Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7560] 
11.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What has happened since compulsory rest and meal breaks for employees came into effect this year which has led to her proposing changes to that legislation? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Labour) 
: 
 From complaints received by the Minister it has become clear if it was not already that not everyone has a cup of tea at 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. and stops for lunch precisely at 1 p.m. except possibly Parliament when it is in urgency and on most occasions the courts. The changes are aimed at ensuring flexibility in the workplace by allowing employers and employees to time their breaks in a way that does not disrupt their work. The Government does not believe it should restrict the rights of employees to ask their employer if they can skip afternoon tea and go home a little earlier than usual in order to pick up their children from sports practice. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is the Minister asserting that the legislation requires breaks to be taken for tea at 10 a.m. and lunch at 1 p.m.? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I am sorry but because of the interjections I could not hear that. Would the member—and of course it is one law for all of us— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will ask the member to repeat his question because it was hard to hear it. I ask members to be a little quieter please. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is the Minister asserting that the legislation requires breaks to be taken for tea at 10 a.m. and lunch at 1 p.m.? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: What the Minister is asserting is that the current legislation has unnecessary inflexibility. The proposal aims to restore flexibility to the workplace. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why did the Minister vote for the legislation? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: She and the National Party voted for the legislation at the first reading and indeed I spoke on it in the first reading and said it should go to a select committee because it raised important issues that needed to be looked at. We voted against the legislation in the Committee stage because there were some concerns about flexibility but in the overall mix we voted for it at the third reading. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What a shambles! 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I cannot see where the shambles was in doing that and then seeking to improve the legislation when the opportunity arose. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Will the Minister assure the House that she will not move to foreshorten the length of the select committee process? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I can say that the bill that was passed last year went through a select committee process which was very thorough. The current bill is in the nature of a tidying-up. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a point of order? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Yes it is a point of order. It was a very specific question seeking an assurance that the Minister would not move to foreshorten the select committee process. An assurance was not given. No answer was given to that question; there was a repetition of what happened last year. There was reference to this legislation being tidied up but the actual question was not addressed. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I will try to help the member. The issue is what “foreshorten” means. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has made it clear that he was not sure what the member meant in his question by asking about the process being foreshortened. If the member wants to—[ 
Interruption 
] If it will assist the House to get the information I invite the member to reword his question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that she will not move as part of the referral motion to a select committee that the bill have a shortened period for the report back? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I am no expert in parliamentary procedure but I would have thought that was a matter for the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Again that was a very specific question about whether the Minister would move a motion. That motion is not a matter for the House; it is a matter for the Minister. The Minister makes a decision on that motion. How the House votes is a matter for the House to decide but is there an assurance that the Government will not move to cut workers out of their rightful— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not acceptable in a point of order. It would seem that what is happening here is that a hypothetical question is being asked about what the Minister may or may not do. The Minister has pointed out in answering the question that finally that is a matter for the House. That is as I understand it a fair answer to the question. If the Minister believes that helpful information can be added to assist the House I am happy for the Minister to do that but he would need to do that now if he wishes to do so. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I believe that under the circumstances given that it is a hypothetical question I cannot insist on a clearer answer than that. The Minister answered the question by saying it was a matter for the House at the end of the day and that is a fair answer to the question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I fear the member is about to litigate the quality of an answer— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I know that I am sailing slightly close to the wind. It is not a matter though for the House as to whether a Minister moves something; that is something for a Minister to do. A Minister must at the end of the first reading of the bill which is currently sitting on the Table and will soon be up for its first reading move a motion. The movement of that is not a matter for the House and the detail as to whether there is a short select committee process is something for the Minister to include in the motion not for the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I take the matter any further I say my dilemma is that it is a hypothetical question. When a Minister moves that motion at the end of the first reading the Minister will not necessarily spell out the report-back time at all; the Minister will spell out the committee to which the bill is to be referred. This is a hypothetical question because the Minister is not required to specify that matter when the motion is moved so I believe that I cannot force the Minister to answer it in that kind of detail. The Minister has in my view given an adequate answer by pointing out that at the end of the day that is a matter for the House.