Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3688 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009 outrage over the employees of these organisations, when the harsh reality is that the Government is well aware of the issues, and is doing the right things to ensure those protections are there. No one can contract out of employment obligations put in the law. Opposition members can wave all the bits of paper they like, and they can get as excited as they like, but they are simply wrong. So we have the absurd situation of Moana Mackey asking what harm there was in putting this provision in the bill. That is like asking why the 50 kilometre per hour rule should not go in the bill, or why all the pedestrian rules should not go into the bill. That is like asking why a raft of other civil matters that are part of legislation should not be included in the bill, or why everything on the statute book should not be included. The reality is that that is an absurdity. When the law applies, it applies, and one cannot contract out of it. Our friends on the other side of the Chamber are as confused as ever. I would love to know—and here is the real question—what is so wrong with a select committee considering this issue, because that is what Labour is now opposed to. National has said that a select committee should consider this matter. We have taken the provision out of the bill so that a select committee can consider it. Mr Hide has said there is an issue here, and we will remove it from this bill. Labour members have put up 8,000 objections to protecting workers, so the Government will let the select committee decide which of those amendments are valid and which are not. Then, Labour comes back today and starts putting into the bill another part—another couple of hours of Parliament wasting its time—to put in place a law that already exists. I hope Labour members recognise that it is time to get off this silly course and to let this part be dealt with. They can bring in their 20,000 amendments that they claim they have sitting in the back room, and Parliament can once again go into this farcical situation of voting down the nonsensical, halfwitted thoughts of Labour members. I will make it abundantly clear that, in the action the Government has taken, there is no intention to remove from this bill the protections for employees who will be left over after the transfer—far from it. National wants a select committee to consider what is right and fair. Why does Labour oppose that? Grant Robertson: Send the whole bill to the select committee. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: If Labour members oppose the whole bill, why are they so hell-bent on changing it from top to bottom with the raft of ridiculous amendments that we are seeing? The trivial pursuit exercise that the Labour members are engaged in is a great tribute to the Labour research unit. There is no doubt about it. The members of the unit are clearly the brains of the Labour Party. Labour does not put its brains up front; it puts its beautiful people up front. And that must also call into question the quality of the brains that back up Labour members. It is with considerable regret that the Government will not be supporting this part. It is utterly ridiculous and it is completely stupid. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): Gerry Brownlee needs to understand Newton’s first law of holes: when in a hole, stop digging. Gerry Brownlee said the Government has no intention of threatening the principle of paid parental leave, and that the matter should go to a select committee. I say “Bravo!” to “Mr Mander”—he is known as “Gerry Mander” because of the overall intent of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill—because he has hit the nail on the head. It is rather a large hammer, but he has hit the nail on the head. Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have worked very hard to get an extraordinary range of nicknames in this Parliament, but I really do not like that one.
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3689 The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sure the member will be able to rectify that and have his say in future speeches. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I withdraw the epithet. The Opposition and the Government are actually in direct agreement on this point of paid parental leave. The Labour Opposition and the National Government, led by the esteemed Leader of the House, agree on two things: firstly, that the principle of paid parental leave is too important to be left in doubt, and that there is no harm in having a provision for the avoidance of doubt; and, secondly, that the matter should be sent to a select committee if there is any doubt on it at all. I say to Gerry Brownlee that if the Government agrees to those two things, then he can go home; otherwise, it will be a long day and a long night. I will tell members why. Paid parental leave is really important because when people need it, they have no choice but to need it. It is not possible to be half-pregnant. If a woman is pregnant and expecting a child, she is well down the track. It is therefore essential that women can rely on the terms and conditions of their employment when they most need to rely on them. There is a delicious irony here. The women and men of Labour are standing up for the rights of women and families, but the men of National are prepared to ignore those rights. Are the women of National leaping to their feet in defence of family rights? I ask why the Minister of Corrections does not rise to say “Harden up, ladies!”. Where is the Minister of Corrections and Minister of Police at this time? What about the Associate Minister of Immigration? What about any one of the innumerable blonde members from the South Island? What are they doing at this time? Amy Adams is a wise and capable member—she is even a lawyer, I believe—so why does she not rise to her feet in defence of the women of Auckland’s regional government and tell them that their paid parental leave will be guaranteed because this good, great, new, caring, conservative, and centrist John Key Government will protect them? No, I guess she will not. Why is the Government rushing this bill through the House when it does not come into force until November? Why does the bill have more holes in it than a Swiss cheese? Why does the bill have more air between its ears than the Leader of the House? Why does the bill need the Labour Opposition to comb through it to find all the little things that a select committee would find? The answer is that there is a hidden agenda. That is why we are here, unusually—in fact, historically—on a Saturday. We are here because we are the last line of defence for the democratic rights of Aucklanders. The Minister the Hon Rodney Hide, who is giggling, knows he has the sole authority under this bill to appoint a coterie of three henchmen to gut Auckland. Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government): I move, That the question be now put. SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I certainly want to speak on this important amendment, new Part 12. But before I do, I say how thrilled I am that people in Wellington have taken the time to come to Parliament to listen to this debate. That means that we in Wellington are well-prepared for when our turn comes, as it most certainly will once the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill has been foisted on the people of Auckland. The Government will then turn its attention to other parts of New Zealand, and Wellington will be one of those parts. So it is great to see everyone here. We will be up with the play and aware of what is happening. Already there are calls from the Mayor of Wellington and others for a similar sort of forced amalgamation here in Wellington. So I thank those people very much for coming out today. The other thing I want to do is table ACT’s policy on local government. The National Party has asked us to give it proof that a privatisation agenda is lurking beneath this bill. Here is the proof positive. Everyone can read it for themselves: “Local
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:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 71: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 103 and 104: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Tamak
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?