Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3692 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009 The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Not me. CAROL BEAUMONT: Sorry, of course you would not be doing this. The members opposite need to be very, very confident that they are not making workers lose their entitlements. To go back to the matter at hand, this issue is important because—and I say this for the benefit of those who do not know—to get paid parental leave a worker has to have had 6 months’ continuous service with an employer. I will give a little example—a very current example—which involves the National Party and a staff member working for the Labour Party who came across from Ministerial Services. Her employment contract ended and she had to take a new contract with the Parliamentary Service. She was pregnant at the time of the election, which meant she missed out on getting paid parental leave by 1 month. We tried to deal with that matter with National, and I say for the record—and this perhaps goes back to the conspiracy side of the equation—that National was completely uninterested in trying to resolve that problem for that particular worker. Perhaps some of the women over on the other side of the Chamber should think about what that means. Paid parental leave is a very important employment right in the current economic environment where things are very tough for people. AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): I move, That the question be now put. SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I appreciate having the opportunity to continue the debate. At every step of this debate, while the Opposition members have demanded their say on bits and pieces of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, the Government, on the other hand, has moved closure motions to put an end to the debate. I say to the Government that Labour is determined to have its say and is determined to recognise that Aucklanders’ views are important. For that reason, I rise to speak on proposed new Part 12 about the paid parental leave entitlement—to ensure that the voices of our women throughout Auckland, and especially those in Manukau City, are recognised and heard. The proposed amendment has two purposes: to give confidence to the women in Manukau City and the other seven local and territorial authorities throughout Auckland that their paid parental leave will be protected, and to provide protection and confidence to the close to 7,000 workers who are effected by the restructuring and reorganisation of Auckland councils. When I look across to the other side of the Chamber, I see the member Dr Jackie Blue. I notice that she has been angry and frustrated throughout this debate. No doubt, as a member from the Auckland region, she is reflecting the anger and frustration that the people of Auckland are feeling about this particular debate. She is sitting on her own, away from the rest of her colleagues. She is the member who should have been the Minister of Health. Her anger and frustration are a reflection of the way that people throughout the Auckland region are feeling; they are angry and frustrated that this Government is not prepared to allow public consultation on the bill by sending it to a select committee. That is all that the Government has to do. I invite Dr Jackie Blue to take a call. She should not worry about what the whips are telling her to do; she should take a call on this amendment and stand up for women in the Auckland region. Close to 7,000 workers will be affected by the reorganised structure. It would not be so bad if just young, single people were involved, but probably 50 to 60 percent of the workforce is women—married, middle-aged women with children—and if they have mortgages, they have a real sense of fear about what will happen. It is also important that the Committee votes in support of the proposed new Part 12 because earlier the Government voted down a motion moved by Charles Chauvel—one of my colleagues—that the Government put in place a code of practice that honours and delivers the principle of protecting the workers affected. I have a concern about the workers for the various council-controlled organisations such as Manukau Water. I have
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3693 been given a secret document, which states: “It is worth noting that barely 24 hours after the Government announced its decision—which expressly didn’t mention Watercare as the provider—the Minister of Local Government sent out a media release which effectively reversed that position and said Watercare would be the provider … there is a secret transition plan [that] is beneficial to private sector companies supported by that Minister. This plan will see more than 500 people currently employed in the water industry lose their jobs in favour of private sector contractors.” Those workers are additional to the close to 7,000 workers I mentioned. It is an outrage that Aucklanders who are listening to this debate and who want their views on it to be heard are finding that it is being shut down by the closure motions that members of the Government keep moving. The Government needs to listen to Aucklanders and to allow their views on this debate and on this particular bill to be heard. The disturbing thing throughout the debate is that the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide, and Mr Key have been promoting the bill as simply a technical bill, but the reality is that the bill changes everything. The bill takes away the powers and rights of councillors and mayors elected in 2007, because with the setting up of the Auckland Transition Agency the powers are given to three or four people handpicked by Rodney Hide who are then given the power to decide what happens within the local councils. I say again that all that this Government needs to do is send this bill to a select committee. NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put. A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to. Ayes 64 New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. Noes 42 New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 7; Māori Party 3. Motion agreed to. The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Steve Chadwick be agreed to: to insert the following new part: Part 12 Paid Parental Leave Entitlement 250 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. 251 Notwithstanding anything in the Act, all current councils and any new council created under this legislation will be related employees for the purposes of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 42 New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 7; Māori Party 3. Noes 64 New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. New Part 12 not agreed to. The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We now move to a series of transcript amendments in the name of Sue Kedgley to insert a new Part 4. I will read them out. The first proposed new Part 4 is “Amendments to the Local Electoral Act 2001”. The
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:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 75: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 103 and 104: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Tamak
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?