Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill

I rise to speak in favour of new Part 10, which is about the personnel provisions for the Auckland Council and the Auckland Transition Agency. This is a very important new part, and I hope the members across the Chamber will listen to the debate on it. It is about personnel provisions that affect 6,300 workers, and the treatment of those workers also affects their families. We are talking about a very significant number of Aucklanders who, as one can imagine, are feeling very nervous and insecure at the moment, given that the major structural change is occurring in a time of high unemployment and major economic crisis. I hope that there will be a fair hearing across the Committee of this issue. I am sure that Nikki Kaye—the new friend of the worker—will support this new part. The party leaders across the other side of the Chamber are not here, but if they were they would recognise the value of these sorts of provisions, as well. As I understand matters, recently they have understood the value of working with unions in trying to look at employment matters.

New Part 10 proposes a number of important general principles. First and foremost, those general principles include the idea of being a good employer—that is a very important principle. It also requires that policies developed under that principle are available to employees, and that the Auckland Council would report on its compliance with those policies. We have outlined some of the things that good employers might do, including the fair and proper treatment of employees, providing good and safe working conditions, providing equal employment opportunities, recognising the aspirations of Māori, and making sure that employees of the Auckland Council maintain proper standards of integrity, conduct, and concern about the public interest. I reinforce that point, because the people who work for councils provide public services. These people care about the public services that they provide, which are very, very important things that affect the day-to-day living of people in Auckland. So we are very aware that those workers will want to be in a position to provide good-quality services to the public.

The context of this part is very important, and we talked a little about that last night. Workers are feeling very insecure at the moment. Council employees—employees of the different councils and of the regional council—are feeling very concerned. Why is that? The royal commission said some very important things about the staffing issues related to this important change that is going on. It said it expected current council staff to form the nucleus of the new organisations. One of the royal commission’s reasons for adopting its proposed model was “to maintain stability in the council workforce, to minimise both the personal impacts of reorganisation on council staff and start-up costs for the new organisation, and to enable key services to be delivered as usual during the transition”.

The unfortunate thing is that although that statement provided a degree of certainty to the affected workers, on the other hand the Government has decided that there will be a rationalisation of council staff, which will start to occur immediately. That means there will be job losses. The Government is disregarding not only many of the other recommendations of the royal commission but also the recommendation about providing security for council staff. In the current economic environment, that is very, very difficult for people to deal with.

If one looks at how workers in the Public Service are currently being treated by the Government, one would understand why council workers in Auckland are feeling insecure. I ask members to look at the level of job cuts that is going on at the moment in the Public Service. I ask members to look at the fact that those workers are being treated as second-class workers and are not eligible, for example, for provisions like the 9-day working fortnight—not that that has actually made a great deal of difference yet. But Public Service workers are not even eligible for it.

We have already seen a number of attacks by the Government on workers. We have seen a number of workers lose the right to challenge unfair dismissal. The Government is now looking at the provisions around holidays. The Minister of Labour has put up a zero percent increase in the minimum wage, and actually does not agree with pay equity for women workers. I could go on, but I say those things also mean that workers are feeling very insecure and nervous.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

💬 Sandra Goudie: Mindless!

I say to Mrs Goudie that I have a point of order. This is very serious point of order, and I want to word it as carefully as I can. We are in Committee and it is a Saturday morning. The Opposition has put up a lot of amendments and new parts by way of amendment. Obviously, some are more detailed than others. This particular new part, Part 10, is very important to the Opposition because it directly affects the lives of 6,500 people. My point of order is that on the last part considered by the Committee, if we include the time taken on points of order, a closure motion was accepted within 40 minutes of the Committee’s considering a brand new part that had never been near a select committee and had not been distributed to members until today.

The point I am making is that I understand that there will be pressure on both you and the other Chair of the Committee to get this business through as quickly as possible. I respectfully say that a part must be given the due consideration of this Committee, regardless of whether it is a Tuesday afternoon, a Wednesday evening, or a Saturday morning. I think that we need to have the chance to debate our new parts, which have not been to a select committee. The level of public scrutiny—

💬 Hon Simon Power: This is outrageous! It’s your discretion; he shouldn’t be telling you this.

The Deputy Leader of the House can interject. I said at the beginning that I was trying to take a careful but serious point of order to reflect to the Committee exactly how we feel about this, which is that this particular part is of importance to us. I am not challenging your ruling, Mr Chairperson, because there has been no ruling. There is no closure motion before you; we are at the beginning of the debate on this part. I respectfully submit to you that the previous part was shut down very, very early. I want an assurance that that was not a tariff simply because we are meeting on a Saturday morning, which appears to be the reason for the Government’s sense of urgency about the closure motions.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The first point I make is that the Chair will not feel pressured about accepting closure motions. I do not feel pressured in any particular way. I observe that I consider these new parts to be in a slightly different context from the parts that have been tabled in the House, because those were on notice and so on, and these are not.

Secondly, I am guided—and I am sure that the other Chairs have been guided—by content. We need to concentrate on the subject matter at hand. I have said that I will be quite liberal and let people make other comments as they go through the parts. If someone makes an interjection and the member responds, that is fair enough. But we do not want the rest of the speech to be on the interjections; we want to be on task.

Thirdly, I assure the member that there is no tariff. A closure motion having been accepted for the previous part does not mean that this is the rate that we will carry on for all other parts. It will be about the content of the part, the content of the speeches, and the way that the Committee conducts itself. The length of debate can go up; it can go down. But content will be important.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The chair again, Mr Mallard.

The first thing is that I do not appreciate comments of that sort. I do not think it is helpful.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Fair enough. I apologise to the member.

The other point I make is to ask you to elucidate on your ruling on one particular point that was not clear. You indicated that it would make a difference whether the parts had been on notice or not on notice. I could not tell from your comments whether something that had been on notice would have a longer debate; whether because something had not been on notice members needed time to look at it, and it would therefore have a longer debate; or whether something not on notice would have a shorter debate because there had been no notice. Could you indicate which of those you meant?

