edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
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:9266] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I am now confronted with exactly the same decision as I was before. I am mindful that the Speaker has supported my previous ruling which was to rule these amendments out because they are substantially the same as the amendment the Committee has already negated. I am of a mind to test the Committee’s opinion. I have two conundrums here. One is that the Speaker has said that the matter will be referred to the Standing Orders Committee so as to give the Chair discretion. I will stick with that decision because I think the Standing Orders Committee needs to make a decision about the ambit of the Chair’s discretion in this. As I see the matter at the moment I have full discretion. However I make the observation that the practice in other places was for the most radical amendment to be taken first and the least radical after that and if both are negated then all in between go. I have taken from Moana Mackey’s amendments the least radical which is to amend the date to 2007 and the most radical which is to amend the date to 2015. I will now put the latter amendment. If the Committee negates both I will rule out all subsequent amendments in between those dates.
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 clause 1 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 1 as amended agreed to. 
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 (1) “1 July 2010” 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:9248] 
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.
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:9246] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That gets us somewhere further. What then if the House were generally to agree that this was a reduction in services and certain rights? If the Government held the view that that title was accurate would that influence the Chair? How does the Chair decide whether a reduction in certain services and rights is an accurate but nonetheless pejorative entitlement for a piece of legislation? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: If the Government was of that opinion it would have moved it.
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:9246] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have listened quite carefully to this and of course it is your ruling and I understand that you alone get to rule on it. That is clear to me. What I am seeking to understand however is whether an amendment to a title that said for example the “Accident Compensation (Reduction of Certain Rights and Services) Act” would be in order on the grounds that although it points out something that the Government may not wish to see pointed out from a political lens it is nonetheless a broad description of the essence of the legislation that is in front of us. Would a title of that ilk be deemed to be within the Standing Orders on the basis of your ruling? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Speakers’ ruling 112/4 states: “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.” The point the member has made is that it is an attempt to criticise the contents. Whether the member believes it to be entirely true or not in the way the member has described it it is a negative and therefore a criticism of it.
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:9246] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Thank you for your ruling on that—that clears that aspect of it—but can you advise the Committee? These are all amendments to the amendment. The Minister himself Dr Smith has put forward Supplementary Order Paper 111 which is a significant Supplementary Order Paper and which in itself renames the legislation. I think it renames it the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill when clearly there are clauses in respective parts of the bill that cover injury prevention and rehabilitation. So the name that the Minister’s amendment chooses highlights just one aspect of what his law is doing—because it is about accident compensation; it will give weekly compensation to people who have accidents—but it takes away the words “Injury Prevention” and “Rehabilitation” which the Minister’s law also covers. So how does it work when a conjecture is put on an Opposition amendment but the amendment itself that we are trying to amend does equally the same thing? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Well in respect of the member’s point I tell him that one of the amendments that he objected to for example was the alignment with Australian practices. That is not a particular aspect of compensation; that relates to a point of view that people in this Chamber have or do not have. I come back to what I ruled: the amendment generally has to be an objective description of the bill not a relitigation of particular points.
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:9245] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I accept your comments about any titles or amendments that might be deemed to be taking away from the meaning of the bill’s title as it currently stands. But in relation to amendments such as “Alignment with Australian Practices” I note that we have a bill in the urgency motion relating to trans-Tasman proceedings and alignment. I do not mean to be flippant—any reference to Australia by some New Zealanders would be considered offensive—but I think I can say that this is a serious amendment and it fits in with other bills that are on the urgency motion. It is hard to see how an alignment with Australian practices would be somehow demeaning. 
Equally Mr Chairperson the removal of cover for those who attempt suicide and a reduction of cover for those with hearing impairments are statements of fact; that is what the legislation does. If it said “The Terrible and Unfair Removal of Cover for Those with Hearing Impairment” I think that would be inconsistent with the Standing Orders with regard to the way in which we would be putting a conjecture on the title. But simply for you to say that “Reduction of Cover for Those With Hearing Impairments” is “criticising” when there are clauses that state exactly that in the bill proper makes it hard for us to see how that can be inconsistent. 
