- John Banks and his council can handpick Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga’s successor when he resigns from the Auckland City Council over the next couple of months rather than have a by-election.
- Paid parental leave entitlements are lost for thousands of current council employees because there will be a new employer and no carry forward provision as was provided for Kiwisaver.
The offer for a three or four week select committee with about a weeks hearings in Auckland remains open. If the NACTs agree we will finish within an hour or so.
Well, ssuggest a constructive amendment, then.
Labour has got no right to moan about democracy when it is trying to subvert the democratic process – ie, we have a parliament that’s main aim is to pass laws. If parts of parliament don’t like the law, or the process, they can either vote against it or provide constructive amendments
The employees of existing local government organisation do not become employees of the Auckland Transition Agency, indeed clause 13(4) makes clear that even when employees are seconded to the Agency, they remain employees of their existing local government organisation.
It is the next transfer that is important for staff who are pregnant or considering becoming pregnant.
@dave
Thats what the house is debating now.
This certainly isn’t how the speeches sounded. If it’s a concern with what will happen in October next year it’s not as urgent as everyone was making out.
Why is there a Kiwisaver carry forward if no carry forwards are required? Surely if there are any carry forwards there should be all the necessary ones.
U got it Anita.
The point I took from the speeches is that because the bill wasn’t sent to a select committee and wasn’t even shown to MPs until the debate started it’s very hard to tell what the implications of the provisions are. On the face of it, the paid parental leave looks problematic. But maybe it’s not. Be good to have the chance to get submissions on it and advice from the Employment Relations Service part of the Department of Labour.
Perhaps because the way the Kiwisaver law is drafted one is required, but because of the way the parental leave law is drafted one isn’t?
Also, having heard Labour speeches on the preliminary clauses, I am quite confident that the concerns being raised in those speeches are dealt with by my first comment. All the concerns being raised were about the consequences of the bill on employees under the Auckland Transition Agency.
On another point … have multiple-amendment filibusters now been rendered obsolete?
I’ve no idea at what time the Minister’s amendments were received by the Office of the Clerk, but I’m surprised that – if there was enough time – that multiple amendments weren’t proposed to that amendment instead of (or in addition to) proposed amendments to clauses 1 and 2.
p.s. will someone be moving to recommit the bill, after Hide’s third reading speech?
There’s quite a history relating to filibusters and Super-City creations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster
“John Banks and his council can handpick Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga’s successor when he resigns from the Auckland City Council over the next couple of months rather than have a by-election.”
aha…. now we know why he hasn’t resigned from the council yet, he is planning on saving us the cost of a by-election.