I appreciate the member’s wanting some elucidation on some of the finer detail around some of these judgments, and the shadow Leader of the House’s views on these matters. It has always been my understanding that when a closure motion is taken by the Chair is a matter for the sole discretion of the Chair. It has been my experience over the last short while that whenever an attempt is made to try to define those parameters, the fall-back position is the Standing Order in that regard.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member is absolutely correct. It has always been, and will always be, the sole discretion of the Chair whether a closure motion is taken, and the Chair will take it as he or she sees fit. I do not want to get into a long debate about the matter the Hon Trevor Mallard raised. Although members put up amendments and call them parts, that is only the way they themselves have described them. Those proposed new parts could in another way be looked at in substance, in effect, as amendments.

💬 Hon Annette King: You can’t make that decision.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I can make that decision about substance. For example, members get up and quite often say: “I am raising a fresh point of order.” when, in fact, they are not. They say that simply to relitigate the same matter; they describe it as a fresh point of order when it is not. I think everybody has been guilty of that at some stage.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Can you elaborate on the notice thing, Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): On the notice thing, the bill was put on the Table, and members have had a long time to read it, in terms of hours. But these proposed new parts have turned up—they have just appeared. The point I make is that I consider the bill, as tabled by the Government of the day, as being the issue we are here to debate. That is the main focus of this debate. When members table amendments to the bill, they are of lesser concern, to a degree, than the actual bill. When members table amendments that they put up as new parts, they may describe them as parts, but when one reads them one could describe them as amendments because they are not as significant as what we would normally have as a part of a bill. We will be flexible about this matter.

I say to members that regardless of all that is going on around the edges, it will remain the sole discretion of the Chair how long the debate goes on for. There will be no correspondence entered into. The Committee will determine closure motions by vote, and the content of the speeches will be the Chair’s consideration. If speeches are on target, and are discussing and elucidating the amendments we are considering, then the debate will tend to go on for longer. If people get off task and we are on to everything else but the part or amendment we are discussing, then the Chair will consider closure motions much more quickly. Members should be assured of that.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I thank you for your ruling; it was very helpful. I would like to extend an invitation to you to make an examination of Part 2 of the bill and of the proposed amendments. When you are considering your tariff in relation to substance, I think you will find there is much more substance in these amendments than there was in Part 2, and therefore the debate should be proportionately longer.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member could make that argument, but I have read quite a lot of the proposed amendments and I think some of them have not added to the fountain of wisdom in this place. I also mention to the member that substance is quite often more than just the number of words counted on the word processor.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I reassure you that this is a fresh point of order and has nothing to do with the timing of debates. This point of order is about a comment you made that I require some explanation on. It is the point you made that the proposed new parts we are dealing with should be seen just as amendments. When amendments to parts were debated previously they were stand-alone, single, one-clause amendments. The difference with this proposed new part—if we take, for instance, the part we considered for a little over 30 minutes in total, Mr Hawkins’ proposed new Part 11, “Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission”—is that it contains 25 new clauses. Yesterday we were voting on amendments to clauses. I think to consider an entire new part as being just the same as an amendment leads to some confusion in the Committee. Clearly, proposed new Part 11—with 25 clauses—will be much more substantial than an amendment to omit a certain date and substitute another. Much more work goes into developing these proposed new parts. They cover a much larger ambit of issues, and I think to just dismiss them as being the same as amendments that the Committee has seen previously is neither fair nor correct, because these proposed new parts contain a substantial number of clauses. I just ask your advice on that matter, because I think it could lead to some confusion as the Committee considers proposed new parts this morning.

The attempt to define the nature of the debate by what it is labelled and how many words are involved, rather than by the content of what is involved in the debate itself, is leading to confusion. I submit that it seems to me that an attempt to define these types of debates puts you in a very difficult position, Mr Chair. As I understand it, the position under the Standing Orders is simply that your discretion—and your discretion alone—determines when the closure motion is taken. That should be the end of the matter.

My friend the Deputy Leader of the House misinterprets what I mean. I am not discussing closure motions. We have dealt with that issue, the Chair has ruled on it, and we accept what you said. We are talking about the difference between proposed new parts and amendments.

The Committee of the whole House used to consider a bill clause by clause. Indeed, if the Government forgot to move a part by part motion, then we would be subjected to hours and hours in Committee as it worked through clauses. It was always a challenge for Government whips to make sure a Minister moved a part by part motion. We have moved away from that situation to an assumption that the Committee of the whole House will always consider bills part by part, and that amendments relate to clauses—as we have seen so far. It is completely different when amendments are put down that create new parts, as we see here. An amendment to create a new part is a separate, debatable question, as opposed to individual amendments on clauses, which are not debatable questions; they are questions taken at the end of a debate alongside the Minister’s amendments and other members’ amendments. It is a completely separate area. Your comments that these proposed new parts are just like amendments is the point the Opposition is raising with you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I say to the member, with all due respect, that the whole structure of his argument is based on a wrong assumption. The fact is that whatever name the member puts on these amendments—whether he calls them “parts”, “model parts”, or whatever—they are all amendments. Each one is an amendment. An amendment that has “part” on it has exactly the same status in this Committee as an amendment that takes out one word and substitutes another. It is an amendment—it is nothing other than an amendment to the bill. It is no different. It is irrelevant whether the member calls the amendment a part; it is still an amendment. However, the Chair, instead of having a very narrow debate on an amendment, has given consideration to the fact that the amendment has a substantial amount of clauses in it, which is why we had multiple speeches on the amendment and did it slightly differently from any other amendment. That is the point we are at.

I reiterate two things. Firstly, the Chair will be the sole determiner of the debate and will then simply allow the Committee to make its own decision about whether the debate continues. Secondly, the Chair’s decision will be driven by two things: whether there has been relevance, and whether there has been undue repetition. So there are two criteria: relevance and repetition. If members are relevant and are providing fresh material, then the Committee will continue to debate the part. The moment it changes—there is repetition, and relevance goes down—then the Chair will start to look at a closure motion.

