edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Roy Eric: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Roy Eric: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9305] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: We come to a number of amendments in the name of three different members seeking to include an expiry provision in the bill. In order to deal with these amendments I think a precedent has been set earlier in the day and in line with that particular precedent I wish to test the will of the Committee as to whether it wants to accept these amendments. I propose to put the question on the two extreme amendments and on one amendment in the middle in order to test it. I think that because proposed dates are so far apart we need some middle ground as well. 
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 2010.
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:9305] 
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.
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:9305] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to clause 41 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Tremain Chris: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Tremain Chris: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9318] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I am prepared to entertain another speaker but I invite the speaker to address the bill in the way intended in this debate—that is a summing up.
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:9307] 
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 Grant Robertson to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to add the following new clause: 
44AExpiry 
This Part expires with the close of 23 September 2093.
Bennett Paula: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Bennett Paula: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9302] 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 Just in response to Lianne Dalziel I will quickly say that some of the offences we are talking about are rape arson wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and aggravated robbery. I take members back to some of the well-known and very unfortunate criminals whose string of absolutely dreadful crimes have left victims behind them and who have caused a lot of distress and say that if they could have had DNA samples taken from those criminals back when they were first offending would they not have done that? Would they not have taken DNA samples then to try to prevent those unfortunate and distressing future crimes that have resulted in people being extremely hurt? We are not talking about the light stuff; we are not talking about indictable offences. I know that those questions have been asked. We are talking about extreme and distressing crimes that leave victims behind them. I say that if we could have taken samples then we would have. We should give the police that sort of power and that sort of control. I end by saying that yes there was a moment when I was on my BlackBerry. The member mentioned before that someone who had seen her on TV had commented about what a good speech she had given. I got a message that said it was appalling.
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 clause 3 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. 
Clause 3 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Macindoe Tim: Accident Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Macindoe Tim: Accident Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9288] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I am grateful for a brief opportunity to promote this measure in its final stages through the House. It will be patently obvious to viewers and listeners around the country that we have been treated to some barefaced and shameful rewriting of history by members opposite during the various stages of this bill but the public is not fooled and will not be fooled by the spin because the substance is there for everybody to see. The substance is Labour’s legacy and it is an appalling one. The loss of $4.8 billion as reported in the 2008-09 annual report should leave all members of the previous Government collectively hanging their heads in shame. 
I commend this Minister for ACC and this Government for confronting the appalling problems that Labour not only ignored but also exacerbated during the latter period of its time in office. The options the Minister has confronted were unpalatable but unavoidable. The Minister is charting a prudent and responsible course to rescue and secure a vitally important aspect of our nation’s social infrastructure. New Zealanders will have every reason to be grateful for this measure in the years ahead. I urge all responsible members of this House to give it their full support.
Brownlee Gerry: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9316] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think that it is a fair thing that people do sum up in this title debate but they should at least refer to the title I think. It is all very well to sum up an argument but to advance the same old argument again does step outside that. You have called it right; I am not questioning that but I think that it would be good to hear the title mentioned a few times—or some alternative perhaps. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I thank the honourable member but I tell the Committee that experience has shown that people will mention clause 1 and then go off and mention clause 2 and other things that they can technically make reference to. I hope that members who speak from now on will address the clauses under debate in the nature of a summing up not a relitigation or an advancing of new arguments.
Dyson Ruth: Accident Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Accident Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9292] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a document from the Ministry of Transport outlining the annual motorcycle numbers and injury and fatality statistics between 1973 and 2009—the facts of the situation. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: When was this document released? On which date? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In 2009 by the Ministry of Transport. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is this document already in the public arena? [ 
Interruption 
] Yes it is a point of order. Leave is sought to table this document? Is there any objection? There is objection.
Vote: Accident Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Accident Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9292] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
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. 
Bill read a third time.
Bennett Paula: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Bennett Paula: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9294] 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 To be clear about Part 2 of the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill  clause 41 amends sections 8 18(1) 23(1) and 24C of the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995. The amendments update the circumstances when children may be required or may consent to give bodily samples in order to reflect the changes to the principal Act proposed by the bill. 
Clause 42 amends section 142A of the Criminal Justice Act 1985. The amendment relates to a child who is serving a sentence of imprisonment whether that sentence was imposed before or after the commencement of this legislation. It ensures that after the commencement of this legislation the child may while he or she still is a child be detained under that sentence only in an approved residence as defined under the principal Act. 
