Robertson H V Ross: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16471] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just for the benefit of members can I say that members must address the provisions of Part 1 and the bill does not provide for self-employed people; therefore if it is related to that then it is out of order. This means that although members may refer to such things in passing they must focus on the provisions of this part. Members cannot make irrelevant matters relevant by suggesting they ought to be included in the bill. I would refer members to Speaker’s ruling 43/4. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. As usual your reference to Speakers’ rulings will be spot on but it does raise this question. That is that a specific policy decision has been made by the Government to exclude self-employed people from the provisions of this bill. On that basis it is perfectly within the purview of the purpose and intent clauses of this bill to refer to matters that have by way of policy fallen outside that purpose and intent of the bill. I would just urge a bit of caution around the tightening of that parameter and by way of comparison say this. Under the old rules members proposed alternative titles to bills in the Committee stage and if your ruling that you have just given was applied in that situation then no other potential title that members suggest in their speeches would be technically relevant. Yet that has always been a contention of this Parliament to allow those types of matters to be—[ 
Interruption 
] What we would ask for on this side of the Chamber is for you to allow some latitude around those provisions of the purpose and intent clauses which allow colleagues and other members in this Chamber to explore issues that have been deliberately excluded from the provisions of this bill. We on this side of the Chamber do not believe that to be an unrealistic expectation during the Committee stage. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I draw your attention to the fact that Supplementary Order Paper 274 in the name of my colleague Bill Gudgeon puts the self-employed back in this legislation. Indeed in the name of my good self there is another that puts the definition. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member and say to him that the amendments themselves are out of order. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I appreciate the issue that has been raised by Mr Brown. I am sure that it will result in fresh points of order. However I draw your attention also to page 3 of the commentary by the select committee which specifically states that several submitters advocated concerns about the self-employed. I do not believe that members in this House can be debarred from speaking on the general issues when the select committee itself has brought to the attention of the House in its own report issues around matters of the self-employed. I am sure that Mr Brown will make further points about his own amendments that deal precisely with the issue that was covered by the select committee in its report. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am just about ready to rule but I will hear the member. Then I intend to make a ruling on this. 
Simon Power 
: I appreciate that. I was just speaking with my colleague Peter Brown who as you will know is the acting chief whip or acting leader of New Zealand First in the Chamber at present. 
Peter Brown 
: I am the senior whip. 
Simon Power 
: The senior whip for New Zealand First referred to Mr Gudgeon and his own amendments and Supplementary Order Papers to this bill. Mr Chairperson I seek your guidance in advising the Committee of a ruling on this issue. Is it correct that amendments or Supplementary Order Papers that are ruled out of order are ruled out of order at the time they are put in the vote or are you now telling this Chamber that those matters can be ruled out of order by you prior to the vote being put which is pretty much what you have just said to the Committee? Therefore you are effectively excluding any discussion on those Supplementary Order Papers or amendments by ruling them out prior to the vote being put. 
Admittedly I have been in this Parliament only—well nearly 5 years and I am coming up to my anniversary on 27 November which is more than the average; but I say this: are you now ruling that you are able to rule out of order amendments and Supplementary Order Papers prior to that vote being put? My understanding is that if that is your ruling that is a departure from the conventions I have been working under since my time here and I would appreciate a considered ruling on that point. 
Sue Bradford 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I also ask for a ruling about why it is that not only are we not allowed to address the amendments proposed by other members but also the commentary itself which was a substantial matter dealt with in the select committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to the member that this is not a debate on the commentary. I want to make a ruling. There are a number of issues here. First members can address wider policy issues in the second and third reading debates. This is the consideration of the detail of the bill. Members can refer to other things but it should not be the focus of their speech. That is the first point. 
Regarding the amendments an issue raised by the honourable members Peter Brown and Simon Power similar amendments were ruled out of order in the select committee. They are also out of order here. As for the third point amendments that are outside the scope of the bill do not widen the scope of debate on the bill. However as I mentioned previously members may refer to such issues in passing but they must focus on the provisions of this part. I have made a decision on that and I intend to move on. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I appreciate your patience on this but it is an important point. My understanding is that the Committee is the master of its own destiny. Are you now saying that amendments that were ruled out in the select committee affect whether those amendments are accepted in a Committee of the whole House? That just cannot be right. This Committee is the master of its own destiny. Surely what occurred in respect of amendments in the committee cannot affect whether this Committee of the whole House makes a recommendation that those amendments or Supplementary Order Papers are now accepted in this forum. That is a very serious departure and will undermine the ability of this Committee to make decisions on those amendments with reference to decisions that were made at the select committee. I would appreciate your considered view on that. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am just about ready. The reality is that I have made a decision on the issue and it is highly disorderly to persist in challenging the Chair when a decision has been made. 