Speaking to the amendment to insert new Part 10, in the name of Carol Beaumont, I draw attention to a couple of points in particular. First of all, the members opposite are of the view that these amendments are vexatious, and they are expressing some irritation that the Opposition should be bringing such amendments to the Committee. Nothing could be further from the truth. The point is that we have been opposing this bill because it is an affront to democracy and because it is an affront to the rights of the people of Auckland.

This amendment, in particular, although not addressing the democratic rights in substance, actually goes to the question of something that is even as profound as Aucklanders’ democratic rights. It goes to the question of the working conditions and the security of the people who work within local government services in Auckland. That is the issue. That is why, I say to Mr Power, who is now the Minister in the chair, this could in no way be considered a vexatious amendment. It is nothing of the sort.

In fact, I draw to the attention of the Committee the Government’s voting on matters such as this even as recently as last night. The Government voted down amendments that asked for the views of women, of Māori, of Pasifika, and of people of different ethnicities to be represented in the consideration of the Auckland Transition Agency.

This amendment gives the Government a chance to reconsider the mistakes it made last night. The effect of what the Government did last night was to forbid women, Māori, Pasifika, and other interest groups to have any kind of consultation on, or representation in, the activities of the Auckland Transition Agency. Time and time again the Opposition put up amendments that asked for the Minister of Women’s Affairs to be consulted and for the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs to be consulted. The amendments did not even go as far as to call for a poll, although there was a moment when we did call for one. In fact, the amendments asked just that the Ministers responsible for the portfolios of women, Pasifika, people with disabilities, and ethnic affairs be consulted in the process.

The Government voted against every one of those amendments. That needs to be sheeted home to the Government, because we will be talking about that around Auckland for years to come. This amendment gives the Government another opportunity to do the right thing. We are looking for some protection for the workers who provide the public services administered through local government in Auckland.

Is it too much to ask of this National Government that there should be good and safe working conditions, that there should be equal employment opportunity programmes, that the aspirations and aims of the Māori people should be recognised, that there should be opportunities for the enhancement of the abilities of individual employees, that there should be recognition of the aims and aspirations of ethnic or minority groups, or that there should be some recognition of the employment requirements of women—including paid parental leave?

The Government now has an opportunity to do the right thing, to take notice of the progress that has been made in employment law in the last 9 years, to recognise the rights of our workforce in Auckland and the differences in its composition—especially in relation to the workforce in local government—and to defend its rights to those provisions I spoke about. If the Government proceeds to oppose each of these parts of the bill—these amendments, I should say, based on the procedural debate that has just taken place—and if it votes down this part, then it can expect all 6,500 of the workers in local government in Auckland to know which side their bread is buttered on. That will be a very clear indication of what this Government stands for.

I am delighted to take a call. I was invited earlier by the Chair to take a call when I raised a very serious point of order, but the debate on new Part 10 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, put forward by my colleague Carol Beaumont, is the perfect debate for me to put my issue into context.

I inform the Committee that I was invited by the Chair to speak to the Minister in the chair about our very real concern, which was raised by the people of Auckland early this morning, that their right to paid parental leave might have been expunged by an amendment last night from the Minister of Local Government. This is a very serious issue. I went to the Minister, as I was invited by the Chair to do, and the Minister said—and members should listen to this, because the Auckland Transition Agency reports to that one Minister, with nobody else providing any checks or balances over his powers and authorities—“You had your turn last night; you didn’t take it.” We were voting on amendments last night. We were voting yes or no to amendments; we could not debate or discuss amendments in the Chamber last night. When I took up the offer of the Chair, the Minister said: “It is finished. You had your turn last night.” Is that the sort of attitude he is going to take when the transition agency raises issues? It will report to Mr Hide only, as the Minister. Are those the sorts of powers and authorities that he will extend over the rights of the 6,500 workers whose current terms and conditions might have been amended very badly last night, with an impact on their lives?

Those members opposite were not in the House when we voted on paid parental leave—which women members in the previous Opposition voted against—but I am sure that the new women members do care about women’s rights and paid parental leave, as do many, many men. The amendment last night may have been an unintended consequence. In the point of order that I reasonably raised I asked whether it could be looked at, and whether the Minister could clarify it for the Committee. If that is the sort of attitude the Minister is going to have, as the one person with power and authority over the transition agency, it is deeply worrying.

In this new Part 10 that we have put forward, we suggest that we establish a code of practice for employees—for those full-time employees who have worked for over a year for the current authorities that will go by next year. Clause 108(2)(k) states: “there shall be no overall reduction in working conditions for any employee;”. These are serious amendments that we have put up. We had no opportunity to look at this bill before we got it to debate in the House, and the relevant part of it was pushed through last night in urgency. We are using the one democratic tool that we have got to try to make this bill better, and the response from the Government benches has been that we are wasting the Committee’s time.

I tell the members of the Government that people have been phoning us all night. My daughter phoned and asked: “What is this bill that is going through the House?”, and I said: “We are in urgency to fight about the bill to establish the Auckland Council.” She said: “What is the bill all about?”, and I said: “Tough! You will not have a chance to debate this bill. You will not have a chance at all.” Calls came through all night long from people in Auckland, and we are receiving calls this morning. They are taking it seriously. They are anxious and they are worried. They are hugely concerned about their rights. They are hugely concerned about the unintended consequences of this bill.

This is when a Government gets things wrong: when it rams things through the House and does not involve community voices. That has happened, and that is why we are here, and I am pleased that we are here. We are going to fight this fight. It is absolutely critical to consider our code of practice for workers, their rights, and their conditions. It is not just about structural changes to the transition agency. The Government sees it as simplistically as that—that it is just about structural amendments.

I am sorry that we have to take time to debate part of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill that was actually passed last night, but the Opposition members who are introducing new parts are sowing confusion. I think it is because they are genuinely confused. Let me be very, very clear. Paid parental leave is a statutory entitlement. Nothing in this bill changes that, and I would have thought that members opposite understood that.

Opposition members are in the Chamber together because we are the last line of defence, and up until now this debate has been about the rights of Aucklanders—

💬 Hon Members: Ha, Ha!

