Beaumont Carol: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Beaumont Carol: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3240] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 Labour opposes the use of urgency to ram the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill through the House. The Government is ramming this bill through because it has lost confidence that Aucklanders would support these provisions if it actually consulted with them and asked them. The bill takes away rights from Aucklanders and sets up a small transitional authority with wide-ranging and unchecked powers. I want to be clear that this is not just a technical bill. It does a number of things including removing the right of Aucklanders to vote on the reorganisation of Auckland. 
The bill is in fact a massive power grab for total control over Auckland’s assets. Auckland has $27 billion worth of assets—assets that include some very significant things for us Aucklanders—the Auckland Regional Transport Authority Auckland Regional Holdings Ports of Auckland Metro Water Watercare Services—I could go on. Those are very very significant assets for Aucklanders. A group that we have not heard much about so far but that I intend to focus on is the 6300 or more staff employed by the various local authorities in Auckland. Those people are Aucklanders. Those people are our neighbours and along with their families and friends they are a very significant group of people indeed. I believe that this bill in this form leaves those $27 billion worth of assets wide open to privatisation. There is no protection for those assets. There is nothing to stop privatisation. The transitional authority will have the power to deal with those assets as it pleases. 
This bill as the previous speaker the Hon Dr Richard Worth said has a number of parts. Part 1 removes the current right under the Local Government Act 2002 to poll Aucklanders on their view. Part 2 creates the Auckland Council as a unitary authority. It also deletes all references to current local authorities from existing legislation. 
There has been a lot of mischief on the other side of the House in relation to what Labour’s view on this issue is. We have been clear all the way through that we support greater regional control. We support greater coordination for Auckland. That is why we set up the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. Like other Aucklanders we accept that there was a need for that greater coordination. So despite all the misinformation let me set the record straight. 
The third part of the bill sets up transitional arrangements and they are comprehensive arrangements. First the bill talks about the membership of the Auckland Transition Agency board. It is quite a small group and it is appointed by the Minister. That should give us considerable cause for alarm. Under the transitional authority the chief executive will have significant powers to do a number of things in the next year or so. One of the specific functions under the transitional arrangement will be developing change management plans that include protocols and processes for managing the transition of assets and staff from existing local authorities. I think that the 6300 workers in local government in Auckland—the people whom I spoke about before—are the most important asset of the Auckland local authorities. If this reform of Auckland’s local governance is truly about improving services for Aucklanders—if that is what all of us aim to get out of this—then we must recognise the importance of those who deliver the services that Aucklanders all benefit from. But in contrast to the recommendations of the royal commission that the majority of staff are transferred or rolled over from existing councils without consultation or any process this Government has decided that there will be—that lovely word—“rationalisations”. That equals job losses. 
Paul Quinn 
: Oh get over it. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: I remind members of what the royal commission said about staffing. The royal commission expected that current council staff would form the nucleus of the new organisations. I quote from its recommendations: “One of the 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 the start-up costs for the new organisation and to enable key services to be delivered as usual during the transition.” 
One of the Government members said “Get over it.” Frankly I hope I never get over caring about what happens to workers and caring about the services that they provide. They are people with families. They are our neighbours and our friends. They should be an important part of this conversation. Let me say again that without consultation and without any process this Government has decided that there will be a rationalisation of council staff—in other words job losses. That disregards the recommendations from the royal commission I have just read to members about providing stability for local authority staff. Instead of having the stability that the royal commission recommended we now have 6300 workers and their families from throughout Auckland feeling nervous and uncertain. Government members may not be able to consider what that might feel like but those people are nervous and uncertain in the current economic climate in this country of increasing unemployment. It is a very bad time indeed to have one’s job under threat. That uncertainty will damage the effective operation of our council services. If people feel nervous and uncertain they will not be able to do their job as well as they might. 
In case members opposite have not taken the time to find out about this I can tell them I know that this uncertainty exists because I have spoken directly to council workers and I have spoken directly to their representatives—to their union. Well over 50 percent of the workers in local government are unionised workers. The right-wing - dominated councils have been very hostile to unionisation but despite that over 50 percent of workers in the Auckland local authority areas are unionised. Workers in these uncertain economic times need job security—the certainty of being able to transfer their jobs and to know that there will be no redundancies as a result of these changes. They also need to know that they will be treated fairly and that their current terms and conditions of employment will be maintained. 
Paul Quinn 
: Yes they will be treated fairly. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: I am very glad to hear that from the member opposite. I do not know whether he has the authority to make that statement but he says they will be treated fairly. The success of the transition will depend on having a stable workforce. I repeat that comment. The success of the transition will depend on having a stable workforce. The unions have indicated a willingness to engage constructively in that process. 
I tell members opposite that there is evidence of what I am saying from other reorganisations that have taken place in local government. Queensland is the example that I want to draw to members’ attention. In Queensland last year the number of councils was cut from 157 to 73. In that time it was guaranteed that no council staff below the level of chief executive would lose their jobs for 3 years. So it is possible to make those sorts of commitments. Why did Queensland do that? It did that because it recognised that if restructuring was to achieve the goal of improving local government in Queensland it was essential that it retained workers. It recognised that it was also about maintaining those workers’ wages and conditions. I say to members that is a good example. There was a code of practice drawn up in Queensland that was agreed jointly by all of the parties including the workers and their representatives.