Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill

This new part will be vigorously debated by Labour members. There has been one of the sneakiest attempts I have ever seen to strip the working women of Auckland—and, for that matter, in a minor way, the men as well—of their right to paid parental leave. This Government is trying, by a change of employer, to take away the current entitlements of the pregnant women of Auckland. Having Judith Collins as the Minister in the chair is the most massive irony, because a woman from Auckland is taking from her sisters the right to paid parental leave.

There are women who quite carefully and properly have timed their pregnancies in order to get paid parental leave. It is something that thousands of women, including hundreds—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: How do you do that?

Tau Henare wants to know how one times a pregnancy. I plead guilty to not having a lot of expertise in it myself, but I want to make the point—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It appears as though there are no copies of new Part 12 on the Table at the moment. I am sorry to interrupt the member; no doubt he got his copy from his research unit, which we do not have access to. I cannot see it; there are none on this side of the Table. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Please, members. The floor is the Hon Gerry Brownlee’s.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: They are not here. I cannot see them on this side of the Table.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): If the member’s complaint is that there are no amendments from Steve Chadwick on the Table, I think that is a legitimate complaint. Members should have access to the paperwork, and I ask the Clerk’s Office to do the necessary work to bring the paperwork to the Table for them. But that should not in any way interrupt, stymie, or stop the flow of the debate.

This is a relatively simple matter. Under the paid parental leave legislation, a woman has to work for a particular period of time—6 months—before she is entitled to paid parental leave. She has to be with an employer for that length of time. It is one of the debatable points of the legislation. Labour, when last in Government, considered whether that period should be reduced or whether it should be there at all. But it is clear that an entitlement is triggered by employment with a particular employer.

The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill changes the employer without a proper transitional provision to carry forward the entitlement, with the effect of taking away the entitlements of women in Auckland who are employed by any of the eight councils—the seven territorial local authorities and the one regional authority. I say to members I had some doubts about this provision. I was not sure when I first saw this provision. I said surely it would not be true, and surely the right would be there. But then it was pointed out to me that, firstly, the provision binds the Crown, and, secondly—and even more interestingly—the KiwiSaver legislation has a transitional provision with regard to the employer. Why is people’s entitlement to KiwiSaver maintained with a change of employer, but a woman who is pregnant does not have an entitlement to paid parental leave? It is a disgrace—an absolute disgrace—and it is shameful.

I make it clear that this is yet another reason why this bill should go to a select committee. It should go to a select committee so that this cock-up—the one where John Banks can put in Sam’s replacement—can be fixed. It is a relatively simple matter of fairness. I am informed by my colleague Annette King that 50 percent of women’s pregnancies are planned, so why should a woman employed by one of those councils who has planned her pregnancy around her entitlement to paid parental leave have that entitlement expunged? Why should she have that money taken from her as a result of this legislation? It might be all right for rich Tories.

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 nitty-gritty 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 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.

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—

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.

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.

I cannot understand why the Labour Party cannot work out that existing, settled law is just that. Nothing in this bill can undo other laws. That is not possible. Poor old Darren over there is scratching his head and tapping his head; I assume he is trying to stay awake, but I am not sure. It is pretty darn simple. The transition authority, which this bill is about, gathers together the opportunities that exist for the creation of the new council. A third bill is coming, and I want to say very emphatically that this bill does not impose the new transition agency in the role of employer; it simply puts a duty on that authority to work with—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: It does so!

Well, that is the point, is it not? We have written this bill over a long period of time and we understand it; that side of the Committee does not. It will be a sad day for Parliament if all existing law is to be somehow turned into a new part of this bill for the Committee to consider. It is an utter nonsense. It is a pathetic device, and it utterly trivialises the process of Parliament.

It is sad to me that a party that went out to set up this whole process in the first place is now so desperate that it has to resort to these sorts of beltway tactics in order to make itself feel good. Are we going to see more of it? I suspect we will. I suspect that throughout the afternoon the statute book will come out and every little bit of law that relates to anybody’s activity anywhere—

💬 Hon Maryan Street: That’s our job.

—will somehow be written up into a new part. They are confirming it. Maryan Street is confirming it. That is the tactic. David Parker was right that this is a massive filibuster. The only thing I will say about Trevor Mallard is that he is probably going to get me out of a hole. He said the bill will be passed on Thursday, but I guess in the end it is our choice which Thursday.