They may laugh. What exactly is it about democracy that they oppose? What is it about democracy that “Gerry-mander” opposes? We are not here this morning, debating new Part 10, to talk about the democratic rights of all Aucklanders. [Interruption] The importance of Part 10—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the member. Those exchanges across the Chamber between members are not acceptable. The member is on his feet and speaking in a debate. Interjections are fine if they are fair and reasonable, but interchanges between members are out of order. I invite the member to continue.

New Part 10, unusually compared with the other parts of the bill, is not about the democratic rights of all Aucklanders; it is about the employment rights of those some 6,000 Aucklanders who are employees of the organisation. Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition asks Government members to specify exactly which of the provisions they object to, because I understand, from their barrage, that they are likely to be voting against this new part. They should tell us why they object. Is it because they disagree with the proposition that there should be an obligation on the part of the Auckland Transition Agency and the Auckland Council to be a good employer? Is it because of the good and safe working conditions in this part? Do they object to an equal employment opportunities programme? If they do, why not put out a press release in support of that view? Is it the impartial selection of suitably qualified persons?

Perhaps that is it, especially when we look at clause 104, “Appointments on merit”, because that goes to the heart of our concerns about the bill. It is particularly concerning when one puts it together with the governance structure that is over this entity, because, unusually, it is not reporting to a Cabinet committee—it is not reporting to Cabinet. Those people will be the sole appointees of one Minister—the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Rodney Hide. Why does that matter? It matters in two respects in relation to clause 104. It gives that Minister absolute jurisdiction over appointments. The board has only two to four people, in addition to a handpicked chair. That is not a wide enough range of skills, or people, to give diversity of opinion. This is designed to be a directive. It is designed as a diktat; that is how it is structured. Because of that, it is essential that it has written in, as a statutory obligation, those things that we would expect a good organisation to take for granted. But there can be no guarantee here, because the governance structure is flawed from the outset.

Why has the governance structure been designed that way? It follows a model of change management called “shock and awe”. Roger Douglas used it—crash through opposition, move so quickly people cannot unite or take to the streets, move before they work out what is really happening, and drive through the middle. That is exactly what this legislation is about.

That is why we are in the Chamber, historically, on a Saturday morning; why we will be here on Monday morning, and Tuesday morning, and Wednesday morning, and in Budget week; and why the legislative programme of this diktat Government is going to be a shambles. The junior Government whip is looking very worried, because he knows that he will be taking responsibility, in the eyes of the people of Hawke’s Bay, for the fact that he cannot manage the House. And the Leader of the House, who is already a public joke, who has barely opened the Standing Orders, must take primary responsibility for the fact that it took the Government 2 days to question an amendment. Change a comma, and it took them 2 days to work out how to question that amendment! What kind of House skills is that? No wonder the “Business Herald” yesterday had a diary piece asking who the lamest duck in the Government was, arguing whether it was Richard Worth or Gerry Brownlee. It is, I think, a lay down misère. Gerry Brownlee is next, but at the moment we have not finished with his colleague. Gerry Brownlee is next, because he will never recover from this process.

Clause 104, “Appointments on merit”—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Ha, ha!

It is an oxymoron, is it not? How about the pot calling the kettle black? Because I do not have confidence that the Minister of Local Government is one to appoint people on merit; I think he is one to appoint on ideology. I think he wants to appropriate and privatise the assets built up by the people of Auckland over 45 years. He will ensure that the people who are there are doing just that.

I move, That the question be now put.

The Green Party is very pleased to support this very important new Part 10. I am pleased the Minister has accepted that paid parental leave is well established and will be covered in the legislation, perhaps regardless of this amendment. But some other provisions are quite important. For example, clause 101(2(d) requires “Recognition of—(i) The aims and aspirations of the Maori people;”. I think that is important. It might be quite educational for the little group that will run the Auckland Transition Agency to have to take into account the aspirations of the Māori people. In the process of running the transition while taking into account the aspirations of the Māori people, the agency might come to the realisation that the new body really should have direct Māori representation, in the form of three Māori seats. It is quite possible that if the agency takes to heart the provision in this new part, it may make very strong recommendations to the Government saying: “Now we’re operating and we’re listening to Māori in the process of operating this transition, we very strongly recommend that the Government reinstates the three directly elected Māori seats proposed by the royal commission.” That would be excellent.

Clause 101(2)(f) requires “recognition of the aims and aspirations and employment requirements, and the cultural differences, of ethnic or minority groups;”. As is well known, quite big meetings have been held in places like South Auckland, and there has been very strong Pacific Island participation in those meetings. Those people are worried about the loss of the identity of Manukau City, and about how account will be taken of the interests of Pacific people, who are concentrated in that city. But if the transition agency really takes on board the provision in clause 102(2)(f), then perhaps it would say to the Government: “Well, hold on. The structure you have put in place, which strips out local representation and knocks out sub-regional representation like that for Manukau City, really affects the rights of different ethnic groups, particularly in the case of South Auckland, Manukau City, and Pacific Island people.” Again, perhaps the agency would make urgent representations to the Government to make alterations to the legislation, at the last minute. That would, at least, improve the possibilities of sub-regional identity and the interests of the Pacific Island people being taken into account. The same applies to other non-European groups in our society who feel shut out by this big structure, where rich white people will tend to get the positions. There will not be—

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Rich white men.

Rich white men; I apologise.

There is also a provision in clause 101(2)(g) to recognise the employment requirements of women. Again, as has been rightly pointed out, that may educate the transition authority to recommend to the Government urgent changes to the structure, so that women are not disadvantaged in the way that they will be under this legislation and the companion Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill that will go through Parliament.

Clause 104, “Appointments on merit”, is quite important, because we know that the appointments to the transition agency are to be made directly by the Minister of Local Government, without any reference to a Cabinet process. We know that will be hard to achieve, so having that provision might at least make his Cabinet colleagues and others say “Hold on, there should be a merit procedure.”

