edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hague Kevin: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hague Kevin: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9212] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on this proposed new Part 3 of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. The principle of reviewing legislation that comes in to do something experimental or something unexpected to legislation is an extremely sound one and I think that David Parker has proposed a great addition to this bill. It would be fair to say that pretty well every submitter and indeed officials at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee accepted that some of the changes that the bill introduced to the operation of the accident compensation scheme did not change the actual cost of rehabilitation or of compensation but shifted where that cost fell. In particular they shifted the cost of rehabilitation from accidents and injuries away from Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) and towards other Government agencies—the Ministry of Health in some cases and the Ministry of Social Development and Work and Income in some other cases. But most particularly—which is for us I guess most concerning—the legislation shifts costs away from the State and back to injured persons and their families. 
That shift is a fundamental worry and concern for the Green Party. I spoke yesterday about our commitment and support for the social contract that lies at the very heart of the accident compensation scheme in which New Zealanders gave up their right to sue in return for a 24/7 no-fault scheme that would provide full compensation and full rehabilitation based on the principles that were outlined in the Woodhouse report. The criticism of this bill that has come from the Green Party has been that those principles have been nibbled away at. Those principles including full rehabilitation and real compensation are ones that have been eroded by this bill. Therefore the cost shifting on to injured people the re-victimisation of the injured is of fundamental concern. But right now we are unable to quantify that. We do not know how big that impact is. So the idea of having an annual review is of fundamental importance since as Sue Moroney said in passing this bill under urgency—as I am certain that this House will do unless Government benches are struck with a bolt of enlightenment in the next day or so—there is the very real possibility of unanticipated and unquantified impacts on injured people. A review provision is a sensible one for any legislation but particularly so for this legislation which so fundamentally changes the relationship between citizens and the State. Thank you.
Woodhouse Michael: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Woodhouse Michael: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9211] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9210] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Hughes Darren: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:660;Page:9204] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am grateful to my colleague Mr Mallard for giving me the opportunity to put this point of order to you now in order to save time because we are still in the Committee of the whole House and his matter is a separate one. My point of order goes to Speaker’s ruling 7/1 in relation to seating and the attendance of members in the Chamber and it particularly refers to an item brought before the House in 2003 by Mr Dunne the member for Ohariu in respect of the positioning of members of Parliament when moving motions in the Chamber. Matters of seating in the Chamber are at the discretion of the party leader and in most cases are delegated to the party whip but Mr Dunne raised a point of order during the debate on the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill that challenged the ability of members of Parliament to move a closure motion from a seat other than that which had been allocated to the individual member. Mr Bennett is not normally allocated the junior Government whip’s seat or indeed a seat anywhere near the executive seats. That is not where his seat in the Chamber is. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not say that to be unfair or unkind; I am just making the observation that his seat— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Points of order will be heard in silence please. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I am sorry; I did not mean to cast aspersions on the member in any way. I am saying that for members to move a closure motion they should be seated in their own allocated seat as Mr Dunne pointed out in 2003 and I ask you Mr Chairperson to rule on whether it was appropriate for you to accept the closure motion from that member given that he was not in his seat. I believe that Mr Tremain had not exhausted all four of his calls and would be in a position to move a closure motion. The Hon Mrs Collins is seated in her correct seat; she would be able to move a closure motion. Te Ururoa Flavell is always extremely helpful to National and I am sure he would be able to do so. Mr Garrett is an entirely different matter but everyone else could have assisted in that respect.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9210] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Amendments agreed to.
Barker Rick: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9209] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The question is that the question be now put.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Question Time—Leave to Hold in Urgency 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Question Time—Leave to Hold in Urgency 
[Volume:660;Page:9209] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A member has under a point of order sought leave that a question time be held today under the conditions the member has outlined. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.
Hughes Darren: Points of Order — Question Time—Leave to Hold in Urgency 
Hughes Darren: Points of Order — Question Time—Leave to Hold in Urgency 
[Volume:660;Page:9209] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a completely separate point of order but we need to do this now because you are here and we will not be seeing you for a while. I seek leave for there to be a question time at 2 p.m. today with all questions being lodged with the Office of the Clerk by 12.30 p.m. today. Otherwise there will be no question time until 17 March and no chance for the public to have Ministers called to account.