I am not going against the other points you have made. We accept that those are out of order—the “Non-work and Work Account Cost Shifting” provision for example—but not those three particular ones. I would have thought that “Alignment with Australian Practices” was a very neutral phrase and the “Reduction of Cover For Those With Hearing Impairments” is—political differences aside—what the law does; the Minister has given speeches about that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: In response to the member I make two points. Firstly the Chair’s decision is final and no correspondence is entered into but in this case I am happy to accept a point of order. The issue here is that the title is to describe the whole bill. This phrase describes an aspect of the bill; it is not an attempt to describe the whole bill. The title has to be an objective description of the bill and when an amendment picks out just an aspect it is to make a political point rather than to objectively describe the bill. The bill’s title has to be a wide generic term rather than contain specifics in the bill. 
The point I make again is that amendments are also ruled out when they attempt to highlight a point of difference in the debate or political differences over the bill. On that basis I ruled out the amendment.
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:9229] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to check that you have had an assurance from the Leader of the House that these amendments could not be done within the baselines that are currently available—that they would require an extra appropriation as opposed to using current appropriations—because if they can be done within the baselines they will not affect the fiscal aggregates. In my view in a vote the size of the one we are talking about there is not a bolter’s show in hell of these amendments affecting the baselines of the Accident Compensation Corporation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Let me affirm again to the Committee of the whole House that I am not privy to any information. When the member raised the point of order he asked whether I had been told information by the Leader of the House; he told the Committee. That is the first thing. The Leader of the House told the Committee that these amendments will have an impact on the fiscal aggregates.
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:9252] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I have taken advice members and the ruling will be that as the Committee has rejected the proposal to change the commencement date all other amendments are substantially the same and inconsistent with the Committee’s earlier decision and are therefore out of order.
Goodhew Jo: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9243] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
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:9305] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
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:9259] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think your decision should stand because the argument that Mr Hughes has just advanced is that in the few seconds that might elapse between one vote being put and the other the arrangements in the Committee could be reconfigured such that people might consider 1 day’s movement in the dates proposed to be suddenly acceptable. That is utterly preposterous. As he says himself we have now had a long history of coalition Governments and I do not recall any such change in the midst of a vote.
Woodhouse Michael: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Woodhouse Michael: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9234] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 While we are on the subject of quotations I would like to offer the Committee one of my own. In response to a correspondent the great writer Mark Twain stated: “I notice that you use plain simple language short words and brief sentences. That is the way to write English—it is the modern way and the best way. Stick to it; don’t let fluff and flowers and verbosity creep in. When you catch an adjective kill it.” 
I will follow up with another quote because of all of the discussion we have had about the royal commission’s report. Owen Woodhouse wrote these words and I think they are the most enduring of all of them: “Injury arising from accident demands an attack on three fronts. The most important is obviously prevention. Next in importance is the obligation to rehabilitate the injured. Thirdly there is the duty to compensate them for their losses.” Having stressed that injury prevention was obviously the most important component of any framework Owen Woodhouse then called the royal commission report  
Compensation for personal injury in New Zealand 
. He did not need the “fluffery” of adding “injury prevention rehabilitation and compensation” or this that and the next thing. He called it by a simple title. 
The House of the time in passing the legislation did what? Did it give the legislation an extra-long title? No it did not. In highlighting the importance of injury prevention it said “Let us call this Act the Accident Compensation Act 1972.” It is pretty simple stuff really. There is so much more about that Act that does not need to be packed into the title. In 2001 when it was given the present name which was so long that the front page of the Act needed a concertina sort of shape what was done was done nobly I think. I do not think that anybody was under any illusions that the priorities were changing and that the goal of preventing injuries remained. Sadly we did not seem to have much luck; injury rates have continued to climb and rehabilitation rates have dropped which is obviously the reason why we are in the Chamber debating this bill. 
But let us call the legislation what it is. The Act should be the Accident Compensation Act. Nobody on the street understands it by any other name. They know “ACC” by what it. Let us call it what it is and let us resist any of these nonsensical suggestions that by giving it a simple name the Government diminishes the importance of injury prevention. That is simply not the case. Nobody believes it; not even the Opposition believes it. I really strongly support this change.