Clause 105, “Acting appointments”, could be very relevant, because it deals with resignations from the transition agency. I would expect there might be quite a few resignations, even though the agency is supposed to go for only a short time. After a few weeks in the job, a new appointee might say: “I’m in a horrible position here, operating like a dictator, intervening in agenda items of local bodies all across the place. The body I’m helping to set up here isn’t going to work.” There might be a lot of resignations, so this provision could be very pertinent.

Clause 108(3)(a) provides for the maintenance of service delivery levels. That could be important too, because there would be a tendency for the new—

I am happy to take a call to support clause 101 in new Part 10, which is in the name of Carol Beaumont. There are three points that I would like to make in this debate. Firstly, I will talk about the Auckland Council and the Auckland Transition Agency being good employers. My second point will be about the aims and aspirations of Māori. My third point will come back to the fact that this is all about democracy and transparency.

In respect of the Auckland Council being a good employer, I point out that it is really about caring for and protecting the rights of workers. When I was a school principal we had a framework saying that any employer or teacher who was dictatorial and lacked support would breed a resentful child. This is what I see in the legislation that is being pushed through. We are being dictated to, and there is a lack of support, which will breed resentment in the community.

This issue is also about the aims and aspirations of Māori people. I say to members that Māori aspire to be heard in their workplaces, to be influential. I struggle to see what is wrong with recognising the aims and the aspirations of Māori, the employment requirements of Māori, and the need for greater involvement of Māori in Auckland public affairs. I wonder why it is such a hard issue to deal with, why it is so hard to debate, why we have to push this bill through so quickly, and why Māori people do not have an opportunity to participate in any sort of debate on an issue that really does affect them, and to participate in settings that allow Māori to be heard. To have public meetings is fine, but I just wonder how many public meetings will be held on marae, and I wonder how many public meetings will be held at times when whānau can get to those meetings and actually contribute. It is really important that the aims and the aspirations of Māori people are not overlooked in this whole debate.

One of the greatest aims and aspirations of Māori is simply to get a job. When we see that our unemployment rate is up at around 11 percent, which is higher than that of most groups aside from the Pacific Island population, we realise that it is really important that Māori rights and Māori conditions at work are considered and looked after. Again, this comes back to democracy. We hear National members say they are listening. But I ask whether they have heard what the people are saying. There is a big difference. When those members sit in a meeting and simply listen to what people are saying, and then move on in their own direction, they are not hearing what people are saying. People do not like the direction that all this is heading in.

To come back to the issue of the Auckland Council being a good employer, I say that this is about people having an opportunity to be selected. What we are seeing here is that the Minister of Local Government will base his selection criteria on individuals or groups that support his ideology. That ideology is quite intimidating for the Māori people, because our values are totally different from those of the Minister. We have a fear that the people being selected will be mainly male, mainly wealthy, and mainly Pākehā. Let me tell members now that Māori are certainly not Pākehā. We are certainly not generally wealthy, and we certainly do not live in the suburbs of Remuera, Pakuranga, Howick, and those other places. We tend to be the people who live in west Auckland, Glenfield, Ōtara, and Māngere.

💬 Moana Mackey: They need a code of practice.

They do need a code of practice. The Minister must notify the House and make a workforce transition code of practice.

💬 Moana Mackey: Why do they oppose that?

Indeed—why do they oppose having a code of practice?

Kia ora nō tātou. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak for the voices of Auckland that have been silenced as a consequence of the chilling erosion of democracy being orchestrated by Rodney Hide and Mr Brownlee this morning. It is good to see Mr Harawira back here after practising his salute with a Melanesian flavour to it.

I stand to speak about the importance of the rights of those Aucklanders whose democratic entitlements have been swiped away as a consequence of the Auckland Transition Agency. Now we focus on their rights as employees. They cover a large and vast distance. My colleague earlier spoke about those who are disadvantaged, those who occupy marginal positions. Their level of irrelevance grows by the hour in the mind of the National Government. It does not care about people who do not have powerful friends in shiny towers. It does not care about people who do not belong to the chamber of commerce, who do not belong to other powerful professional organisations. All it cares about is turning the transition agency into a small, unaccountable group of people who will be driven by profit. They will not think of the humanitarian considerations that employees deserve at a time when avalanche after avalanche of bad news is coming from overseas. The rights of children, mothers, fathers, and grandparents are the rights that we should be concerned about, and they have been completely forgotten.

The Minister of Local Government stands up and gives lame accounts as to how Opposition members are either being trivial or not treating the House seriously. This is the highest court in the land. Aucklanders have every right to look to the Opposition to hold the Government to account in terms of speaking up for their right—given that to date we have failed to make any difference whatsoever in relation to their democratic rights—to be able to go to work and continue to contribute to and enrich the city of Auckland and its broader environment, knowing that they will not fall victim as they did in the 1980s to Mr Roger Douglas’ foul schemes, knowing that they will not fall victim to half-baked ideas from people who, unfortunately, will not be elected but will be appointed. The Government will not appoint Māori from the local tribes. It will not appoint tangata whenua and give them a decent fee to represent the indigenous dimension. Similarly, the Government wants to appoint people on fat salaries who will not be accountable to us. They will smash the rights, smash the entitlements, and accept none of the obligations that fall upon good employers.

So it falls to us to remind the media, to remind our friends here in the broader Opposition, and to remind the Government that these sorts of things open up ill will. These sorts of things cause people to feel that they no longer have a decent stake in the development of what is meant to be the super-city. This provision enables the creation of a mega-city over the bodies of good, God-fearing, decent workers. How can that possibly be sustainable? How can that possibly lay down a basis for productivity, and for growth in the confidence of people who want better parks, who want better goods and services, but who fear they will be unable to achieve them, because every time they have a request of a significant nature to improve their working environment it will have to go across Rodney Hide’s desk? His desk will be littered with applications for contracts and a variety of other foul schemes to erode and undo the good work that the very workers we are concerned about have created and contributed to.

It might be said that we should not focus too much on those groups that we will get to speak about later in the day—that is, the tangata whenua and the Pasifika. But those are the groups, along with other vulnerable sectors of the employment force, that this bill is designed to protect. I would like to hear from Mr Rodney Hide. How on earth does he think that instilling power in a small group of corporate-driven, unaccountable people will enrich the rights of workers?

