Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3684 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009 MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I am happy to take a call on this very important part. This is an indication of why it is so important that we spend time in this Chamber reviewing what this legislation actually does. It is being rammed through. It is not going through the select committee process, whereby members of the public can come along and have their say, and whereby parliamentarians can look clause by clause at the nittygritty of the legislation, to make sure that something has not slipped through that would have an unintended consequence, or an intended consequence that the people of Auckland do not want. We have found one of those here, which concerns paid parental leave. We know that the Government does not like paid parental leave. It was a dead rat that Government members had to swallow, because they knew that taking it away would be too unpopular. But we have here legislation that removes the right of women who work at these councils to have their paid parental leave entitlement carried over in the transitional period. What will happen is that whenever this legislation passes, basically the eight elected councils in Auckland, as they are known today, will cease to exist. They will cease to exist as employers, and we will move to a transitional arrangement up until the next local body elections. Because the employer is to change, it means that unless we put in this very simple amendment to make it clear that there is no intention to stop the paid parental leave entitlement, those women will lose their entitlement. I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Judith Collins, whether the Government will be supporting this amendment. There are two options here: this situation is the result of either a conspiracy or a cock-up. Usually in such cases there has been a cock-up; that is the reality. If it is a conspiracy, it means that in an underhand, back-door way the Government is using this process to undermine paid parental leave. If we go with the alternative point of view, which is that this is just a cock-up, then the Government should have no problem in supporting a very simple amendment to clarify it is not intended that women who work for these local authorities will lose their paid parental leave entitlement. I will be watching very carefully to see what the Government does with regard to this particular amendment. We know that Government members will not take any calls, apart from closure motions, unless they suddenly decide there is a procedural reason why they need to start filibustering on their own legislation. I hope Colin King makes another fantastic speech on this issue. The Labour Party cannot wait to put his speech on Māori representation on its blog Red Alert as the only National speech on Māori representation. That will be fantastic. I am looking forward to Mr Colin King taking a call on this particular amendment. The amendment is very, very simple. It states: “Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights and entitlements of any employee of any territorial authority under the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987.” If members of this Committee have no problem with regard to the women of Auckland who work for these local authorities keeping their paid parental leave provisions, then they will support this amendment. If the National Party and the ACT Party are genuinely trying to undermine paid parental leave—and they are well on record as not liking it—then they will oppose it. This will be a very, very interesting vote. Mr Brownlee, the Leader of the House, looks like he is poised to jump up. He has been trying to make out that everything that is going through this House has been frivolous. That is not the case. We have had to buy time to actually look at what this legislation does. We have said to Mr Brownlee that if the Government sends the bill to a select committee, he can go home now. If Government members send it to a select committee, the debate will end. But they will not do that, because they do
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3685 not want the people of Auckland to find out about things like this fish-hook, which says paid parental leave would be undermined. I say it is the job of a good Opposition to scrutinise the law. Let us not forget that every minute that we spend in this Chamber debating this legislation is another minute that Aucklanders continue to be run by their democratically elected councils, and not the unelected anti-democratic bureaucracy that Mr Brownlee, Mr Hide, and Mr John Key want to put in charge in Auckland. I think that is reason enough for us to be here today debating this part. I look forward to Mr Gerry Brownlee’s speech. Maybe we will see, for the first time, the Government being rolled and, in desperation, having to support a Labour Party amendment because Gerry is on the job. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development): I am a little perplexed as to why this particular part has been allowed to be debated today. Let us read the entire part. Clause 250 states: “Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights and entitlements of any employee of any territorial authority under the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987.” The next clause, clause 251, states: “Notwithstanding anything in this Act, all current councils and all new councils created under this legislation will be related employers for the purposes of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act.” I want the Clerk at the Table to listen to this, because it is a very important point and it would be good if the Clerk would listen. Will we be going through the farcical situation over the next few days whereby the Clerk’s Office accepts new parts of this bill that simply restate the existing law? Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. There are two parts to my point of order. The first is that it is not appropriate for the member to deal with questions of procedure, which should be dealt with by you, in the middle of a speech rather than by raising a point of order. Secondly, it is completely inappropriate— Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s not a point of order. Hon David Cunliffe: That is my point, if Mr Brownlee would listen to it; interjecting on a point of order, as the member knows as Leader of the House, is outside the Standing Orders. My second point is that it is inappropriate for any member of this Committee, let alone a senior member and let alone the Leader of the House, to exert influence over the staff of the Office of the Clerk. If he wishes to make a comment about House procedure, he should direct it to you, Mr Chairperson; he should do it through a point of order, not through a speech; and he should not harangue the Clerk. The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Well, I make two points. Firstly, I do not think anybody in this Committee who has been here a while would believe that the Clerk’s Office would be moved by any pressure by any member on any point. In actual fact, members have often complained that the Clerk’s Office is immovable to any pressure on any point. Secondly, I do not think it is necessarily good for the member to address the issues to the Clerk directly. Yes, the Clerk has an influence over these things, but I feel that the member should direct the issues to the Chair, as the Chair is responsible for them. If the member is grumpy about decisions, then he should heap it upon the Chair, as the Chair’s shoulders are big enough to take all of his discontent on this issue. But members should direct issues at me, not the Clerk. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I suppose I am somewhat surprised that it now seems that in the days ahead the Labour Party is going to introduce to this bill new parts that reconfirm existing law. I know that the Labour Party is now struggling with its 27 parts, so here is another one from me: “That all council vehicles will obey all the rules of the road while they are operating for the council.” That could be a new part. Then, of course, any number of other existing pieces of law could be put into a new part.
Page 1:
First Session, Forty-ninth Parliame
Page 5 and 6:
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 67: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 103 and 104: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Tamak
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?