This part of the bill is very narrow. It applies directly to those matters. I would be interested to hear whether Labour will support this part. It did support the original Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill and Part 2 merely brings the Act into line with the changes in this bill. Part 2 is a narrow part. We have debated the main part of the bill. I think the clauses in Part 2 are important additions to the bill that we must do.
Tremain Chris: Sittings of the House 
Tremain Chris: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:660;Page:9276] 
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.
Smith Nick: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Smith Nick: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9249] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 One of the rules of the Committee is that members cannot put the same question twice. The amendment that was put forward by Lynne Pillay with regard to that name change was absolutely identical to that which was put forward by Darien Fenton and put to the vote. The normal practice is that it is the first version that is put forward and voted on.
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 the question be now put. 
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. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit “Jurisdiction and”.
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:9266] 
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.
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:9267] 
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 CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I rule all the other amendments in the name of Moana Mackey out of order as they are substantially the same. Next is an amendment in the name of the Hon Steve Chadwick. All her amendments relate to the year 2025. I will put one amendment to test the opinion of the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Steve Chadwick to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) “on the day after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent” and substitute “1 November 2025”.
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:9267] 
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 CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I rule that all the subsequent amendments in the name of the Hon Steve Chadwick are out of order because they are substantially the same as the amendments that have already been disposed of by the Committee.
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:9267] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 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 2 agreed to.
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:9267] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: There are amendments to clause 2 in the name of the Hon Steve Chadwick to insert a new clause 2A. There are 1066 of these amendments and I rule all of them out of order because they are not consistent with the Standing Order that defines a preliminary clause as a commencement clause and if applicable a principal clause in the Act. These amendments propose an expiration clause and should have been in the body of the legislation. They are ruled 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 3 be agreed to.
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:9266] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not hear objection. I saw a nod but did not hear a word. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is a concern about whether I correctly ruled on the matter. I am very happy to put the leave again. Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection
Smith Lockwood: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9262] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the next member I urge members in making points of order to keep them terse. These are not speeches. I realise that members are covering issues that are interesting territory but I would ask members to keep their point of order brief.
Prasad Rajen: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Prasad Rajen: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9296] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a short call on Part 2 of the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill in order to reflect as my colleagues have done on the implications from our perspective of the major change that this bill brings forward: that is the treatment of 12 to 13-year-olds. We are discussing children here. We know the Minister for Social Development and Employment has been very reluctant to use the word children when referring to 12 to 13-year-olds but that is what they are. When we put them into a criminal jurisdiction like the Youth Court then it has a whole series of implications.
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:9262] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 My colleague has outlined the issue very broadly Mr Speaker and I would prefer to make just a couple of very specific points. 
There are three points that I want to make.  
Erskine May 
 is quite clear. If there were a lack of precedent in New Zealand that would be the fall-back position but there is some precedent for this sort of amendment being accepted. My colleague has referred to one instance and I think that if you cast your mind back you would remember that this procedure has been used in the past. Generally it has been negated by the Government; the Government has moved in the way that it can in the Committee to shift the day sometimes by only 1 day. In that way it means that none of the further amendments can be considered. 
I disagree with the Chairman’s suggestion that amendments can be made at the first and second readings in this House. This House as a full House has not had the opportunity to look specifically at that question. This is the time for any amendment to be made. The Chairman is quite right that the select committee could have considered it and possibly if the House was of the mind to then the House could have sent it back to the committee after the report back in order for the date to be reconsidered. But this is the first time that this matter has been specifically addressed. 
My point essentially is that  
Erskine May 
 is a fall-back position that I can accept. My view differs somewhat from that of my colleague in that I think that amendments shifting a date day by day are amendments that are substantially the same. But where there are big gaps between the start and the end point and a wide range of options my suggestion is that the proper thing to do would be to rule many of the amendments out—I could even say most of them or three-quarters of them—but there is enough difference between some of these amendments if we accept the “substantially the same” argument for a range of them to be put to the Committee. 
I know that the ruling being given here is one that will no doubt appear in a green book in the future one way or the other because we are into unprecedented territory and it is my view that in doing so the Speaker should make a ruling that protects the very few rights that the minority has as long as the minority is not being totally unreasonable. I can accept that putting all of these amendments to the Committee would be totally unreasonable but that does not mean that all of them should be ruled out.