Barker Rick: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Barker Rick: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:660;Page:9205] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I come to the point of the member’s point of order. His contention was that a member of this House can undertake the functions of this House only from his or her allocated seat. If that were accepted as a legitimate point of order I think it would have implications well beyond this matter and I will come back to that in a moment. Firstly I think it is the custom and the practice for members to move about the Chamber and sit in other seats to conduct their business. Very often both Labour and National members give speeches from seats that are not theirs. The Chair always recognises them and accepts their speeches from there. The chief Opposition whip well knows that from time to time the whips’ seats in the Opposition are vacated and neither of the whips sits there and other members cast votes on behalf of their particular party. If the member’s point of order was to be accepted it would mean that on no occasion could the Chair accept a party vote from the Labour Opposition if anybody other than the whip was sitting in the whip’s seat. Of course that is a nonsense. No one would accept that. I think the custom is that people are able to move motions and speak from other seats and I have no intention of disturbing that custom. I rule that it is perfectly in order for Mr Bennett to move a closure motion from a seat other than his own. Mr Mallard has given notice of a point of order. Are we ready to go?
Tremain Chris: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Tremain Chris: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:660;Page:9206] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I understand that if a vote is called for we have the right to— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You didn’t call for a vote. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I said “No” but the Chair said that the motion had been moved. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It had been carried. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Well I call for a party vote then.
Barker Rick: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Barker Rick: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:660;Page:9206] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I want to say two points to the member about this. It is one of the conventions of this House that if a party wants the Speaker to be recalled members support that. If the member seriously wished to challenge it he should have called for a party vote and disputed it. The member did not; he just said he was opposed and I took it at that. The member was required to take the next step and say: “Party vote called for.”; the member did not. I then said that the Speaker was recalled; the Speaker has been recalled. End of story. 
House resumed.
Smith Lockwood: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Smith Lockwood: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:660;Page:9208] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank honourable members. Let me preface my ruling by pointing out Speaker’s ruling 65/4 which states that it is not for the Speaker to second-guess the Chair’s judgment on a closure motion. I make that point at the start because I will not make any comment in respect of the acceptance of the closure motion. That is solely the judgment of the Chair. I do want though to address quickly the technical issues leading up to that acceptance that members have raised. The first one is the question of whether a member can move the closure from a seat that is not the member’s allocated seat. There is nothing in the Standing Orders that prevents a member from doing that. As the Chair pointed out to the Committee at some length there is nothing that prevents that and members are well aware that the House would not work very effectively if everyone had to run back to his or her own seat before being able to do such things. 
In respect of the second point on the actual words used from what I understand took place the member moved that the question be now put in the correct form as required by Standing Order 132(1). The Chair at the time accepted that. I think from what I have heard that there is no reason for me to rule that it was in any way out of order. To suggest that to say thank you is to make a speech is a little unfortunate. Courtesy in this House is something I have been trying to encourage. Having said that I think it is worthwhile that members have raised the point. Members do need to be aware when moving the closure motion that there is a proper form and that it should be used. I am not in any way criticising members for raising the point but I think the ruling of the Chair is absolutely proper on this occasion. 
In respect of the third point about whether the member was entitled to move the closure motion given that he had already had a call the Standing Orders make it very clear that a member can make a number of calls and can move the closure in any of those calls as long as the Committee has not already made a decision on the matter. I will hand back to the Chair at that point having clarified that point. 
Debate interrupted.
Mallard Trevor: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Mallard Trevor: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:660;Page:9207] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thank the Chair; I think it was a good summary of the facts. It is not my intention to take up either the first or the third point of order with you Mr Speaker although my colleagues may. The reason I asked for you to be recalled relates to a very narrow question on which there is considerable precedent. It goes to whether when people are invited to move a closure they are allowed to add words. As the Chair has indicated words were added. I have had experience in the past of closure motions that I have moved being ruled out because I had thanked the Chair for giving me the call. Moana Mackey has indicated that she—obviously in much more recent times; I made my mistakes in this area a long time ago—when Mr Hunt was Speaker had a closure motion ruled out because of her adding a courtesy before moving it and therefore being held not to have used the strict form. 
I know the current Chair is a stickler for courtesy and he thinks it is very important; generally I accept that it is important for the House. However there is longstanding precedent on this particular issue that nothing—nothing—should be added to the closure motion because when something is added to the closure motion it changes it from being a closure motion to being a speech. That is the difference: a member cannot speak and then move a closure motion as part of the same call. If one makes a speech one has to get the call on a separate occasion in order to move the closure motion. It is a relatively simple thing. I am not criticising Mr Bennett for being polite but just saying that in this particular case his form of the closure motion meant that his moving of it was not within the strict rules. Certainly the precedents that I am aware of have all been in that direction; certainly I and Ms Mackey have had closure motions ruled out for exactly the same thing—for thanking the Chair. 
