Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

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.