Smith Nick: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Smith Nick: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9264] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 As the Minister in the chair I want to make a brief point. In the sense of the relevance of Parliament I would suggest that this is a bit of a try-on. We have 1066 amendments tabled most of which shift the commencement date by 1 day. If the House were to allow every one of those amendments to be put it would take 15 or 16 hours of the time of the 122 members of this House a House that costs over $15000 an hour to run being spent not on debate. New Zealanders expect issues to be robustly debated in the House and I welcome that. But as a pragmatic speaker who has been interested in the quality of this institution of Parliament serving the interest of the public at large I ask whether that interest is best served by spending 15 hours on amendments that would vary the commencement date by 1 day. 
The second point I make is in response to those that have been made by Mr Mallard who said that what the Government needs to do is move the very first amendment to change the date from the date that is in the bill and that way if that is agreed to then the procedure is quite OK. 
My response to that is if that is to be the procedure of the House then that says to Ministers that they should introduce a bill to the House without its intended commencement date then bring it in confusing the public and everybody and then when we get to the Committee stage move an amendment to shift it. In terms of the public purpose of this Parliament for the people of New Zealand I ask how that procedural approach would help the relevance of this Parliament. We would get people submitting on a bill that does not have the date that was intended because we Ministers were forced into a position of cute amendments during the Committee stage to overrule what is nothing more than a sophisticated mechanism that is being attempted to create a filibuster of voting. That is why Mr Speaker my plea to you is to support the Chair and for common sense to prevail.
Smith Nick: Accident Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Smith Nick: Accident Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9292] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table the report received by me as Minister on physiotherapy costs and the disaster that Ruth Dyson brought upon ACC— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No we are not getting— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —in respect of— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We are not getting into debate. The Minister has sought leave to table a document. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
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:9267] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That sounds like an excellent suggestion. Just to clarify you referred to the least radical amendment as being 2007 and the most radical as being 2015. I think you meant the reverse way round: that the least radical would be 2015 and the most radical would be 2027—just so we are clear about what we are voting on. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is right. The House has negated the most radical 1 November 2027 and the least radical is 10 August 2015. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Moana Mackey to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) “on the day after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent” and substitute “10 August 2015”.
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:9260] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: This has to be a substantial— 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: It is a motion. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: A motion. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I move  
That the Chairperson report progress to obtain the Speaker’s ruling on the admissibility of amendments substantially the same as an amendment that had been negatived 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed.
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:9258] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think the shadow Leader of the House raises an interesting point. If I can correct him I say that we have probably had minority Government in this country since about mid-1994. The point is though— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: No 1996. New Zealand First and National— 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: We have if we look at our history. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I want the member to sit down. Mr Hughes has interrupted the point of order. I want him to apologise to the Committee for interrupting. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: He is a young man and he probably does not remember back that far. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Order! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I withdraw and apologise.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
[Volume:660;Page:9270] 
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.
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:9257] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like to get some advice from you about the advice that you are receiving. You make the point that you could change the commencement time from midnight to 3 p.m. or something like that. All those things are technically possible. As I said before those things do not happen because the place operates on understandings and agreements. When things are managed in a way that prevents that from happening for whatever reason—which is still beyond us—those things can fall away and the only— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Shut down select committees; it’s simple! 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Order! 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I was helping. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: No the member was not helping. I ask the member to stand and apologise to the Committee for interrupting. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I apologise to the Committee for interrupting. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The fact is that those arrangements have not been able to be arrived at. Then of course all that the Opposition can rely on are the rules and the procedures that are set out in the Standing Orders. For example it has been possible over time to get up and seek leave to table each individual Standing Order. The Leader of the House himself did that when he was shadow Leader of the House. In fact if you look at the  
Hansard 
 from Thursday 7 April 2005 you will see Nick Smith the Minister in the chair seeking leave to table individual Standing Orders. So these things are not new. 
But I am asking for your advice Mr Chairperson with regard to the child discipline legislation when it was a bill going through the Committee of the whole House. A member moved many hundreds of amendments around the commencement date of that particular bill. They were all accepted and were due to be voted on by the Committee and there was a mechanism the Government used in order to move its own amendment because it was set out separately from the way these amendments are with their reverse date order. There was no suggestion at all that the member’s amendments could not be considered simply because there were so many of them. I think that is the point we are trying to make to you. 