My request to you Mr Speaker is on that point. I will leave it there because I do not want to argue the positioning point of order which I happen to disagree with but there is clearly a differing view on it as well.
Mallard Trevor: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Mallard Trevor: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:660;Page:9204] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My point of order is only to give notice that it is my intention to recall the Speaker on that but my colleague Mr Hughes has another point that he would like to deal with just in case both of them can be dealt with by the Speaker at the same time.
Bennett David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Bennett David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:660;Page:9203] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Barker Rick: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Barker Rick: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9260] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Mr Speaker during the Committee stage we had a number of amendments in the name of Steve Chadwick to amend clause 2. These amendments seek to change the commencement date and there is a whole sequence of them. The first amendment seeks to delete “1 July 2010” and insert “1 November 2010”. The next amendment seeks to insert “31 October”. We then move from 31 October to the 30th the 29th the 28th the 27th—a very good day in October I might add—the 26th and we go on. We tested the Committee on the first amendment and the Committee defeated it. I then ruled that the rest of the amendments were out of order. I ruled them out of order on the basis of Erskine May’s  
Parliamentary Practice 
 page 401 which states: “An amendment is also out of order if it is inconsistent with an amendment already agreed to or if it is substantially the same as an amendment to the same motion which has already been negatived.” I ruled that the amendment to insert “31 October” was substantially the same as the amendment to insert “1 November” as was the rest of the sequence of amendments. 
The Opposition has claimed that in doing this I am stopping its right to move amendments. I do not think I am at all. Opposition members are still free to move their amendments. I think the ruling I have made is consistent with previous Speakers’ rulings. 
The other matter raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard is that in actual fact the House has not had the opportunity to test the dates. My response to him was that the House has already seen this legislation at its first reading. It has been to the select committee which has also considered the matter of the date. The bill has come back for its second reading and the House has passed it on all three occasions. In doing so the House has determined that the legislation in general including the date is suitable. 
In my opinion the Committee has the ability to consider these amendments and I would have thought that if a member had an amendment to make to the date there would be quite a substantial amount of discussion on it during the rest of the Committee stage because points in parts of the legislation turned on this. I did not hear that. I would have thought that if there is to be an amendment to the date there would be a range of arguments that said that changing the date was substantially important because of these reasons. I did not hear that. I felt that the Committee was being tested piece by piece and that there was no substantial difference between one amendment and the next one. I have accordingly ruled out the amendment. I may wish to come back to you with some other comments later but that is the essence of the situation as I understand it. I am sure you will hear from both Opposition and Government members as to their views on it.
Mallard Trevor: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Mallard Trevor: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:660;Page:9205] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move that the debate do now adjourn in order to get a considered ruling from the Speaker 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The question is that the Speaker be recalled. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No that the Committee do now adjourn in order to get a considered ruling from the Speaker. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I think there is a technical fault with the member’s resolution. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It was a good go though. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The point is that the Committee cannot adjourn. If the member wishes to move that the Speaker be recalled because of a dispute over the Chair’s rulings he is perfectly entitled to do that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I would like to do both. You could start with the first one we will have a vote on that then I will move the second one. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: There are lots of things we would all like to do. I would like to have Christmas every day of the year and receive gifts but that is not the way life is. I ask Mr Mallard whether he wishes to have the Speaker recalled; if so he should move that and I will put it to the Committee. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I move  
That the Chairperson report progress to obtain the Speaker’s ruling on the Chairperson’s acceptance of a closure motion on the question  
That Part 2 stand part. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9306] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to add the following new clause: 
43AExpiry 
This Act expires with the close of 31 July 2042.
Barker Rick: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Barker Rick: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:660;Page:9203] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I am advised Mr Hughes that a closure motion is not a call per se so it does not affect the member’s calls. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will firstly give my ruling then come back to the member. The advice I was given has been corrected. A closure motion is a call. There is no question about that. That accords with how I understood it. My advice is that a member can move a closure motion more than once provided that the member does not take more than four calls. There is a limit of four. I am just checking my notes and I think that Mr Bennett has not made four calls but I shall ask the Clerk to double-check. The Clerk and my notes concur. This is Mr Bennett’s second call on Part 2. Mr Bennett has made one call previously so he is within— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You can’t trust the whips! 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I am not worried about what the whips’ records say. They are utterly immaterial. It is my notes that count and no correspondence is entered into. My notes say that there have been two calls. Mr Bennett has moved a closure motion—his second—which he is entitled to do.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9268] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Amendment agreed to.