It is very, very sad for Parliament to see this sort of part accepted into this type of bill. It would be interesting to know where the connection is that has caused the concern and, I think, the mock outrage expressed by members of the Opposition today. This bill is about an authority that will gather up the other eight authorities in Auckland to work with them in order to ensure that the transition to the new one-Auckland council, which will not even be settled until September, is successful. It is an utterly pathetic effort.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for giving me the right to speak in this debate. Over the course of the last 3 days I have not had the opportunity to participate. The Government has been so keen to close down debate on this bill that—never mind the people of Auckland getting a say—as a member of Parliament, I have not been able to take a call yet.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: We need longer.

We need significantly longer on all these parts. I have wanted to comment on many of them and, to date, I have not been able to.

In regard to this new part in particular, I am pleased to rise and take a call to stop the Government from taking away the ability of employees of local body authorities in Auckland to have paid parental leave in the transitional period. If Mr Brownlee had read the legislation, he might realise this. Mr Brownlee’s speech was very important, because it reminded us of exactly why this bill should be going to a select committee. The Minister does not realise what occurred yesterday during this very debate on this very legislation. His own Government moved to withdraw a provision before the Committee, and in doing that it actually put at risk paid parental leave for women employees of councils. He has not even worked out that that clause—and if my colleague would be good enough to pass me his copy of the bill—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Clause 36.

Yes; clause 36(1). So he knows that the Government put forward an amendment to take this clause out. I will read out that clause, which the Government took out of the bill yesterday. Clause 36 is headed “Transfer of remaining employees”, and subclause (1) states: “Every person who is an employee of an existing local authority immediately before the close of 31 October 2010 becomes an employee of the Auckland Council”—that is the transitional body—“on the same terms and conditions as applied immediately before he or she became an employee of the Council.”

I read that clause out because that is what the Government removed from the legislation yesterday. That is why we are putting forward an amendment, in the name of the Hon Steve Chadwick, to add New Part 12. We want to guarantee that women—and men, actually—who are about to have children can take paid parental leave.

It is no surprise that National is trying this on, because every single time the issue of paid parental leave has been put before Parliament, it has voted against it. National has voted against paid parental leave on every single occasion. That is why it is the job of the Opposition to watch out for this, and to make sure that the Government does not slip in something like this. That is exactly why the people of Auckland—and, in fact, the people of New Zealand—should have the right to see this bill referred to a select committee. These are the very questions that need to be addressed. They are complex situations, and we do need to ensure that all the rights of these employees are protected.

As I said, it is no surprise that National is doing this. Just last week, National also canned the Pay and Employment Equity Taskforce. So it is no wonder National members are trying to make sure that there are no rights for these employees going forward. National members have removed that provision from the bill.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: That is utter rubbish.

No, it is absolutely true. They did it to ensure that the employment terms and conditions did not automatically transfer through to the transitional authority.

This is a serious issue, because 6,300 employees are involved in these eight councils. They need to know—and they should have the right to ask this question—why the Government has taken out of this bill those workers’ right to have the same terms and conditions that they have worked many years to acquire. Why did National move to take that right away from them as it moves towards this sham of a transitional body? It is an important question, because the very act of creating that transitional body changes the employer and, therefore, the employment circumstances of 6,300 workers. This is an issue that will be important to the families of Auckland. If National members do not think that paid parental leave is important, then they are wrong.

Now we understand what the deal is. It is right that yesterday clause 36 was taken out of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. It was set aside because that matter will be dealt with in a successive bill. Two further bills will be dealt with before the Auckland Council is established. [Interruption] If members would just calm down, I will explain it all to them.

Firstly, it is worth noting that this particular part, new Part 12, refers to the transfer of remaining employees. These are employees who are not part of the transition in the initial stages. It is important that they are protected. National understands that. Labour members wanted to muck around so much with the bill that they put up 8,000 amendments to this particular part. That is utterly absurd. National has said: “All right, a select committee can deal with this, and it will be included in a successive bill that deals with the Auckland transition arrangements.” The members opposite know that is how this works. Even today, they are putting up their own little part, and then they want to amend it. Here we have an exceptionally confused Opposition engaging in mock 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.

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.

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.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sure the member will be able to rectify that and have his say in future speeches.

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.

I move, That the question be now put.

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 government will be required to shed its commercial activity … Roads and piped water will be supplied on a fully commercial basis.”, etc. I would like to table that policy so everyone can be quite clear as to why we have the suspicion that the ACT agenda is to privatise the $28 billion of assets in Auckland. People can read it for themselves.

The other thing I take issue with is some of Gerry Brownlee’s comments. He said that nothing in this bill can override any other bill. In fact, the reason we are here today is that the bill overrides the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 that stipulate that there should be a formal consultation and a poll of electors in any part of New Zealand where a reorganisation takes place. This bill has overridden the right of Aucklanders to have a poll in order to make a decision about whether they want to see their eight councils obliterated and whether they want this new, highly centralised Auckland Council to be foisted upon them. This bill overrides the other bills. I do not know why Mr Gerry Brownlee suggested that it could not override other bills, because it does.