These are items where there is precedent for the way that Parliament votes. Just because we very occasionally—once last year and hopefully just once this year but we are in February so who knows—get into a situation like this I think it is wrong to say that the ordinary rules of parliamentary procedure cannot apply for the Opposition simply because there are so many of them and because that has led to a situation where there is some grumpiness on the other side of the Chamber.
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:9257] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It follows on from that one and is related to it. My colleague has given you the precedent for amendments of this type being accepted. I will accept that there were not as many of them but there were a substantial number of them and they were accepted by the Chair. You have indicated to the Committee that there is precedent for things being ruled out. You indicated that you had had advice to that effect. All I would ask would be for a reference to  
Hansard 
 or 
 Speakers’ Rulings 
 for something as specific as this being ruled out.
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:9257] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I draw the member’s attention to  
Erskine May 
 page 401 on restrictions on contents of amendments: “Various considerations that render amendments out of order have been described earlier. 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 repeat: “substantially the same as an amendment to the same motion which has already been negatived.” 
I would have thought that an amendment that sought to change 1 July to 1 November which was voted down and a second amendment to change 1 July to 31 October were substantially the same. We are talking about 24 hours. The point that is being made here is that the amendments have to be substantially different. These amendments in my view are not substantially different. If it was a matter on which the legislation turned dramatically and the legislation had not been before the Committee before and had not been to select committee the member might have an argument. 
The point I would make to members is that this legislation that been to the House before. It has been canvassed by a select committee and the select committee report came back without any particular sense of outrage about the date. I think the matter has been well canvassed by the House before and these amendments are not substantially different. I say to members that I am not taking any more points of order on that. I have ruled. I have ruled the points of order out and I will proceed to put the vote.
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:9258] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is a new point of order. Of course we disagree but we accept the ruling you have made. 
I raise a point of order with you for future practice about how Oppositions can have some certainty on their amendments and it may be something on which you will come back to us. This is a proportional representational Parliament; since 1998 the Government has been a minority Government and there are shifting coalitions of parties around different bills even within confidence and supply agreements. It has become a feature of our system that minority Governments can regularly be defeated on a particular bill in the House. It is not the end of the world because they have arrangements for confidence and supply elsewhere. 
Let us say you make that ruling because a majority of the Committee voted against for example the date of 31 October 2025 because there was not a majority for that—and there are a lot of amendments in there. If it was the case that a majority of the Committee was in favour of for example 30 April 2025 a 6-month difference which I think would be a substantial enough difference how can the Chair or the Committee know that if as soon as the first vote is taken it is assumed that there is a majority against every single amendment that has been put up by a member? In the shifting coalitions that take place around bills it may well be that a subsequent amendment quite further through the ones that are being put up would be able to find the majority of members of Parliament down the track. You cannot possibly know that at the point you rule out the first amendment. This is an example but it is a broader sort of issue which is why we would be keen for your view. 
It seems to me that the danger we could get into is that this is quite a first-past-the-post model. It assumes that once there is a defeat on the first amendment that is it and there can be no other chance for Parliament to support another style of the amendment that may come down the track.
Smith Nick: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Smith Nick: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9253] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 The senior Opposition whip is being rather cute here. We have 1066 amendments that would involve the Committee in many many hours of debating. The purpose of this Parliament is to have good robust debate. If you allow these amendments Mr Chairperson you are saying that the Opposition can effectively stall the parliamentary process by simply listing a forward date—1 day 2 days or 3 days—and can technically table 20000 100000 or 200000 amendments and force this Parliament to a standstill for what is actually not a principled argument in this Parliament doing as it should which is robustly arguing issues of concern. 
What it effectively will do is say that the Opposition can bring the Parliament and its work to a halt. It can make a farce of the process and it can tie this institution which costs of tens of thousands of dollars every hour in meaningless votes over a whole lot of different dates when really the principal issue is that Labour does not agree with the bill not that it somehow wants to defer it off to 1066 different dates when it might be implemented. We cannot allow our Parliament to be made into a farce. I think the ruling we have had from the Chair is absolutely fair and proper.