Tremain Chris: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Tremain Chris: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:660;Page:9207] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I think a point of clarification is important in reaching a ruling here. The words that were used were simply “Mr Chair”; there were no other words and no thankyous. Those words were used at that point in time when there was some noise in the Chamber to make clear that the closure motion was read exactly as it should have been following the words “Mr Chair”. The second point I make is that in reading through the Standing Orders I see that at no point do they state that adding other words disqualifies the closure motion and as a result I believe that what was said was in keeping with the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings and that the closure motion should have been accepted.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9250] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
Barker Rick: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Barker Rick: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:660;Page:9204] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member makes three points. Firstly he claims that the motion moved by Mr Bennett was rejected by the Committee. That is not correct. The motion was not accepted by the Chair. That does not mean it was rejected by the Committee. It was the Chair’s decision. Secondly Mr Mallard raised a point about the manner in which the question was framed—Mr Bennett’s putting in the words “Mr Chair”. I think that is a matter of courtesy and respect and I would not knock out a closure motion for that. If a member thanked the Chair for listening to his point of order again I think that is being courteous and I would not discount a member’s motion for good manners. Good manners should be encouraged by everybody. 
The question is that the question be now put. I will put the question because we have had 2 hours and 40 minutes on Part 2 which is a rather technical part and I think we have had a very good debate.
Mallard Trevor: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Mallard Trevor: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:660;Page:9204] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is a separate point of order and it goes to whether a member is entitled to move the same motion twice. I can see that you are getting a nod Mr Chairperson but from my understanding of the situation in the past other members are able to move the same motion—and this is not something restricted to a closure motion; it is something that is general—but a member having moved a motion once and having had it rejected by the Committee I question whether that member is allowed to move exactly the same motion again. I want to add one other point here as to whether the closure motion was appropriately moved because as you are aware one is not allowed to add words to the motion. After the member had received the call he said the words “Mr Chair”. He had the call—he had called for it he had called “Mr Chair” and you gave him the call—and he said “Mr Chair”. 
Darien Fenton 
: He said “Thank you Mr Chair.” 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I did not quite hear “thank you” but he certainly said “Mr Chair”. I am advised from behind that he said “thank you”; I heard the “Mr Chair”. My question is whether those are additional words that obviate his ability to move a motion in the proper form.
Tremain Chris: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Tremain Chris: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:660;Page:9201] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Mackey Moana: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9256] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Oh this will be good! 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: We will have quiet. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: After you anything would be. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I call for order. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: There are a number of amendments in my name and I want to assure the Committee that they are not frivolous or time-wasting. They are serious amendments in my name and I ask to be taken on my word as an honourable member as we had to do for Mr Gerry Brownlee when he said he had official advice. These amendments are not time-wasting or frivolous and I reject that implication. They are serious amendments and I ask to be taken on my word as an honourable member.
Brownlee Gerry: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9255] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 That was not a point of order; it was a highly political statement and an attack on you Mr Chairperson and the Chair. No one would seriously believe that the series of amendments that the Labour Party has put up are the work of people who are strenuously engaged in trying to get better legislation. It is the ultimate filibuster. I think the fact that the Government is able to set aside some of the silly defensive moves that need to be taken because of what the Opposition should do is something that New Zealanders should be proud of. They need to see the Labour Party for what it is and what it is doing right here today. 
The fact is that Labour members are shrugging their shoulders and saying that we will be here for ever—well that is OK—and that we should have had a question time today. We should also have had select committees sitting today if there was going to be a question time but the Labour members do not consider them to be important at all unless it is something that they want to do themselves. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is straying into the very area he accused the Opposition of straying into: being political. I have given the member as much latitude as I am going to on this matter. If the member wishes to make a point of order he should make the point of order be terse and be direct to the point he is seeking to make. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: My point is that I think for the good order of the Committee if there has been by way of a vote an expression about the desire of the Committee to accept a particular date as being the date we work with then it becomes utterly frivolous for the Committee to continue suggesting other dates. That is the way you have ruled and I think it is absolutely appropriate.