Peter Brown 
: I do not in any way mean to challenge the Chair. However I point out that bills have gone through the House where the select committee has tossed something out and it has come back here and gone into law. I can think of a number of pieces of legislation—accident compensation for one and the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is only if there is an instruction to the House. 
Peter Brown 
: With respect I suggest to you that the public is listening and they will be told through you that the concerns for the self-employed in this instance cannot even be spoken about. In my view that is less than democratic. 
Mark Peck 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think your first point was valid in that you have given a ruling and members are now challenging that. But then there comes a second point. Indeed Mr Power does have a point when he says that the Committee can pass amendments and in fact routinely does. But as will be known to all members in this Parliament where there is an impact on the Crown’s financial position the Minister of Finance is quite entitled to rule any amendment out of order. No matter what the numbers in the Chamber may be it can actually be ruled out of order. It is my understanding that even in doing so those matters can be debated in the Committee but they cannot be put to the vote. That I think will clear that up. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek your guidance on this. You mentioned in your ruling that the select committee had ruled out of order certain amendments members had tabled in the Committee stage. However under Standing Order 239 the proceedings of the select committee are confidential and a number of members sitting in the Chamber here are quite— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The committee has reported on the bill. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: As I understand it the words that you used were not reported in the select committee’s report to the House. I seek clarification that you are not divulging confidential material from the select committee to the Committee of the whole House because that would be a breach of Standing Order 239. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is no confidential material with regard to that matter. I say to members now that the Committee of the whole House is bound by a similar rule as for select committees. We cannot set aside Standing Order 295(2) just as select committees are bound by Standing Order 286(1). Again I tell members that they may refer to such issues in passing but they must focus on the provisions of the bill. I now intend to move on. I have ruled on this issue. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have just spoken to my colleague Bill Gudgeon and he tells me that those amendments were not raised at the select committee at all. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Similar amendments. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You referred to Standing Order 295(2) where the Committee can make amendments that are relevant and are consistent with the principles of the bill. I have no argument with that at all. The point I was making is that if indeed some amendments were removed during the select committee process that does not in itself prevent the Committee of the whole House considering further amendments. 
 What I asked you Mr Chairman was whether this Committee is prevented from having a discussion on those amendments because of activity that occurred at the select committee. I think your last ruling is absolutely technically correct and within the purview of Standing Order 295(2) but I submit to you that that was not my question. My question asked whether this Committee is prevented from discussing amendments that were thrown out in the select committee process. My understanding—and Maurice Williamson sitting on my right will correct me if I am wrong; he is a very senior member—is that the Committee of the whole House is the master of its own destiny and is able to consider any amendment or Supplementary Order Paper that is on the floor of the Committee regardless of what occurred at the select committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is wrong. I have already ruled on that. 
Simon Power 
:That is my point Mr Chairman. You have not ruled on the relationship between the select committee and the Committee of the whole House and that is the ruling I seek. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I repeat the Committee of the whole House is bound by a similar rule as that for select committees. We cannot set aside Standing Order 295(2) just as select committees are bound by Standing Order 286(1). I add for the member’s information that amendments subject to a financial veto are able to be debated under Standing Order 313(4). No similar exception applies here. I now intend to move on. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: I am grateful to my colleagues for that discussion. This is the House of Representatives. We are elected here to speak on behalf of the people of New Zealand and any steps that try to narrow us down are to be deplored. 
I come to the purpose of Part 1 set out in clause 3. I will not discuss paragraph (a) because that applies in particular to teachers in employment although I would quite like the Minister in the chair the Hon Taito Phillip Field to explain what the purpose of the paragraph is. Paragraph (b) applies to a narrow group of employees. Paragraph (c) also appears to apply to a very narrow group of employees as does paragraph (d). Paragraph (e) refers to the duration of parental leave payments for the period from 1 December 2004 to 30 November 2005 which will go from 12 to 13 weeks. 
I would like the Minister in the chair to get to his feet and explain to the Committee why clause 3 sets out a very narrow group of New Zealand parents and why they have been chosen over and above anybody else. They are of course part of the taxpaying public of New Zealand but they are only a small part. Another bigger group of taxpayers has for some reason not been included in clause 3. Clause 3 applies to a very narrow group and we want to know why. Until we know the reason it is very hard for us to support clauses 4 5 6 7 and so forth that make up the balance of the part. 
The Minister in the chair needs to be very much aware that the majority of submissions on this bill expressed concern for the very group of people about whom the points of order were made. The submissions were absolutely right on that point. Those who are self-employed make up 20 percent of the taxpaying public of New Zealand. If we read clause 3 carefully we will see that it is discriminatory. I invite the Minister in the chair to get to his feet and explain why only some parents are included and why others are excluded.