Then he asked why we would assume that this bill would take away the right to parental leave of the women who are part of the 6,300 employees in the existing councils. Well, why would we not assume that the rights were going to be taken away, when the bill takes away virtually everything else in Auckland governance? The bill takes away the rights of eight existing local councils to be sovereign and to implement the wishes of their electors. It effectively ties the local councils’ hands behind their backs, and they will have to go cap in hand every time they want to spend more than about $5,000. So why would we not assume that this bill seeks to override the rights of women employees to have paid parental leave?

It is incredible that we are debating the issue of paid parental leave. I have actually been doing some research, in between coming to the Chamber, on women’s liberation. Paid parental leave was one of the things that women were calling for in 1970. Here we are in 2009 and the National Government is seeking to take away paid parental leave. It is truly alarming, which is why this amendment is so critical. If the Government is not trying to take away the rights of women to paid parental leave in the transition, why would it not allow this amendment for the avoidance of doubt?

The other thing that I would like to table today is a definition of “blitzkrieg”. That is what is being done here. One of the fundamental tactics of Rogernomics is speed—do not give people a minute to breathe, just keep moving, and give them no time for reflection. Blitzkrieg was developed in Nazi Germany. Major General Fuller defined blitzkrieg as “Speed, and still more speed, and always speed was the secret … and that demanded audacity, more audacity and always audacity.”

I move, That the question be now put.

This is a very important matter and I find it very troubling that Mr Brownlee thinks that this is silly or trivial. We are not being silly or trivial.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: He said you’re silly and trivial.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise to my colleague. Mr Brownlee certainly did not say that you were silly or trivial, as Tau Henare has accused him of doing. If we are going to have those interjections, I think that he has to get them right.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member for that. Members should make sure they are relevant when they are interjecting.

This matter is not silly or trivial.

I want to support the amendment that my colleague Steve Chadwick has put up. This bill affects assets of $28 billion, but, more important, it affects the working conditions of 6,300 workers. These workers are people—people with families, people with mortgages, and people who are our neighbours and families. Frankly, it is important that we get this right. We have raised a legitimate concern about whether the actions of the Government have put at risk people’s right to paid parental leave. This is something that is certainly seen as very important on this side of the Chamber, and something that a number of us on this side of the Chamber campaigned very hard for. That is why this bill should go to a select committee, so that we can make sure that important things like people’s right to paid parental leave are not at risk. I would be very glad if they were not at risk, but there seem to be at least two possible reasons why they may be.

The first of those is the removal of clause 36(1), and the second one is that later in that same clause there is an explicit reference to continuity of employment for the purposes of KiwiSaver. There is a principle of statutory interpretation that if one explicitly refers to one thing, it means that if other things are not explicitly referred to, they are not covered. At least it has raised some very significant questions. As my friend and colleague Sue Moroney said, this could be a cock-up or it could be a conspiracy. Either way, potentially there are risks. A cock-up is highly probable, given the way that this bill is being rammed through the House. It is entirely possible that this is a cock-up, and that that is not the intention of the Government. That at least is a little reassuring.

However, it could well be that this is yet another example of attacks on workers and attacks on women by this Government. As evidence of that, in the last few days this Government has got rid of the pay and employment equity unit at the Department of Labour. Why? Does it not matter to people that women are paid fairly for the work they do? On the conspiracy side of the equation, the fact that we have a Minister of Women’s Affairs who does not seem to have the slightest idea about anything in her portfolio area—

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Who is the Minister?

—I think her name is Pansy Wong. She does not seem to have any idea of what is going on in her portfolio. We have a Minister of Labour who seems hell-bent on reducing workers’ rights. We have tried during this debate to make sure that workers’ rights are looked after. A new part was put up this morning about personnel provisions. We talked about getting some principles, like good-employer principles, into this legislation. I want to ask what is wrong with that. Why are members opposite opposed to good-employer principles? In other local government amalgamations that have taken place, it has been an absolute cornerstone of the legislation to make sure that employment rights are centre stage.

Getting it right for the people who work for local authorities is important, not only to those workers but also to the people in that area in order to make sure that those workers are able to get on and do their job without worrying that they are going to either lose their job or have their wages and conditions of employment reduced. Queensland is a very good example of this. I am holding up now the code of practice, which was agreed by all parties, to ensure that people were not made redundant, that people’s jobs were actually guaranteed for 3 years, and that their wages and conditions were fully guaranteed, as was their right to be represented by unions. Queensland was able to conduct one of the smoothest local government amalgamations that has been seen. That is in direct contrast to what happened in South Australia, where a whole lot of people lost their jobs. There was a lot of nervousness and concern, and, in fact, there were very significant service provision problems for the people of South Australia, not to mention the effect that the amalgamation had on the workers and their families.