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:9232] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 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. 
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Roy Eric: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Roy Eric: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9232] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will respond to that point and say that the second reading of the bill was on the Order Paper last Thursday so members could have assumed that it was going to be dealt with this week and they could have applied themselves to the sort of exercise we are in now. But given that that is not the case the final Order Paper would have been printed by 10.30 on Tuesday morning at the time when caucuses are having their powwows about process—or whatever caucuses do—so there certainly was an opportunity. Thirdly— 
Hon David Parker 
: Where was it on that Order Paper? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Just let me finish. Thirdly this meets neither the urgency day rule nor the chronological rule. It does not meet either of those. But the member has raised a point to which some consideration may need to be given but not at this point. I suggest that the Standing Orders Committee would be an ideal vehicle for that matter to be teased out because in this case I can rule only on the Speakers’ rulings the Standing Orders and other literary records that I have in front of me.
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:9225] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 The other point that I would like to draw your attention to Mr Chairperson is Speaker’s ruling 119/4 where it is made clear that it is quite proper for the Minister to raise the issue on official advice. I want to ensure that you have sought confirmation from the Minister that there is official advice. If there is official advice we know that it is always obtained in writing from Treasury. That is the way that that advice occurs. The Opposition wants to ensure that there is that official advice. If that is the case we are happy to go with it. It was always tabled in the past. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The Hon Gerry Brownlee should respond to that.
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:9230] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Is it a fresh point of order? I should rule on the current one. Are you speaking to it? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think I should speak to the point of order. There has been a degree of emotive expression that is somewhat disappointing. I would like the member to consider that although it is the right of the Opposition to try to put forward views equally it is the right of the Government to govern and to go about its business in the House and our protections both yours and mine lie in this book the  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. I ask the member to look at Speaker’s ruling 119/3 which is of no lesser import than 119/4. It has in fact been endorsed by former Chairperson Pettis and former Speaker Hunt. It states that Standing Order 320 “is not neutral as to whether an amendment is out of order. If a member fails to give 24 hours’ notice and there is any doubt or possibility that it has a fiscal impact the amendment is out of order.” That is all we have raised. These Speakers’ rulings are here for the House to be guided by and I think we should get on with our business.
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:9230] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. First I echo what Mr Mallard said about the personal respect we have for you. Mr Mallard and I would like to invite you to join us for lunch tomorrow when the House will still be in urgency to make sure there is not a single chance of Mr Brownlee getting to you. He will be in quite a mood by then I predict. 
I want to take you to the point where you referred to your role as the Chair of the Committee. As a presiding officer you have a number of functions but the protection of the rights of the minority is one of the most important ones and it is one that you do very very well indeed. You referred to your view of the proceedings of the Committee at the present time and it is probably correct that things could have taken an alternative parallel path to the one they are taking at the present time. But there are three amendments that propose three new parts. I would not describe them in the language you did—although you did withdraw it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I rescinded it. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: But it goes to the fact that just because the Government is unhappy with the process that has been followed by the Opposition is no reason for our amendments to be ruled out. If every single one of our amendments is going to be ruled out because of a claim that it will have an impact on the fiscal aggregates—and you yourself have said that the triviality or otherwise of the cost is irrelevant—it actually means that the Government could rule out every single amendment that the Opposition seeks to put to this legislation which affects the lives of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders. That is why I bring you back to Speaker’s ruling 119/4 and to the very last few words—the last seven or eight words—“although it is finally for the chairperson to rule”. If the Government is allowed to get away with this behaviour—and the great irony is that we had spent an hour on Part 3 and we would have had the vote by now and we would have moved on; we have lost time on procedure because of the Government’s management style—if every single amendment is ruled out because you are saying that triviality is not important then the Opposition has lost its voice. That is why we are appealing to you Mr Chairperson as the defender of the minority in the Chamber to make sure that that does not happen. I am not confident that the Leader of the House will not try to bulldoze the legislation through the House because he has the pip about something that is far beyond my intelligence to understand.