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Towards the end of that speech I was watching the clock fairly carefully. I want to check with you that the clock did not go a little bit fast towards the end.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): It certainly did not go fast. There are two of us here checking. That is completely out of order.

I move, That the question be now put.

Kia ora, talofa lava, and warm Pacific greetings. I am very pleased to stand in this Chamber to support Carol Beaumont’s amendment to insert new Part 10.

I want to put forward a bit of history from a Pacific woman’s perspective in relation to the importance of being a good employer and having good personnel policies that acknowledge and look after the diversity of our communities and our country. Pacific unemployment has gone up from 8 percent to 13.7 percent, yet Auckland is the biggest Polynesian city in the world. I will talk about a personal story, to put it in context. I say hello to my mother, who is 80 years old and is watching us on television. Mum came over from Samoa in the 1950s. She worked as a shorthand typist for the Department of Social Welfare, and she managed to become the manager of 30 women. She became the first Pacific equal employment opportunities coordinator in that department, together with Elsie Ellison of Ngāti Porou, who was the first Māori equal employment opportunities coordinator. The point about having those communities represented in the workplace is that it means there is a better connection with those communities. Having them represented ensures that they participate and have information, but, more important, it ensures that the needs of those communities, and some creative responses and innovation, can be part of the mix.

I am very, very proud to say to the Minister of Local Government that it is important in this debate to honour the contribution that Pacific people have made to this country. We should think of the big picture. I think of the Rugby World Cup. Who plays in our rugby team? Who plays in the New Zealand Warriors and in the Kiwi netball team? Who won the Lexus opera competition last week? It was a Kiwi-born Samoan. Who heads Black Grace? It is Neil Ieremia from Cannons Creek, who now lives in Auckland. Jonah Lomu and all those other people came from very humble beginnings.

It is those workers who need to be looked after. It is about value for money, but it is also about value for people. It is really important that we address that issue in terms of work, workers’ rights, and better investment to support those workers to lift their capability. It is also important to have an organisation that reflects the look of Auckland, because that is good for New Zealand, good for the Pacific, and good for the world. Our whole community, like any other community, has contributed to “New Zealand Inc.” New Zealand is very, very well known all over the world in terms of its Māori, Pacific, Asian, and Pākehā contributions. Each contribution enhances us. Unless those groups are reflected in the workplace, not just at the level of a cleaner but at the management level where decisions are made, the delivery of the agency will be ineffective and fall short of its responsibility.

I stand as a New Zealand - born Pacific woman. I am very proud to be a Kiwi. Pacific people are very proud of our country. We do not want to be honoured just for playing good rugby; we have a contribution to make in terms of the economy and our society. Our people, like those in many other communities, work extremely hard no matter what job we do. We see examples of that in Parliament, from bottom to top. It is important that we look after our people, because they contribute to the economy, and they contribute enormously in terms of social capital, too. They do a lot of voluntary work in the areas of sports, culture, spirituality, and faith. Those areas are all part of the package.

I congratulate Carol Beaumont on her vision of creating personnel policies that are not token gestures or responses but actually enhance, are integral to, and reciprocate the enormous contribution that Pacific people have made to this country. After all, Aotearoa is part of the Pacific. Thank you.

I rise to support this excellent new part proposed by my colleague Carol Beaumont. I can only echo what all my colleagues have said. But I also affirm our plea to the National Government to seriously consider this part, and to think about what we are talking about when we talk about good employment practices, being a good employer, and how important that is, particularly at a time when 6,300 workers are living with enormous uncertainty. They do not know whether they will have a job in 18 months. They do not know what the rationalisation of their jobs means. That is what the Government has proposed—that their jobs be rationalised by October 2010.

Last night we heard a whole lot of platitudes about how Part 3 was about protecting the workers. Well, no, it actually is not. It may protect the workers who transition at the point of the changeover in October 2010, but I ask how many of them will be left. How many of them will have been rationalised in the meantime? That is why this provision is extremely important. But, in addition to that, I would like to put forward some additional amendments to clause 101, “General principles”, in new Part 10. I propose that we add new subparagraphs (i) to (v) to subclause (1)(a).

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is, I think, the most serious point of order I have taken with regard to chairing in a very long time. Mr Chairperson, in giving the call you went from my colleague Winnie Laban to Darien Fenton. Colin King attempted to take the call at that time. I accept that it is your discretion to call whom you like. What I would like from you is an assurance that you received no comment at all from John Carter—as I thought you did—indicating that you should not accept the closure motion.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is not correct. I have sole discretion over who takes a call. I am impartial in these matters, and that is where the matter ends.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is a long tradition, well established in this House, that calls go from side to side. You chose not to take the call—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I have made my decision. I have sole discretion as to who is given the call.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I am seeking an assurance that you did not get an instruction from John Carter.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is impugning my integrity.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It is.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): It is, and I do not like that. I ask you to withdraw that comment.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We are involved at the moment in a very technical process, which some of us are playing very carefully by the rules, as to the timing of the tabling of amendments. What you have done in your approach has the effect of showing considerable favouritism towards the Government. I want to know—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is completely out of order. I strongly object to that assertion. The discretion as to who takes a call is entirely in the hands of the Chair at the time. I will choose who takes the call—it is as clear as that. I offered the call to Darien Fenton, and she has the call. That is where the matter ends.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think the point the Opposition is raising is a serious one. It is not done to challenge you or your authority, but it is very important that all the Chairs of the Committee are not seen as liaising with the Government in any way. Last evening I was surprised to see you meeting with the chief Government whip and the Clerk of the House at the same time.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I hear what you say; thank you for those comments. I want to assure you that I do not get my instructions from the other side of the Chamber. I am an independent person; I chair the Committee as I see the points that were made earlier by the previous Chairperson presiding as to content, as to delivery, and as to substance. At this stage, I have given the call to Darien Fenton, and that is where the call lies.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I know that I am at some risk in doing this, but the Committee would be entirely satisfied if you gave it the assurance that you did not receive any comment from Mr Carter before he left the Chamber.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You are challenging my ruling, and that is completely out of order. I am impartial; I make the decisions based on how I see the flow of the debate. Whom I choose to speak is at my discretion. That is why I chose Darien Fenton, following Winnie Laban.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: You are not prepared to give the assurance?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Look, I have given you my assurance that I do not get instructions from anybody. You are asserting that I do, and I take strong exception to that.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I accept absolutely what you have said—that you are not getting instruction in any way or taking instruction. But I just wanted an assurance that it is not your practice to meet with the chief Government whip and the Clerk at the same time—that that is not your practice—as I discovered you doing last evening.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well, it is true that you did. I happened to be with the Clerk of the House at the time—just to explain to the Committee—and the chief National whip came in. That had nothing to do, I can assure you, with the process of deliberations last night; it was just fortuitous that we happened to be in the same place at the same time when you came in, and I left immediately afterwards. I can assure you there was nothing untoward in that. Once again, I do take exception to that assertion.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I accept that.

