected in this bill was that some boards—or principals in the secondary school sector—in trying to show particularity towards their staff did wrongfully I am suggesting not acknowledge that staff were not at school during some planned strike actions while some principals took extreme care with regard to docking teachers’ pay for every absent hour of every day. That must be the rationale behind the segments of clause 3 that bring to hand the actions of the State Services Commissioner. Who else would have the ability to say to boards that deductions in respect of strike days lost should have been made which in some cases because of the particular atmosphere of that strike action in 2002 was not done? So my experience conveys to me that this measure is reasonable. I certainly do not concur with the suggestion made by Deborah Coddington that somehow taxpayers’ funding is equated with private funding and that therefore there should be some gratis payments of taxpayers’ funds. It is an appalling idea and if she really thinks about what she said she would be sorry that she said so in the Chamber because it is taxpayers’ money. 
To come back to 1989 and the issue of the so-called reforms accountability was always going to be an issue with regard to the spending of the dollar. It still is. That is not easy in the school system when there is never enough money to go around as the Minister said yesterday; there is not enough money today and there will not be enough tomorrow and every dollar counts. Not least is the issue of salaries. Salaries were not under National Party administrations or under any other administrations paid—[ 
Interruption 
] If we go to a voucher system that may be an answer but it will never be the total answer to week-by-week fortnight-by-fortnight payments to teachers. It was an answer for those who are part of the support staff; it has never been so for those who are part of the teaching staff—and it was not entirely satisfactory when it was. 
The second issue I want to raise as the reason for this measure is that the schools did not in the main have salary service agents within their own school administrations. They were centralised from the very start. In 1989 they were centralised. In 1991 under a National Party administration they were centralised. So again where is the deep-seated philosophical change of heart? [ 
Interruption 
] I tell Mr Power that what we have here is a cheap argument without real substance being advanced on what is a simple straightforward administrative bill which clarifies what was not known and should have been clarified in 2002.