Frankly, I think it is really important that Steve Chadwick has put up this amendment, and we should think very seriously about whether you are going to make sure that people are not disadvantaged.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Not me.

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.

I move, That the question be now put.

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 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.

I move, That the question be now put.

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 amendments seek to amend substantially another Act, and therefore could change the bill into an omnibus bill; the amendment is therefore out of order. I refer the member to Standing Orders 256 and 257. The next amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley is to insert a new Part 4, “Auckland Rail Transport Transition”. This amendment is outside the scope of the bill, as the bill deals with governance, not operational aspects and targets.

💬 Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not want to challenge your ruling, but—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Could I read them through first, and then I will give the member the opportunity to take a point of order. The next amendment is to insert a new Part 4, “Transport Funding Transition”. This amendment is also outside the scope of the bill as the bill deals with governance, not operational aspects and targets. The next amendment is to insert a new Part 4, “Amendments to the Land Transport Act 1998”. This amendment is also outside the scope of the bill as the bill deals with governance, not operational aspects and targets. The next amendment is to insert a new Part 4, “Transition Cost Recovery Plastic Bag Levy”. This amendment is outside the scope of the bill, as the bill deals with governance, not operational aspects and targets. The next amendment is to insert a new Part 4, “Cruelty Free Auckland Ports”. This amendment is outside the scope of the bill, as the bill deals with governance, not operational aspects and targets. The next amendment inserts a new Part 4 amending—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Could you make clear whether these are still Sue Kedgley’s amendments?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes, they are. The next amendment inserts a new Part 4 amending the Overseas Investment Act 2005. This amendment is out of order, as it proposes a substantive amendment to another Act. The next amendment inserts a new Part 4 headed “Transition to Sustainable Investment”. Part 3 of the bill sets up a transitional agency, and all provisions relating to it are logically found there. The proposed amendment is more fairly associated with Part 3. Part 3 has been dealt with by the Committee, so the amendment is therefore out of order. The next amendment inserts a new Part 4 headed “Transitional Agency Civil and Political Rights”. Part 3 of the bill sets up a transitional agency, and all provisions relating to it are logically found there. The proposed amendment is more fairly associated with clause 13, in Part 3. Part 3 has been dealt with by the Committee, so the amendment is therefore out of order.

Those are the amendments in the name of Sue Kedgley that I have ruled out of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I cannot understand how you can rule that this bill deals only with substantive amendments and does not deal with operational amendments, when the bill deals with incredibly detailed operational matters. You need only to look at clause 31, which says the councils are not allowed even to enter into a contract of more than $5,000 without the approval of the Auckland Transition Agency. Very, very detailed operational matters are outlined in other parts of the bill. I cannot understand how it can be argued that the bill does not deal with operational matters, when, in fact, the whole bill is full of them.

My interpretation in my ruling relates to the preliminary provisions of the bill. They set out very clearly that the bill is about structure and governance, and not about operational matters. My ruling is based on the preliminary provisions of the bill before us—the clauses associated with those. That is my ruling.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I really am struggling to understand this. I think this is a pretty important point. The bill is riddled with operational matters. In fact, you could argue that much of the bill is about not structural issues but, indeed, very detailed operational matters, such as whether someone may borrow money, whether a council may contract for something worth more than $5,000, or whether a council can appoint a director of a council-controlled organisation. They are very, very detailed provisions. I wonder whether it would be possible to recall the Speaker to get his ruling on the matter; otherwise, a lot of our very sensible amendments, which we have put a lot of effort, work, and time into, and which we feel cover important strategic issues, are going to be ruled out.

I thank the member for those comments. [Interruption] Could that cellphone please be turned off. I thank the member for stating her position. As I have said, I have ruled the amendments out of order because they deal with operational matters. They are not debatable. Are you seeking to recall the Speaker? I invite you to do so.

I would like to move that we ask the Speaker to come here and give his opinion on this significant issue.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I have a go, Mr Chairperson? I do not think we have a proper motion before us. I am prepared to move it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I think it is important that the person who is sponsoring the amendments recalls the Speaker.

I thought any member could move it—to get it right.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the Hon Trevor Mallard for his help, but I think it is appropriate that the person sponsoring the amendments have the opportunity to recall the Speaker.

I move, That the Speaker be recalled to consider this important issue.

Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

Speaker Recalled