I go back to the amendments I am moving to clause 101, “General Principles”, to add new paragraphs to subclause (1)(a). Paragraph (i) of my amendment states: “The principles of a good employer must include the views of employees”, and paragraph (ii): “The principles of a good employer must respect the democratic rights of employees”. I will go on to the rest of the provisions in a moment, but I tell the Committee that we cannot help but notice how desperately National members have been called on to hold meetings in Auckland, to go and get the views of Aucklanders. You know, there have been big ads in the New Zealand Herald, and those members have been running around. There are some gaps in those meetings, I must say, but the National members have been running around and saying they want to listen to people’s views. Here is a chance for National members to put things right, to go beyond listening to the views of Aucklanders—which, clearly, they have not done—and to ensure that the views of employees are listened to. This is a chance for employees’ democratic rights in the workplace—to have a say in their workplace, to contribute to the change that is happening, to be listened to, and to be treated as partners in the workplace—to be actually affirmed.

Paragraph (iii) of my amendment states: “ The principles of a good employer must include the shared understanding of employees”, and paragraph (iv): “The principles of a good employer must include regular consultation with all employees”. Well, the principle of consultation is well established, but we believe that because of the inability of the National Government to understand what consultation means—and particularly consultation with the people of Auckland—we need to have that written into this bill, when it comes to employees. The word “consultation” means that employers sit down and take the time to share views with their employees. It means they talk about proposals, ask for input on those proposals, genuinely consider the employees’ responses—genuinely consider them—then come to decisions and work with employees to implement them.

The final paragraph in my amendment is that “(v) The principles of a good employer must include a regular statement that no employee”—no employee—“should feel obliged to participate in the making of political videos for the employer”. I wonder why we think we need that! I think the events of the last week have been very, very difficult for the National Party candidate for Mt Albert, and many, many questions are still to be answered about the making of a particular video that stars a particular National MP who is now a Minister. I look forward to hearing the answers to those questions, but I want local government employees of the Auckland Council and the Auckland Transition Agency to be assured that they will not be required to make political videos for Rodney Hide or for the transition agency, with goodness knows who being in those videos. The type of employment practice that National favours was, I think, confirmed last night when it did not support our amendments to Part 3. When it came to giving a voice to workers in the transition authority, National’s call was “if the face fits”—if the face is white, male, and rich.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. During the period of the extended speech when you did not take a call from the Opposition, that amendment was tabled. I want to tell you that the effect of your action was to cause these amendments to be ruled out.

Mr Chairperson, I ask you to have a look at Standing Order 85, because the repeated questioning of the way in which this process is being conducted by a presiding officer is in fact extremely disorderly. Everyone knows that great effort is being made by the Opposition to put up a fierce fight against this bill. That is perfectly reasonable, but it does have to be within the rules. Mr Mallard himself said that his party is paying particular attention—pedantic attention—to the rules, in order to prolong this debate. There is nothing wrong with that, but there is a procedure, Mr Chairperson, that works in this Parliament and that is yours to preserve, and I think that it is time Mr Mallard was informed that his repeated questioning—and Mr Hughes is no better—of the integrity of the person sitting in the Chair is completely unacceptable to this Committee. It is also very disorderly.

Mr Chairperson, I want to take issue with what the Leader of the House has just said, and assure you that your integrity has not been questioned, at all. But, obviously, as the Committee has undertaken its proceedings, there are differences between the Government and the Opposition about the way things should be handled, and the only recourse we have is to you, as the Chairperson, and the other chairpersons as well, to protect the minority. The notion of disorderly conduct, I think, is a red herring, coming as it does from a man who once put down a motion of no confidence in a Speaker. That was the kind of disorderly conduct that member believed in when he was in Opposition. So I think any lectures should not be going that way, at all, and to try to put words into Opposition members’ mouths, because we are taking the opportunity to raise points of order about things we are concerned about, I think is ridiculous.

The Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban had concluded her call. Members on this side were calling. Colin King was calling from National. Mr Mallard’s point was that you, as the Chairperson, did not look at the Government side at all. That is the point that Mr Mallard was raising. That is the end of the matter and you have already ruled on it, so for Mr Brownlee to go back and dredge up those incidents and say that somehow our raising points of order is disorderly conduct is actually a challenge to your authority.

I thank the member for those comments. I act in the interests of the whole of the Committee. We have had a fair run on this bill. There have been more speakers on this part than there were on the first one. We have had a fair range of calls and I have given opportunities to members who have not spoken previously. I quote from Speaker’s ruling 17/7 where it states: “(1) It is out of order for a member to suggest that the Speaker is defending the Government”. I take strong exception to that criticism. I think it is very inappropriate. We will leave it at that and move on, but I just make that point.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This a separate point of order that I deliberately did not raise at the time, because I realised that it was a matter of your discretion. I want to ask you whether it is a new practice, because it is unprecedented in the time that I have been in the House, that when more than one Government member is seeking the call, as was the case when you took the call from Mr Tremain for the closure—another Government member was seeking the call—you accept the closure. I have never seen that in my 25 years in Parliament.

