Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:444] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Generally I think these things would go through relatively smoothly but there are two issues or possibly three— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It’s a wide-ranging debate. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It may be a wide-ranging debate but normally people accept these things although in this case there is no acceptance from members on our side of the Chamber that these provisions are appropriate. There are at least three points that I can think of in this particular area which are very specific starting points for the debate before we broaden it out more generally.  
The first point is whether it is appropriate—and maybe it is appropriate—to have this bill come into force on April Fool’s Day because it is the Government’s intention that the bill come into force on April Fool’s Day.  
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Then why the urgency? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Why the urgency? There is no urgency at all; it is only that the Government is too chicken to allow the bill to be referred to a select committee and have a bit of a debate on it over the summer. The Government is too scared to let its backbenchers hear submissions on the bill and that is the reason why the Government is passing the bill now although it will not come into effect until later.  
It is unusual that the ACT Party intends to move an amendment. It is a support party to the Government generally but it is to move an amendment. ACT of course is trying to save the Government from some of its embarrassment whereby the bill is to come into force in April. ACT would like to see it commence on 1 March next year. I make it clear that the Labour Party will not be supporting the ACT amendment to bring the bill into force earlier. We think that if the bill is to come into force then possibly April Fool’s Day is appropriate.  
But there is a more substantive issue around this bill because members will be aware that a petition is circulating by email and by other means to request that the Governor-General not assent to this bill. I am sure we will have some discussion from the previous Attorney-General and the current Attorney-General on that issue and I make it clear that I am not a supporter of that petition. I think it is the right of the Government once Parliament has passed a bill—in fact some people would say there is an obligation on the part of a Government when bills have been passed—to recommend to the Governor-General that he or in the previous case she assents to the bill. It is part of the constitution that the procedure works in that way in New Zealand. It is an interesting approach when we look at what is happening in Canada. That country is having a substantial discussion on this issue— 
Hon Member 
: On this issue? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is an important issue. It goes to the question of whether assent is given the role of the Government in seeking it and the role of the Governor-General in reacting to recommendations that are made. I think Simon Power will have some experience of that at some stage in the future. Generally it is the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General who makes such recommendations. Every now and again for reasons that are never clear to me that responsibility is passed on to another Minister. I know that because I was the person who recommended to the Governor-General that the Prostitution Reform Bill be— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I would ask the Minister to confine his comments to clauses 1 and 2. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am sorry Mr Chairman; I thought I had made it clear I was talking to clause 2(1) of this bill. I was talking about the bill receiving the Royal assent and the methodology that is required for that to occur.  
I think this is the first time I have known of a petition arising since 1977. I think at that stage there was a petition to the Governor-General as to whether he should assent to the SIS legislation that was going through the House at that time.  
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: “Kiwi Keith” 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: “Kiwi Keith” agreed on one of the few times when he did agree with the then Prime Minister Rob Muldoon and assented to the legislation. But speaking of the not-that-much lamented late Prime Minister Rob Muldoon I tell members there was a very good example from him at least one example of legislation that he did not send to the Governor-General. I am sure the previous Attorney-General will be able to outline the other case. It was a case under the previous National Government of a bill that was passed by this House when Winston Peters was Treasurer. It concerned a bill he was promoting in the area of overseas investment and that bill never made it to the Governor-General— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: No it was assented to. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am told by the previous Attorney-General that in fact it was assented to. But it was not brought into force. I apologise if I misled the Committee because my understanding of the situation was incorrect. The then Government had that bill assented to but subsequently failed to send the Order in Council to the Governor-General that would have brought the bill or presumably part of the bill into force.  
These things may seem to be arcane procedures to some of the newer members but they are quite important matters constitutionally. I was indicating before that in Canada over the last week or so these issues have been— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: We could have a 90-day probation period for bills I suppose. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think that for some bills that would be appropriate. There would have to be some sort of override provision to the 90 days for emergencies and similar things. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Small bills. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I think there should be a 90-day period for long bills— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Less than 20 clauses. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Fewer than 20 clauses; the previous Minister of Commerce’s use of grammar is somewhat mixed at the moment.  
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: She’s been mingling with National Party billboard writers.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: She has been spending too much time with the people who have been drafting the National Party billboards and the people who were talking hard about literacy—although I am not sure that all clauses in this bill are grammatically correct either.  
I think this legislation is called the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2008 but it will be that only when it is passed. I make it clear that it is a question of debate as to whether it is appropriate to call it an Act at this stage when it is not an Act or whether that is premature. In fact it is a question of whether the Minister in the chair is misleading the Committee and asking us to agree to this legislation being described as the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2008 when clearly it is not that and cannot be that until it receives the assent of the Governor-General under subclause 2(1) of the bill.  
In fact parts of this legislation will not come into force until 1 April which I assume will be some time after it receives the Royal assent. The way that these things go in my experience is that within a week or so the legislation will be checked for errors by the Clerk. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What sort of errors? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well grammatical errors spelling errors punctuation errors and clause reference errors. Those things which are regarded as minor errors are within the realm of the Clerk to correct. The assent copy which goes to the Governor-General is in fact the copy that has to be right because the courts will go to that copy later. Being generous to us they will allow the minor errors to be corrected but of course the substantive ones cannot be corrected in that way.  
Going to the Governor-General is an important process. It has a long tradition and the Crown has not always automatically assented to legislation. I think if we go back into the Westminster tradition we find bills were quite often rejected.  
The other point that we could get into is that we have a relatively simple process. Having just a unicameral system—not having an Upper House as many Parliaments do—means we do not need to work bills through to the Upper House and back again. However I understand that as part of the constitutional review the Maori Party has agreed with the National Party that there is a possibility of a two-House system being introduced. 
Hon Member 
: Richard Worth! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We thought earlier in the evening that Richard Worth had died because he was asleep for so long. He did not move for such a long period of time that we were scared that that had occurred.