Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3652 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009 (c) the impact of reform matters on local government employees should be minimised; (d) there should be maximum employee involvement in the implementation of the reform matters as they affect employees; (e) contracts of employment should be honoured; (f) there should be maximum support given to employees; (g) employees should be treated fairly and with respect; (h) merit and equity should apply in all appointments; (i) there should be prompt and sensitive dispute resolution; (j) there should be no overall loss of employment across the local government employment sector; (k) there should be no overall reduction in working conditions for any employee; (l) there should be no overall disadvantage to an employee in relation to the employee’s working conditions. (5) It is the responsibility of each local government to ensure, to the extent a workforce transition code of practice applies to the local government, that the local government acts in conformity with the code of practice. (6) A workforce transition code of practice, whether made before or after the commencement of this subsection, is not subordinate legislation, but is a statutory instrument. 109 When workforce transition code of practice takes effect (1) The Minister must notify the House of making of a workforce transition code of practice. (2) A workforce transition code of practice takes effect— (a) on the day the Minister’s notice is notified or published in the Gazette; or (b) if a later day is stated in the Minister’s notice or the workforce transition code of practice—on that day. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 52 New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Māori Party 3. Noes 64 New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. New Part 10 as amended not agreed to. New Part 9 Protection of Public Assets CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): The assets involved in the entities to which the bill refers are worth about $27.2 billion. They provide annual revenue of about $2.3 billion. The royal commission report and the explanatory note of the bill reveal that those assets, which are currently owned by the people of Auckland, are central concerns of this reform. One has only to turn to the general policy statement in the explanatory note to see that that is so. The need for safeguards and constraints in decision making by local authorities and their subsidiaries during the transition period is also identified as a central matter of the concerns being dealt with by the Committee today. That is why it is unusual, in my view, that there is nothing in this legislation to ensure that those $27.2 billion worth of public assets are protected during the transition period. An extremely powerful authority is being created by the legislation. It has all the powers of the entities that it replaces, yet nowhere is there any safeguard to guarantee that those assets owned by the people of Auckland—which are listed in my proposed new schedule 2—will be protected and kept in public ownership during the transition period. The people of Auckland and, indeed, the people of New Zealand deserve an assurance that that will occur, They deserve an assurance that this reform is not all about privatisation, as many of us suspect, either in the short term or in the long term, but, in
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3653 fact, there will be a guarantee that those assets are kept in the ownership of the ratepayers of Auckland. That is what my Part 9 would ensure. It requires that the Auckland Transition Agency should not sell or otherwise dispose of, or sell any equity securities, or surrender any voting rights in, or relinquish any right to appoint trustees, directors, or managers of any asset or organisation listed in schedule 2 during the transition period. Obviously, because of the scope of the bill, the amendment deals only with the transition period, but members on this side hope that no assets will ever be alienated in Auckland as a result of this reform. The protected assets that are set out in schedule 2 are the parks of the people of Auckland, the swimming pools of the people of Auckland, and the public libraries of the region, and the assets of the region such as those held by the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. Simon Bridges: Stop reading! CHARLES CHAUVEL: That member might benefit from actually reading the schedule, instead of interjecting, and deciding what his position is. It would be nice if National were to commit once and for all to public ownership of these assets, rather than using mealy-mouthed weasel words about whether it has any commitment to the ownership of public assets. Make no mistake, members on this side of the Chamber strongly believe in retaining these assets in public ownership. That is what my Part 9 is about and that is what my schedule 2 will bring about. It will forbid this shadowy appointed agency from selling these assets during the transition period without any public scrutiny and without any ability for the public of Auckland to have a say on it. I would like to hear the Minister in the chair, John Carter, take a call and commit that side of the Chamber to the position that is set out in this part. It would be great to hear a commitment not to sell Ports of Auckland Ltd, Metro Water, Auckland International Airport Ltd, or Watercare Services. Those fantastic assets have delivered a great return to the people of Auckland. They are strategic to the future of the region, and they must be kept in public ownership, not alienated by the shadowy body of appointed cronies who will be running Auckland for the time it takes to deal with the transition. I would like to talk in particular about the assets in South Auckland, because they are of real concern. Members on this side of the Chamber have been to meetings in South Auckland and have heard from ordinary people in that part of the region that they are worried that they might lose access to their free swimming pools as a result of this reform. They might lose access to the fantastic services that are currently provided by the excellent Manukau City Council, of which my colleague Su’a William Sio was formerly the deputy mayor, and of which Len Brown is currently doing a fine job as mayor. That city has made a real effort to reach out to its people and provide them with excellent services, as have Waitakere City, Auckland City, and the other entities dealt with by this legislation. But nowhere in this bill is there any interdiction against the selling of those assets, and that is a major omission. It is just like the absence of any decent personnel provisions, which was the deficit that my colleague Darien Fenton sought to remedy earlier. This deficit must be remedied, because the people of Auckland must be assured that there will not be any alienation of assets, either during the transition period or afterwards. I spoke about the quantum of the assets involved, and I said that the value of the assets was $27.2 billion, with annual revenue of $2.3 billion. There must be an assurance—we must hear it today from members on the opposite side—that the assets will be kept in public ownership. TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): I move, That the question be now put. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Mr Chair— Hon Member: Unbelievable!
Page 1: First Session, Forty-ninth Parliame
Page 5 and 6: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 35: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 87 and 88:
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
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?