Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3638 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009 The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I say to the member, with all due respect, that the whole structure of his argument is based on a wrong assumption. The fact is that whatever name the member puts on these amendments—whether he calls them “parts”, “model parts”, or whatever—they are all amendments. Each one is an amendment. An amendment that has “part” on it has exactly the same status in this Committee as an amendment that takes out one word and substitutes another. It is an amendment—it is nothing other than an amendment to the bill. It is no different. It is irrelevant whether the member calls the amendment a part; it is still an amendment. However, the Chair, instead of having a very narrow debate on an amendment, has given consideration to the fact that the amendment has a substantial amount of clauses in it, which is why we had multiple speeches on the amendment and did it slightly differently from any other amendment. That is the point we are at. I reiterate two things. Firstly, the Chair will be the sole determiner of the debate and will then simply allow the Committee to make its own decision about whether the debate continues. Secondly, the Chair’s decision will be driven by two things: whether there has been relevance, and whether there has been undue repetition. So there are two criteria: relevance and repetition. If members are relevant and are providing fresh material, then the Committee will continue to debate the part. The moment it changes— there is repetition, and relevance goes down—then the Chair will start to look at a closure motion. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): Speaking to the amendment to insert new Part 10, in the name of Carol Beaumont, I draw attention to a couple of points in particular. First of all, the members opposite are of the view that these amendments are vexatious, and they are expressing some irritation that the Opposition should be bringing such amendments to the Committee. Nothing could be further from the truth. The point is that we have been opposing this bill because it is an affront to democracy and because it is an affront to the rights of the people of Auckland. This amendment, in particular, although not addressing the democratic rights in substance, actually goes to the question of something that is even as profound as Aucklanders’ democratic rights. It goes to the question of the working conditions and the security of the people who work within local government services in Auckland. That is the issue. That is why, I say to Mr Power, who is now the Minister in the chair, this could in no way be considered a vexatious amendment. It is nothing of the sort. In fact, I draw to the attention of the Committee the Government’s voting on matters such as this even as recently as last night. The Government voted down amendments that asked for the views of women, of Māori, of Pasifika, and of people of different ethnicities to be represented in the consideration of the Auckland Transition Agency. This amendment gives the Government a chance to reconsider the mistakes it made last night. The effect of what the Government did last night was to forbid women, Māori, Pasifika, and other interest groups to have any kind of consultation on, or representation in, the activities of the Auckland Transition Agency. Time and time again the Opposition put up amendments that asked for the Minister of Women’s Affairs to be consulted and for the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs to be consulted. The amendments did not even go as far as to call for a poll, although there was a moment when we did call for one. In fact, the amendments asked just that the Ministers responsible for the portfolios of women, Pasifika, people with disabilities, and ethnic affairs be consulted in the process. The Government voted against every one of those amendments. That needs to be sheeted home to the Government, because we will be talking about that around Auckland for years to come. This amendment gives the Government another
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3639 opportunity to do the right thing. We are looking for some protection for the workers who provide the public services administered through local government in Auckland. Is it too much to ask of this National Government that there should be good and safe working conditions, that there should be equal employment opportunity programmes, that the aspirations and aims of the Māori people should be recognised, that there should be opportunities for the enhancement of the abilities of individual employees, that there should be recognition of the aims and aspirations of ethnic or minority groups, or that there should be some recognition of the employment requirements of women— including paid parental leave? The Government now has an opportunity to do the right thing, to take notice of the progress that has been made in employment law in the last 9 years, to recognise the rights of our workforce in Auckland and the differences in its composition—especially in relation to the workforce in local government—and to defend its rights to those provisions I spoke about. If the Government proceeds to oppose each of these parts of the bill—these amendments, I should say, based on the procedural debate that has just taken place—and if it votes down this part, then it can expect all 6,500 of the workers in local government in Auckland to know which side their bread is buttered on. That will be a very clear indication of what this Government stands for. Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour): I am delighted to take a call. I was invited earlier by the Chair to take a call when I raised a very serious point of order, but the debate on new Part 10 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, put forward by my colleague Carol Beaumont, is the perfect debate for me to put my issue into context. I inform the Committee that I was invited by the Chair to speak to the Minister in the chair about our very real concern, which was raised by the people of Auckland early this morning, that their right to paid parental leave might have been expunged by an amendment last night from the Minister of Local Government. This is a very serious issue. I went to the Minister, as I was invited by the Chair to do, and the Minister said— and members should listen to this, because the Auckland Transition Agency reports to that one Minister, with nobody else providing any checks or balances over his powers and authorities—“You had your turn last night; you didn’t take it.” We were voting on amendments last night. We were voting yes or no to amendments; we could not debate or discuss amendments in the Chamber last night. When I took up the offer of the Chair, the Minister said: “It is finished. You had your turn last night.” Is that the sort of attitude he is going to take when the transition agency raises issues? It will report to Mr Hide only, as the Minister. Are those the sorts of powers and authorities that he will extend over the rights of the 6,500 workers whose current terms and conditions might have been amended very badly last night, with an impact on their lives? Those members opposite were not in the House when we voted on paid parental leave—which women members in the previous Opposition voted against—but I am sure that the new women members do care about women’s rights and paid parental leave, as do many, many men. The amendment last night may have been an unintended consequence. In the point of order that I reasonably raised I asked whether it could be looked at, and whether the Minister could clarify it for the Committee. If that is the sort of attitude the Minister is going to have, as the one person with power and authority over the transition agency, it is deeply worrying. In this new Part 10 that we have put forward, we suggest that we establish a code of practice for employees—for those full-time employees who have worked for over a year for the current authorities that will go by next year. Clause 108(2)(k) states: “there shall be no overall reduction in working conditions for any employee;”. These are serious amendments that we have put up. We had no opportunity to look at this bill before we
Page 1: First Session, Forty-ninth Parliame
Page 5 and 6: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 21: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 73 and 74:
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
16 May 2009 Local Government (Tamak
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Index to 13 May 2009 (continued on
Page 145 and 146:
HIPKINS, CHRIS— Bills— Local Go
show all

Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?