Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3647
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You are challenging my ruling, and that is
completely out of order. I am impartial; I make the decisions based on how I see the
flow of the debate. Whom I choose to speak is at my discretion. That is why I chose
Darien Fenton, following Winnie Laban.
Hon Trevor Mallard: You are not prepared to give the assurance?
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Look, I have given you my assurance that I
do not get instructions from anybody. You are asserting that I do, and I take strong
exception to that.
Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I accept absolutely
what you have said—that you are not getting instruction in any way or taking
instruction. But I just wanted an assurance that it is not your practice to meet with the
chief Government whip and the Clerk at the same time—that that is not your practice—
as I discovered you doing last evening.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well, it is true that you did. I happened to
be with the Clerk of the House at the time—just to explain to the Committee—and the
chief National whip came in. That had nothing to do, I can assure you, with the process
of deliberations last night; it was just fortuitous that we happened to be in the same
place at the same time when you came in, and I left immediately afterwards. I can
assure you there was nothing untoward in that. Once again, I do take exception to that
assertion.
Hon Darren Hughes: I accept that.
DARIEN FENTON: I go back to the amendments I am moving to clause 101,
“General Principles”, to add new paragraphs to subclause (1)(a). Paragraph (i) of my
amendment states: “The principles of a good employer must include the views of
employees”, and paragraph (ii): “The principles of a good employer must respect the
democratic rights of employees”. I will go on to the rest of the provisions in a moment,
but I tell the Committee that we cannot help but notice how desperately National
members have been called on to hold meetings in Auckland, to go and get the views of
Aucklanders. You know, there have been big ads in the New Zealand Herald, and those
members have been running around. There are some gaps in those meetings, I must say,
but the National members have been running around and saying they want to listen to
people’s views. Here is a chance for National members to put things right, to go beyond
listening to the views of Aucklanders—which, clearly, they have not done—and to
ensure that the views of employees are listened to. This is a chance for employees’
democratic rights in the workplace—to have a say in their workplace, to contribute to
the change that is happening, to be listened to, and to be treated as partners in the
workplace—to be actually affirmed.
Paragraph (iii) of my amendment states: “ The principles of a good employer must
include the shared understanding of employees”, and paragraph (iv): “The principles of
a good employer must include regular consultation with all employees”. Well, the
principle of consultation is well established, but we believe that because of the inability
of the National Government to understand what consultation means—and particularly
consultation with the people of Auckland—we need to have that written into this bill,
when it comes to employees. The word “consultation” means that employers sit down
and take the time to share views with their employees. It means they talk about
proposals, ask for input on those proposals, genuinely consider the employees’
responses—genuinely consider them—then come to decisions and work with employees
to implement them.
The final paragraph in my amendment is that “(v) The principles of a good employer
must include a regular statement that no employee”—no employee—“should feel
obliged to participate in the making of political videos for the employer”. I wonder why