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:9228] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Are we to take it then that the advice you have received from Mr Brownlee is that each of those amendments of itself causes cost that would materially change the fiscal aggregates or is the advice that in the aggregate the amendments would cost between $600000 and $1 million or whatever the figure was? By the way I accept the Minister’s word as to the amount. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think there are two points there. Let me clarify the member’s first point which was about advice that I as Chair have received: the Committee of the whole House has received that advice; it is not pertinent to me only. The second thing is that I have accepted that advice in relation to the three amendments before us to add new Parts 3 4 and 5.
Roy Eric: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Roy Eric: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9229] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Let me respond to that. Every day before I come to the House I spend time with the Clerks. They are whom I spend time with. When I came into the Chamber Mr Brownlee was sitting next to me and I said “Do not talk to me.” He may or may not wish to confirm that but I think the member will accept my word. So I am dealing simply with some anticipation—because this is developing into a filibuster—as to what the probabilities would be— 
Moana Mackey 
: It is not. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: It is taking somewhat of an interesting twist—let me put it that way. I do not want to accuse anybody of anything and I apologise for that. It is the right of the Opposition to explore every possible avenue and it is my responsibility to make myself conversant with the pertinent Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings and  
McGee 
. Also we have spent some 25 minutes on this matter and there has been an opportunity for the Clerks to advise me and give me some quotes like the one I took from  
McGee 
. I did not prepare it before I came here. Members have to accept that I am dealing with this matter in the most straightforward manner that I can. We will now put the vote on the schedules.
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:9259] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I promise not to make fun about his size if he does not make fun about my age. I can do something about my problem. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Can I just say that I am getting a little bit frustrated by this. Members are to make points of order that are about the order. I am not interested in debating the pros and cons of MMP or the sweep of history. I am confronted here by a particular point and I am about to hold a vote. This is the only remit I have here at the moment. This point of order has to be about this matter.
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:9231] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think we have just about addressed every— 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: It is a different point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Well I will listen with interest. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: We strongly contest the approach that is being taken—it leaves us with very few rights in the way of posing amendments—but if that is the way it is going to be ruled then we have to do our best to advocate and articulate for the people we represent. But we rely on the protection of the Chair for these matters. 
One of the difficulties is that the House as you mentioned before is in urgency. Urgency was signalled to the Opposition very very late in the piece—far later than more recent practice under Mr Brownlee’s tenure as Leader of the House. This particular amendment to create a new Part 3 was lodged 23½ hours ago. We did our best to comply with the information available to us at the time we put these amendments forward. There is a point where it is impossible for the Opposition to comply with the 24-hour rule. If the Government operates in this fashion it curtails the ability of the Opposition to comply with that rule. 
As you can appreciate these are serious amendments. They create three new parts—three important parts to do with injury prevention. I do not think anyone could argue that they are not serious amendments. The Government might not like them but they are not ridiculous. They are not frivolous amendments; they are proper ones. We have to write them to make sure they comply with the Standing Orders and to have them tabled and if the ability is not there to do so because the Government has moved urgency without that happening— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: They had brought this matter up the Order Paper compared with where it had been. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: That is right. This bill was moved higher up the Order Paper than it had been as my colleague rightly says. It was set down at about No. 4 or No. 5. We arrived in Wellington on Tuesday we were advised that the House was going into urgency and the bill became No. 1 on the Order Paper. It became impossible for us to comply with the 24-hour rule. The Leader of the House is losing a lot of time that he need not lose if he were operating in a slightly different way. It does not have to be this way.
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:9228] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am about finished with this issue unless there is new material. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: You have ruled out of order the addition of Part 3 in my name. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Correct. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I have not heard any rulings about the other amendments. Are you now ruling them out of order also? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes. I did say when I responded in the first instance that I was ruling out the amendment in your name currently under debate and also the amendments to add Part 4 and Part 5. I have already given that ruling.
