State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3)

The whole intent of this bill is contained in the title, State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3), and the reason why the intent is contained there is that it represents the centralisation of power into the State. Although the Minister may be proud of that, and he obviously is, because that is the intent of the Government, the National Opposition is deeply opposed, because the bill represents a turning away from community power. It represents a turning away from trusting the boards of trustees, who are the real employers, or should be—at least in law—of teachers. Instead, as indeed other clauses indicate, all the power is to be vested in the State Services Commissioner under the direct control of the Minister, acting at ministerial direction, so that the Government, at all times, is the principal and sole negotiator of agreements with teachers in collective contracts.

Of course it is the intent of the Government that every single teacher in New Zealand in the public sector—in secondary schools and in primary schools—will be governed by a collective contract. I was surprised to hear one of the speakers, Mr Jim Peters for the New Zealand First Party, say he had remained a member of the Post Primary Teachers Association until 2002. Apparently, that was because at least he knew what it was doing, but, unfortunately, it lends credence to the power of the union; the power of the collective. When well-talented, able people realise that that is the pathway to mediocrity, then our teaching profession will expand and grow in the way that so many teachers—and I include Mr Peters—would actually wish it to do.

After all, as he said, he was a founding member of the Secondary Principals Association of New Zealand, and the whole purpose of that association was to break the chains with the Post Primary Teachers Association; to recognise that centralised, State-controlled, big unions, big government, were inimical to teacher quality, teacher excellence, and, of course, what that means is excellence in teaching for students, be they in not-so-good schools or excellent schools. But the real focus should be back on that relationship.

The way one does that is to empower the schools—that is, boards of trustees, the principal, the community, and the teachers who work in that school. I know that it is a fundamentally different philosophy to that espoused by Labour. I know that Labour’s pattern, which it is proud of, is State control at every level. That is its intent, and this bill recognises that intent. That is why I am so surprised that United Future is lending its support to such an approach.

The one thing that can be said about the Green Party is that at least it recognises the power of community. That is its raison d’être, in fact. So it would say that State centralised control, as represented by this bill, is the wrong way to go. That is why the Greens vote against it. For National and ACT, other parties that are making sensible votes today, we say we want to empower communities also, give freedom to parents and communities, and actually give freedom to teachers. I would have thought that United Future—a party that believes in common sense—would take the same approach. Frankly, I would have expected New Zealand First to take the same approach. I know that New Zealand First says it is taking a pragmatic approach to upcoming negotiations and so forth, but this was its opportunity to make a philosophical statement about where it stood. That is the opportunity that it has lost.

In speaking to clause 1, “Title”, I take the chance to respond to a contribution made by the New Zealand First member and former principal of—is it “Bay of Islands College”?

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: Northland College.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Northland College. I did not mean to be in any way disrespectful to Mr Peters, but I could not, off the top of my head, remember.

💬 John Carter: Jim Peters.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Yes, this is not about Winston Peters but his brother Jim Peters. He was—he is no longer a principal—a respected school principal and a member of the Secondary Principals Association of New Zealand, which is also a respected organisation. I take this chance to respond to his comment that he was shocked to hear a former Minister speak as though the system should allow children from well-off backgrounds to have advantage over those who are not. He interpreted what I had said previously as allowing that.

I want to make it absolutely clear what I said. The challenge I put to the Government was this: if the centralised system in this State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) Bill is so good, why not allow a choice? I am prepared to accept that maybe the Labour-led Government is right in this respect. I do not happen to think it is, but if this centralised control over the employment of teachers and the negotiation of their employment arrangements is so good, if it is good to recentralise that and bring it under the control of the State Services Commissioner, then why not allow a choice? When I say “choice”, I am prepared to say there are certain children in this country whose education costs the taxpayers a lot more. Let us be prepared to fund that extra money for those children’s education. Let us accept that some children have greater learning needs and deserve much more taxpayer support. Let us accept that proposition for the moment.

But for goodness’ sake, why lock them into this one model? If this one model that the Government is now making totally centralised is so good, why not let other models compete with it, recognising that some children have educational disadvantage, and putting more resource into that, but surely give them the chance, if they wish to, to escape from a one-size-fits-all model. I am sure that Mr Jim Peters would know from his years of experience in education—as should his other good colleague from Northland; the other New Zealand First member who was also a school principal—that children differ enormously. It is absolute nonsense to think that one size fits all. So why not allow the opportunity for those who do not believe in this centralised control model, where inevitably the most skilled teachers will never be paid as much as they are worth? Members all know that. Where there is big government and big union, the most skilled people are never paid as much as they are worth, because big union always protects the less skilled, or the less good, if you like.

That is what history shows us. Poorer teachers in education are paid more than they are worth, and the best teachers are not paid anywhere near what they are worth. It is the big government, big union that stopped that. It has stopped it for generations. There was a glimmer of opportunity in the 1990s to break out of that, but we never succeeded in breaking out of it. I acknowledge that; we never succeeded in breaking out of that big government, big union model.

