Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3640 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009 got it to debate in the House, and the relevant part of it was pushed through last night in urgency. We are using the one democratic tool that we have got to try to make this bill better, and the response from the Government benches has been that we are wasting the Committee’s time. I tell the members of the Government that people have been phoning us all night. My daughter phoned and asked: “What is this bill that is going through the House?”, and I said: “We are in urgency to fight about the bill to establish the Auckland Council.” She said: “What is the bill all about?”, and I said: “Tough! You will not have a chance to debate this bill. You will not have a chance at all.” Calls came through all night long from people in Auckland, and we are receiving calls this morning. They are taking it seriously. They are anxious and they are worried. They are hugely concerned about their rights. They are hugely concerned about the unintended consequences of this bill. This is when a Government gets things wrong: when it rams things through the House and does not involve community voices. That has happened, and that is why we are here, and I am pleased that we are here. We are going to fight this fight. It is absolutely critical to consider our code of practice for workers, their rights, and their conditions. It is not just about structural changes to the transition agency. The Government sees it as simplistically as that—that it is just about structural amendments. Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I am sorry that we have to take time to debate part of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill that was actually passed last night, but the Opposition members who are introducing new parts are sowing confusion. I think it is because they are genuinely confused. Let me be very, very clear. Paid parental leave is a statutory entitlement. Nothing in this bill changes that, and I would have thought that members opposite understood that. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—<strong>New</strong> Lynn): Opposition members are in the Chamber together because we are the last line of defence, and up until now this debate has been about the rights of Aucklanders— Hon Members: Ha, Ha! Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: They may laugh. What exactly is it about democracy that they oppose? What is it about democracy that “Gerry-mander” opposes? We are not here this morning, debating new Part 10, to talk about the democratic rights of all Aucklanders. [Interruption] The importance of Part 10— The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the member. Those exchanges across the Chamber between members are not acceptable. The member is on his feet and speaking in a debate. Interjections are fine if they are fair and reasonable, but interchanges between members are out of order. I invite the member to continue. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: <strong>New</strong> Part 10, unusually compared with the other parts of the bill, is not about the democratic rights of all Aucklanders; it is about the employment rights of those some 6,000 Aucklanders who are employees of the organisation. Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition asks Government members to specify exactly which of the provisions they object to, because I understand, from their barrage, that they are likely to be voting against this new part. They should tell us why they object. Is it because they disagree with the proposition that there should be an obligation on the part of the Auckland Transition Agency and the Auckland Council to be a good employer? Is it because of the good and safe working conditions in this part? Do they object to an equal employment opportunities programme? If they do, why not put out a press release in support of that view? Is it the impartial selection of suitably qualified persons? Perhaps that is it, especially when we look at clause 104, “Appointments on merit”, because that goes to the heart of our concerns about the bill. It is particularly concerning when one puts it together with the governance structure that is over this entity, because,
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3641 unusually, it is not reporting to a Cabinet committee—it is not reporting to Cabinet. Those people will be the sole appointees of one Minister—the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Rodney Hide. Why does that matter? It matters in two respects in relation to clause 104. It gives that Minister absolute jurisdiction over appointments. The board has only two to four people, in addition to a handpicked chair. That is not a wide enough range of skills, or people, to give diversity of opinion. This is designed to be a directive. It is designed as a diktat; that is how it is structured. Because of that, it is essential that it has written in, as a statutory obligation, those things that we would expect a good organisation to take for granted. But there can be no guarantee here, because the governance structure is flawed from the outset. Why has the governance structure been designed that way? It follows a model of change management called “shock and awe”. Roger Douglas used it—crash through opposition, move so quickly people cannot unite or take to the streets, move before they work out what is really happening, and drive through the middle. That is exactly what this legislation is about. That is why we are in the Chamber, historically, on a Saturday morning; why we will be here on Monday morning, and Tuesday morning, and Wednesday morning, and in Budget week; and why the legislative programme of this diktat Government is going to be a shambles. The junior Government whip is looking very worried, because he knows that he will be taking responsibility, in the eyes of the people of Hawke’s Bay, for the fact that he cannot manage the House. And the Leader of the House, who is already a public joke, who has barely opened the Standing Orders, must take primary responsibility for the fact that it took the Government 2 days to question an amendment. Change a comma, and it took them 2 days to work out how to question that amendment! What kind of House skills is that? No wonder the “Business Herald” yesterday had a diary piece asking who the lamest duck in the Government was, arguing whether it was Richard Worth or Gerry Brownlee. It is, I think, a lay down misère. Gerry Brownlee is next, but at the moment we have not finished with his colleague. Gerry Brownlee is next, because he will never recover from this process. Clause 104, “Appointments on merit”— Hon Darren Hughes: Ha, ha! Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It is an oxymoron, is it not? How about the pot calling the kettle black? Because I do not have confidence that the Minister of Local Government is one to appoint people on merit; I think he is one to appoint on ideology. I think he wants to appropriate and privatise the assets built up by the people of Auckland over 45 years. He will ensure that the people who are there are doing just that. PAUL QUINN (National): I move, That the question be now put. KEITH LOCKE (Green): The Green Party is very pleased to support this very important new Part 10. I am pleased the Minister has accepted that paid parental leave is well established and will be covered in the legislation, perhaps regardless of this amendment. But some other provisions are quite important. For example, clause 101(2(d) requires “Recognition of—(i) The aims and aspirations of the Maori people;”. I think that is important. It might be quite educational for the little group that will run the Auckland Transition Agency to have to take into account the aspirations of the Māori people. In the process of running the transition while taking into account the aspirations of the Māori people, the agency might come to the realisation that the new body really should have direct Māori representation, in the form of three Māori seats. It is quite possible that if the agency takes to heart the provision in this new part, it may make very strong recommendations to the Government saying: “Now we’re operating and we’re listening to Māori in the process of operating this transition, we very strongly
Page 1: First Session, Forty-ninth Parliame
Page 5 and 6: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 23: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 75 and 76:
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?