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:9252] 
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.
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:9252] 
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.
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:9251] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek your advice about the order in which amendments are dealt with. Is this the Minister’s amendment that deals with clause 1 only— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Correct. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: So the amendments set down for clauses 2 or 3 will be considered subsequent to these ones? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Correct. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: And there is only one set of Minister’s amendments in his Supplementary Order Paper—is that correct? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: We are dealing with the Minister’s amendment relating to clause 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 111 and not with amendments to clauses 2 or 3. OK?
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 “Revised Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2010”.
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 (Urgent Changes) Amendment Act 2010”.
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:9249] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member has made the point. Of course the member knows that in the end the decisions are the Chair’s decisions but as the member also well knows the Chair and the Speaker consult with the Clerk regularly and take the Clerk’s advice which I have done on this particular occasion. We now come to the amendment in the name of Lynne Pillay that I have reinstated. 
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 (Rebalancing Between Non-Work and Work Accounts) Amendment Act 2010”.
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:9249] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Thank you for your ruling. There is just one point that I would like to draw to your attention. Although you are again attempting to inject a sense of humour into the Committee we should make it clear that the judgments that have been made in this case are your judgments Mr Chairperson and not the Clerk’s judgments. It is important to keep that clear even though there is whispering into your earpiece.
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:9249] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I have sought advice gone upstairs to the “TMO” and asked them to look at it. The Hon Dr Nick Smith is correct and Lynne Pillay’s amendment is substantially the same as the one before that was allowed. Normally it would have been ruled out as having been voted on but there is a minor but sufficient difference between them. The Clerk has now considered the advice and the amendment in the name of Lynne Pillay to omit all the words after “substitute” and to insert “Accident Compensation (Rebalancing Between Non-Work and Work Accounts)” will be 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:9248] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: We now move to the amendments in the name of Lynne Pillay. These too propose to amend the proposed amendment to the title of the bill and are also ruled out of order as being either a criticism or a non-objective description of the bill. Those are the views of the Clerk and I support the Clerk’s views. 
The following proposed substitutions in the name of Lynne Pillay are also ruled out of order: “Accident Compensation (Reduced Emphasis on Rehabilitation to Reduce Costs) Amendment Act 2010” “Accident Compensation (Primary of Cost Reduction) Amendment Act 2010” Accident Compensation (Experience Ratings) Amendment Act 2010” “Accident Compensation (Alignment with Commercial Insurance Practices) Amendment Act 2010” “Accident Compensation (Alignment with Australian Practices) Amendment Act 2010” “Accident Compensation (Rebalancing Between Non-Work and Work Accounts) Amendment Act 2010” “Accident Compensation (Non-Work and Work Account Cost Shifting) Amendment Act 2010” “Accident Compensation (Holiday Pay Exhausted Before Compensation Paid) Amendment Act 2010” “Accident Compensation (Removal of Cover For Those Who Attempt Suicide) Amendment Act 2010 “Accident Compensation (Reduction of Cover For Those With Hearing Impairments) Amendment Act 2010 and “Accident Compensation (Removal of Cover For Those Who Attempt Suicide Reduction of Cover For Those With Hearing Impairments Holiday Pay Exhausted Before Compensation Paid and Non-Work and Work Account Cost Shifting) Amendment Act 2010”. Further amendments to change the bill’s proposed title back to the bill’s original title are ruled out of order as that is a direct negative.
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:9247] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think we are getting somewhere on this so please just hear me out. I think Mr Hodgson is putting to you the question of whether there is any test for an amendment to the title by a Government Minister on a bill. Supplementary Order Paper 111 changes the name of the principal Act and gives it an emphasis that does not marry off the other two things that the existing law does: injury prevention and rehabilitation. I think we are trying to ascertain whether an Opposition amendment can be struck out on the basis that it could be perceived as being a negative criticism. In a couple of ones that have been ruled out of order there was no criticism; they were just statements of fact. Does Speakers’ ruling 112/4 apply equally to Government amendments because once we have voted on the amendments to the amendments we are going to shortly vote on an exact example of this from the other side of the Chamber? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is correct in that a Government amendment that was negative would be ruled out accordingly. But as I see the Government’s amendment it is not a negative. It might not traverse the ground the member desires to have in it but it is not in itself a negative.