It is not just that good teachers deserve to be paid more, and freeing up the system would enable that. It is not just that. It is the consequence of keeping good teachers in the classroom teaching children that is so important, because children benefit, and that is my concern as I speak to the title of this bill. The children seem to be the forgotten people in this legislation. It is all about schooling. It ought to be all about our children and advancing their learning needs, regardless of disadvantage; helping the most disadvantaged more. It is known that the one-size-fits-all model does not work. International research shows that New Zealand’s good students do well by international comparison. Students in the bottom 20 to 30 percent are some of the worst performers relative to our best students, in the whole of the developed world. What this should be is a chance to change that.

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.

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.

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.

I move, That the question be now put.

We are now on to the title of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3). The title reminds us what this Government really thinks of teachers, in terms of being professional. What other group of professionals has to march up and down the street to get a pay rise? Why do we continue to treat teachers like this, when they have the most important job? This Government would not tolerate it if accountants or lawyers had to march up and down the street to get a pay rise. But who taught the accountants and lawyers to be accountants and lawyers? Teachers are the most important group of professionals in the country, yet we insist on treating them with a collective herd mentality by bringing them under the control of the State Services Commissioner.

Brian Donnelly said: “National left it in a bad situation, so all we are doing is making it worse.” That is like saying: “Six sleeping pills are bad for you, so go and take the whole bottle.” Why not throw this whole bill out, start all over again, and go back to removing State control of teachers? This legislation is like saying: “This is bad, but let’s make it worse.”, and it will not improve the situation at all. Members have heard speakers say that the bill will guarantee there will not be any more strikes. There will be more strikes—of course there will be more strikes. This bill will not prevent any strikes. As soon as there is unionised labour, there are strikes.

People who came to the Education and Science Committee said that when teachers were still being paid by boards of trustees who chose to pay them, it was an incentive for them to go on strike. What an insult to those teachers. As I said earlier in this debate, I was on a board of trustees that elected not to pay the teachers who went on strike. Those teachers still went on strike, because they felt they were striking for a principle. We might have agreed with it, or we might not have, but the teachers still were honourable in their beliefs and their purposes. Not being paid did not mean that teachers decided not to go on strike the next time there was a strike or a rolling stoppage.

This bill will be a nightmare. Just thinking about the rolling stoppages and the requirements under this bill for boards of trustees to inform the State Services Commission of the names of all those who choose not to go on strike is a total nightmare. It is a one-size-fits-all bill. It is the “Punish the Teachers Bill”, which has been introduced to try to reduce the fiscal risk to boards of trustees and the State, but it will not do that at all. If independent schools can take the risk, why should State school boards of trustees not be able to take the risk, too? That is why they are independent. They do not need to be brought under the control of the State Services Commissioner.

I heard someone from United Future say that this is different, because it is taxpayers’ money. Taxpayers’ money also goes into paying teachers at independent schools and integrated schools, but we are not bringing them under the control of the State Services Commissioner.

💬 Stephen Franks: Not yet.

As Stephen Franks said, not yet. It is probably on its way, and I probably should not speak too loud, because they will be next—certainly, integrated schools will be. They are already under the Minister’s beady eye, to be brought into the State sector.

We trust those boards to make decisions on whether to pay their teachers if they go on strike. Why should we not trust the boards of State schools to make the same decision? It is a non sequitur to argue that it is not taxpayers’ money, because it is a certain amount of taxpayers’ money.

This State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) that we are passing through under urgency is the Minister’s way of punishing teachers for embarrassing him before the last election. Mark my words: teachers will be out on the street again before the next election, unless we have an early one when the Government gets wind of it.

I want to take a call on behalf of United Future on the title of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3). We have heard various things today about this bill, and I think it is very important that the title reflects what is happening. The State sector is looked after by the State Services Commissioner, and he, rather than school trustees, is being put into place to handle the elements that this bill addresses—that is, when a strike is announced he, through appointment by the Minister, can step in and do something. As it sits, the existing legislation is very untidy and needs to be fixed, and that is what this whole bill is about. As the last speaker said, if it is not fixed, then many teachers will be upset, there will be strikes, there will be difficulties with people being paid while they are striking, and there will be all sorts of dilemmas that the boards of trustees have to put up with and try to sort out. This bill is set up purely and simply to provide a clear track to sort out these difficulties, and therefore avoid the possibility of what has been alluded to. If it is left, it will become just a philosophical noise, as National has talked about. It will be a highway that goes nowhere. This bill goes somewhere, and tidies up a whole lot of loose ends. It is really a pleasure to commend this stage of the bill to the Committee on behalf of United Future, and we will be voting in favour of it.

I move, That the question be now put.