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9320] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Goodhew Jo: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Goodhew Jo: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:660;Page:9192] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Bennett David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Bennett David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:660;Page:9199] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hodgson Pete: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9247] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 Oh no that is not the point. If I might gently contest your view I say to you that that is not an answer to my question either. The question is: if an Opposition moves something that is in essence accurate—that is to say accurate in the terms that it is serious—but is nonetheless pejorative in the sense that it is critical because Oppositions do that sort of thing does that fall within the Standing Orders? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member has answered his own question. I will pick up Speakers’ ruling 112/4 and read it: “An amendment to the title of a bill must be a serious or objective description of the bill rather than an attempt to criticise its contents.” A pejorative by definition is a criticism; it is a negative. So by the member’s own words his objection fails because it does not meet what Speakers’ rulings have ruled before.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9251] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: We come now to an amendment in the name of Carol Beaumont to change the name of the Act to the Accident Compensation Corporation (Urgent Changes) Amendment Act 2010. But that title is so close to one in an amendment in the name of Lynne Pillay that we have already voted on—to change the name to the “Accident Compensation (Urgent Changes) Amendment Act”; the title is almost identical—that I rule the amendment out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 111 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 1 be agreed to.
Parker David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Parker David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9229] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am not trying to be difficult. My confusion about the amount that the Committee was told is material. Is it the cost of each of these reviews or is it the cost of all of them? It is a relatively simple question that I thought we should be able to get an answer to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: This is my interpretation of it. We have trolled through this area and established some principles around it. The Leader of the House has said to us that each of the amendments has an impact on the fiscal aggregates. We have also established that there is no threshold of triviality so we simply accept it. The Leader of the House of his own volition gave some numbers. I am prepared to accept his word that each of the amendments has an implication for the fiscal aggregates. I have accepted it on that basis.
Pillay Lynne: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Pillay Lynne: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:660;Page:9176] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 That was a very good speech. I congratulate my colleague Darien Fenton on outlining very very clearly some and I say only some of the major pitfalls and major claw-backs in the bill. When we negotiate in workplaces “claw-backs” is what these clauses are commonly known as. If we look we see that these are conditions and rights that the previous Labour Government reinstated to hold with the principle that the accident compensation scheme should be a no-fault system a social contract when people are injured. All New Zealanders have felt very very proud of that system. It has worked and it is not broken. I note that Pansy Wong the Associate Minister for ACC is the Minister in the chair. I have not heard Pansy Wong speak on this before and she should take a call. Nick Smith’s contribution yesterday is probably why we are not hearing that contribution now. It was absolutely appalling. It was offensive to many people and certainly to all people on this side of the Chamber.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:660;Page:9276] 
Sittings of the House 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to lift early for the dinner break returning at 7 p.m. to continue in urgency. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9250] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Lynne Pillay to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 111 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit “Accident Compensation Amendment Act 2010” and substitute “Accident Compensation (Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation) Amendment Act 2010”.
Points of Order — Question Time—Leave to Hold in Urgency 
Points of Order — Question Time—Leave to Hold in Urgency 
[Volume:660;Page:9209] 
Points of Order 
Question Time—Leave to Hold in Urgency 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a completely separate point of order but we need to do this now because you are here and we will not be seeing you for a while. I seek leave for there to be a question time at 2 p.m. today with all questions being lodged with the Office of the Clerk by 12.30 p.m. today. Otherwise there will be no question time until 17 March and no chance for the public to have Ministers called to account. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A member has under a point of order sought leave that a question time be held today under the conditions the member has outlined. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.
Visitors — United Kingdom—Rt Hon Lord Hunt of Wirral House of Lords 
Visitors — United Kingdom—Rt Hon Lord Hunt of Wirral House of Lords 
[Volume:660;Page:9223] 
Visitors 
United Kingdom—Rt Hon Lord Hunt of Wirral House of Lords 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Rt Hon Lord Hunt of Wirral MBE of the House of Lords of the United Kingdom is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed.
Hughes Darren: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9249] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 The difference between the two amendments is that one was for an Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation name for the principal Act and the other one was for an Accident Compensation name for the principal Act. So they were two different amendments.
Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
[Volume:660;Page:9270] 
Business of Select Committees 
Meetings 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 My apologies to the speaker who is about to make a contribution to the debate but commensurate with a Business Committee decision I need to seek leave of the House for the Health Committee to meet outside New Zealand with its counterparts in Australia from 8 to 11 March 2010 as part of the annual joint committee exchange with Australia. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.
Barker Rick: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Barker Rick: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9256] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will not suggest that anybody is dishonourable; I will not make any of those implications. I will make several points about this. 
Firstly the ruling that I have made is I understand from the Clerk consistent with other decisions that have been made previously. If members doubt that then they are perfectly entitled to use the well-worn process of challenging the Chair’s decision. I also come back to the point made by the Hon Darren Hughes that this ruling somehow takes away members’ rights to move amendments. That is not the case at all. Members have the unfettered right to move amendments. Whether they are accepted by the Chair is another matter but it does not stop members’ ability to move amendments. 
The next point I come to is about the date and House procedure. Mr Mallard is not correct in saying that the House has made no decision about the date at all; the House has made a decision about the date at the bill’s first reading and second reading. The bill has been before the House and has been passed including the date on two particular occasions. A further point I make is that the bill has been before the select committee and has been through a select committee process. This bill is nothing new to the Committee. Whether or not members like it the fact is that the material has been through the House and has been well thought through. 
Another point I make about the date is that the amendment to change the date one day at a time would have meant that we could have had enormous numbers of amendments that do not change things particularly at all but are substantially the same. The Committee could find itself in the position of not only just changing the date. We could go through every minute of the day saying that instead of midnight it was 11.59— 
Moana Mackey 
: They could but they do not. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I am not saying they do; I am saying that we could get to this point. The issue here is substantiality in my opinion. Does it substantially change the issue or not? This sequence of amendments does not substantially change the legislation; it makes minor amendments to test it. As to the point made by Mr Mallard about the previous events those were tactics. They were not precedents; they were tactics to change things. 
So I think that the key part of this has been that the House has seen this legislation on two occasions before and has seen it through the select committee. The House is well familiar with it. The ultimate test will be whether the Committee accepts it as it is going to vote shortly on the actual date. That will be the test. If the Committee rejects the date it is over. The point is that the date is well understood. I propose to continue with the ruling that having voted on one amendment to change the date to have a succession of amendments that marginally change the dates is out of order.
Hughes Darren: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Hughes Darren: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:660;Page:9203] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This point of order does not relate to the usual point of order taken at this time to try to influence your decision. I seek some clarification about the new Standing Orders. If a member has contributed to the debate at any one point if a member has used one of his or her four calls to debate the part under the new rules that member is entitled to move a closure motion. There is no question about that. This member has of course having been a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee exercised that right. But this member has previously moved a closure motion and I am unclear as to whether that pushes him over the four calls that he is entitled to or whether he is now able to move a second closure motion his first one not having been accepted by you and having been participating in the debate.
Hughes Darren: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9249] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. One of the amendments to the Minister’s proposed amendment that you ruled out of order was the Accident Compensation (Rebalancing Between Non-Work and Work Accounts) Amendment Act 2010. There was a similar amendment in Darien Fenton’s name which had that same language about a rebalancing between the non-work and work accounts and which you allowed previously. 
Maybe while you are checking that Mr Chairperson I will also raise a point about the reference to “Experience Ratings”. Does that fall into the same category as your earlier ruling about it—that of being only one part of the bill? It seems to me that that is not pejorative in any sense; it is a scheme that is funded by that method. But my primary point of order certainly relates to the amendment with regard to “Rebalancing Between Non-Work and Work Accounts”.
Mallard Trevor: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9255] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Of course I accept that you can do more than one thing at once. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member well knows that one is not allowed to refer to a ruling on a point of order that has been dealt with. The member is relitigating the issue that he raised before. I ask the member to come to his point of order and make his point of order tersely. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There is a long-established method of dealing with changes in commencement dates for a Government that is awake and that is for itself to move an amendment that rules the amendments out. That has been done here in the past; it was done last year and the year before by a Government faced with this situation. 
The fact that John Carter is not here to run things for Mr Brownlee and that the Government was caught flat-footed should not be an excuse for it to hide behind this approach. I am sure that the Speaker will be involved in this matter—well I am not sure because you might see reason but it is likely. There is a precedent in this matter. The precedent in the past has always been that the Government deals with this through the tools that it has rather than having the amendments ruled out. It has been caught flat-footed and it is my view that it is not your job Mr Chairperson to protect them for that.