A quick perusal of the Hansard of the Employment Relations Bill debate much earlier this decade will show a similar practice.

We do not need to go into that. It is entirely at the discretion of the Chair as to who speaks and when to accept closure motions. It is entirely the prerogative of the Chair at the time, and I exercised that prerogative. I will now put the amendment.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Rodney Hide to new Part 10 be agreed to:

to omit clause 104.

The Minister’s amendment has now been agreed to. Therefore, the amendments in the name of Darien Fenton are now ruled out as they are inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Carol Beaumont be agreed to:

to insert the following new part:

Part 10

Provisional personnel provisions of Auckland Council and Auckland Transition Agency

101 General principles

(1) The Transition Agency and new Auckland Council must—

(a) operate a personnel policy that complies with the principle of being a good employer; and

(b) make that policy (including the equal employment opportunities programme) available to its employees; and

(c) ensure its compliance with that policy (including its equal employment opportunities programme) and report in its annual report on the extent of its compliance.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a good employer is an employer who operates a personnel policy containing provisions generally accepted as necessary for the fair and proper treatment of employees in all aspects of their employment, including provisions requiring—

(a) good and safe working conditions; and

(b) an equal employment opportunities programme; and

(c) the impartial selection of suitably qualified persons for appointment; and

(d) recognition of—

(i) the aims and aspirations of the Māori people; and

(ii) the employment requirements of the Māori people; and

(iii) the need for greater involvement of the Māori people in Auckland public affairs; and

(e) opportunities for the enhancement of the abilities of individual employees; and

(f) recognition of the aims and aspirations and employment requirements, and the cultural differences, of ethnic or minority groups; and

(g) recognition of the employment requirements of women; and

(h) recognition of the employment requirements of persons with disabilities.

(3) In addition to the requirements, specified in subsections (1) and (2) of this section, the chief executive shall ensure that all employees maintain proper standards of integrity, conduct, and concern for the public interest.

(4) This part applies for three years from the commencement of this Act.

102 Equal employment opportunities

(1) For the purposes of section 101 of this Act, an equal employment opportunities programme means a programme that is aimed at the identification and elimination of all aspects of policies, procedures, and other institutional barriers that cause or perpetuate, or tend to cause or perpetuate, inequality in respect to the employment of any persons or group of persons.

103 Employee context

(1) In this part an employee of a local government does not include a person who, in the context of local government employment, is a casual or temporary employee, other than a long term casual or temporary employee, of the local government.

(2) In this section long term casual or temporary employee of a local government, means a casual or temporary employee of the local government who has been employed by the local government, or by the local government and its predecessor local government, on a regular and systematic basis, for several periods of employment, for at least 1 year immediately before the issue arises as to whether the employee is a long term casual or temporary employee.

104 Appointments on merit

The chief executive, in making any personnel appointments, shall give preference to the person who is best suited to the position.

105 Acting appointments

(1) In the case of absence from duty of any employee (from whatever cause arising) or on the occurrence from any cause of a vacancy in any position in the Auckland Transition Agency or Auckland Council (whether by reason of death, resignation, or otherwise) and from time to time while the absence or vacancy continues, all or any of the powers and duties of the employee or pertaining to the position may be exercised and performed by any other employee for the time being directed by the chief executive to exercise and perform them, whether the direction has been given before the absence or vacancy occurs or while it continues.

(2) No such direction and no acts done by any employee acting pursuant to any such direction shall in any proceedings be questioned on the ground that the occasion for the direction had not arisen or had ceased, or on the ground that the employee has not been appointed to any position to which the direction relates.

106 Application of Part 10 for transferring employees

(1) For employees transferring to the new Auckland Council, this Part applies to any local government in the Auckland Region as defined in Part 1.

(2) For employees transferring to the new Auckland Council, this Part applies to a person as an employee of a local government, other than the chief executive officer of a local government.

107 Prohibition on retrenchment because of reform matter implementation

(1) A local government must not take any action to end an employee’s employment with the local government if the action is taken, whether completely or partly and whether directly or indirectly, because of the taking effect under this Act.

(2) For deciding whether a local government has contravened subsection (1), the reason given by a local government for taking action to end a person’s employment must be considered but is not conclusive.

108 Local government workforce transition code of practice

(1) The Minister will approve codes of practice (workforce transition codes of practice) directed at ensuring the proper transition of local government workforces from any existing local government to any new or adjusted local government as in existence after the changeover day for the new or adjusted local government area.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), a workforce transition code of practice may establish employment terms and conditions for employees, that are consistent with—

(a) firstly, the essential principles stated in subsection (3); and

(b) secondly, the supporting principles stated in subsection.

(3) The essential principles are that—

(a) services delivery levels should be maintained or enhanced; and

(b) as far as possible, the locations at which local government employees perform their work should not be changed.

(4) The supporting principles are that—

(a) employment security for local government employees should be maximised;

(b) local government staff should be retained to the maximum extent achievable;

(c) the impact of reform matters on local government employees should be minimised;

(d) there should be maximum employee involvement in the implementation of the reform matters as they affect employees;

(e) contracts of employment should be honoured;

(f) there should be maximum support given to employees;

(g) employees should be treated fairly and with respect;

(h) merit and equity should apply in all appointments;

(i) there should be prompt and sensitive dispute resolution;

(j) there should be no overall loss of employment across the local government employment sector;

(k) there should be no overall reduction in working conditions for any employee;

(l) there should be no overall disadvantage to an employee in relation to the employee’s working conditions.

(5) It is the responsibility of each local government to ensure, to the extent a workforce transition code of practice applies to the local government, that the local government acts in conformity with the code of practice.

(6) A workforce transition code of practice, whether made before or after the commencement of this subsection, is not subordinate legislation, but is a statutory instrument.

109 When workforce transition code of practice takes effect

(1) The Minister must notify the House of making of a workforce transition code of practice.

(2) A workforce transition code of practice takes effect—

(a) on the day the Minister’s notice is notified or published in the Gazette; or

(b) if a later day is stated in the Minister’s notice or the workforce transition code of practice—on that day.