I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First and to give support to the Hon Brian Donnelly, who is our party’s education spokesperson, on what is a fairly simple, straightforward, tidying-up bill. With regard to the title, although the bill is still termed the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3), it came back to the House in a much-revised form and much stronger than the bill that the Education and Science Committee first saw. A very quick review of the commentary tells us that the committee has clarified and made considerable changes to the bill. It is a much stronger and more work-worthy bill than the bill that members first saw.

In the course of the debate on this bill a few issues have been traversed. The first is that there is an aspect of choice. I say to the ACT party that in the 1980s I was active in looking at the principle of vouchers, and seeing whether they were a feasible way of funding. I say to Dr Mapp that I am very interested that the National Party has some brave new funding device—I will be very interested to hear what it is—that would give greater self-governing autonomy to the boards. I want to know whether it would be comprehensive; whether it would go beyond salaries and cover maintenance and all the other issues that schools have to contend with in the present day. I also say to the Hon Lockwood Smith that the issue of what makes a good school has always been the same—it has not changed. A good school is one in which the teachers, students, and parents are part of a community that deals with the issues of learning, of building a learning community, on a close, intimate basis. That has not changed.

Nothing will change, in this regard, because of the drive or purpose of this bill. This is a simple administrative bill that gives some clarity to a situation we faced in 2002, whereby boards of trustees did not always exercise prudence with regard to making deductions from teacher salaries. Some teachers could go on strike, take rolling strike stoppages, and not have their pay deducted for non-performance in the classroom. That is what the issue is. I commend the Minister of Education for picking up an anomaly. That administrative anomaly is being corrected, and I see no great need for the intense debate that some parties in the Chamber have carried through.

On behalf of New Zealand First, and particularly the Hon Brian Donnelly, I say to National, ACT, and other parties that we are more than happy—at any time, in a proper forum—to tease out and conduct a debate upon what represents a sound educational base for our children. But this has been an unusual occasion in terms of the elements that have been propounded on what is really a small administrative matter. Again, Post Primary Teachers Association members would not feel they should be recompensed a day’s wages that they had not earned, and I believe that that aspect has been taken to mind. On behalf of New Zealand First, and particularly our party’s education spokesperson, I support the bill’s third reading.

As we debate the title of this bill, I make a genuine complaint about bills whose titles do not tell anyone what they mean. When I was told that I had to assist in debating the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3), I could not remember that this is a bill in which I had been taking an interest because of what it does to employment relationships. It would have been a very small thing for this bill to have something descriptive in its title that would mean that when people looked at the bill as it went through its stages, or saw it on the statute book in the future, they would have some idea that it effectively reinstated the State Services Commission as the employer, and shunted the boards of trustees aside, in terms of the most tense or difficult part of the negotiation of wages, terms, and conditions—the annual collective agreement round. It would have been a very small thing to have the title reflect, in just two or three words, what this bill actually does.

The title might have been something like “Bulk Funding Repeal Completion Bill”, because the bill is a consequence of the repeal of bulk funding. On a more depressing tone, it might have been something like “Teachers Indenture Bill”, but the bill does not have the kinds of provisions it ought to have if we were really going to liberate teachers from their current semi-feudal relationship with the mass employer. The title should reflect what the bill does, and that is try to cement New Zealand into a pattern whose days are numbered. The teaching “profession” should not be a profession in name only. It is a profession in name only because of the collective agreement that this bill is trying to buttress and reinforce.

No occupation that involves the application of judgment in the way that teaching does will have its practitioners respected as professionals when they are all on industrial, factory-type terms and conditions of employment. Real professions are marked by peer review and assessment. Real professions are marked by an enormous range of incomes, reflecting subtle calculations of the contribution that real professionals make. If we followed the pattern around the world, I say to Mr Mallard, and if we were trying to bring in a bill that really treated teachers as they should be treated, we would have schools with a wide range of ownership and employment. We would have schools where the teachers were all partners in ownership. We would have schools where the teachers were principals or directors of companies, and the heads of departments all had titles like “director”. We would have schools that were charities and run by trusts, as we do now. But, most of all, we would have schools where the Government had absolutely no role in setting their terms and conditions of employment. It would have a role of providing money to those schools, which would then decide how best to achieve their objectives and satisfy the parents.

That is the way that professionals work, all around the world. What profession does not have peer review? What profession has its terms and conditions of employment set by a State Services Commission? Not architects, not lawyers, not doctors, not engineers. Even doctors in our hospitals, essentially, are able to benchmark themselves against people who are in self-employment—people who are in partnerships or who are specialists, and who can therefore set terms and conditions of employment, and can experiment, free of the great clobbering machine that a Minister, unavoidably, has to supervise.

I have not put up an amendment to the title, because it would have been futile, but it should not blandly state “State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3)”. It could actually be something like “State Sector Reinforcement (Teacher Indenture) Bill”. It is no wonder at all that teachers find themselves disrespected, when the worst teacher in a particular range is treated almost the same, in real terms, as the best teacher.