McClay Todd: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
McClay Todd: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9319] 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
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:9228] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry but a lot of discussion was taking place while you were giving your ruling. Are you declining to rule on Speaker’s ruling 119/4 which sets out that it is quite proper for a Minister to give official advice? You are accepting the torn off bit of paper that is perforated down the side— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes I am. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: —and handwritten as official Government advice? You are ruling against Speaker’s ruling 136/3? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am accepting that the Leader of the House has had official advice. That is what I am accepting. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: On what basis? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: His word. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: His word. So what recourse does the Opposition have if it turns out that that advice does not exist? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I remind the member that all members are honourable members and if at a subsequent time any member is found to have misled the House there is a course of action which is substantially Draconian for dealing with the matter. Well it rules justice in a way that members understand. There are matters of privilege; there is a whole range of things. Members have that course open to them if it is subsequently found that any member has misled the House and this issue is no different.
Roy Eric: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Roy Eric: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9226] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think in response to that that there are layers to the reasons why an amendment can be ruled out. This is not a financial veto which probably has a higher level of standards around it. But the 24-hour rule is a requirement. I remind members again that all members in this Parliament are honourable members and if the Leader of the House gives me his word that he received advice it is not in my opinion my responsibility to then require him to present to me written evidence of his having had that advice.
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 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 result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63 Noes 58. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 111 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to Part 2 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:9225] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That is something that is very clear and very important. Ministers when they have advice that is required by the Standing Orders have always got that advice in writing. It is part of having a record. It is a protection for the Minister and it is a protection for this House. I am not doubting that there is such Treasury advice—because the Minister has assured us that there is—but I want to know that it is available and that it is in writing because it is something that will have to be tested going forward.
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:9225] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am advised by Treasury that the cost of this provision would be somewhere between $600000 and $1 million. Whatever way members like to look at it that is an impact. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson.
Roy Eric: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Roy Eric: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9225] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will rule on this point first. Can I say that the Chair does not have at his disposal the kind of information that the Leader of the House has just given. It is part of the process of this institution that the Chair accepts Ministers’ advice on that matter and the Leader of the House has confirmed that he sought advice. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Could we ask the Minister to confirm that that advice is written advice? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: As far as I am aware it does not have to be.
Hague Kevin: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hague Kevin: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9224] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 The point of order raised by the Leader of the House ought to have to been raised at the beginning of the debate on this part when the amendment was first moved. Instead no point of order was taken the Chair accepted the amendment and debate commenced.
Roy Eric: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Roy Eric: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9224] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I thank members for their contributions. I think there are four points that I can see arising out of this point of order. 
The first point is enshrined in Standing Order 320 and in Speakers’ rulings 119/1-4 where there is quite a raft of information about it. On the strength of that the point of order is upheld. 
I think there are three other points that I need to comment on as well and I will deal first with the point of the Green Party member Mr Hague. At no point do the Standing Orders define a lapse time for a point of order if it is relevant. That the member did not raise his point at the time the amendment was moved is not a reason for ruling out the point of order. Had we voted on this part and moved on we could not return to it. In that regard it is perfectly relevant to raise the point of order at this time. 
The third point that springs to mind— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Springs to mind. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: —sorry that comes to mind—in relation to this matter is when the day actually starts. Because we are in urgency and the sitting day stays the same it would be my ruling that the day started at 2 p.m. yesterday. I have inquired of the Clerks and I find that these amendments therefore would have had to be lodged at 2 p.m. on Monday. Even given another interpretation that it was a chronological 24 hours the amendments do not fit. 
The fourth point is whether the amendment is a trivial matter in terms of its effect on the financial aggregates. The Standing Orders do not required the Chair to rule on that; that is the prerogative of the Government. It is not the Chair’s job to rule whether the effect is trivial; it is simply to rule whether the amendment has a fiscal implication. In that regard I am bound to uphold the point of order. That would mean that new Parts 3 4 and 5 are ruled out of order in relation to the ruling I have just given.
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:9248] 
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 Darien Fenton 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 “Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation (Urgent Changes) 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:9224] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I presume this matter can be dealt with relatively quickly. “Fiscal aggregates” is a term that has been used on a number of occasions for a long period of time and any suggestion that a change as minor as this one would have an effect on the fiscal aggregates of the Government goes to the point of being absolutely ridiculous. The effect would be within the margin of error—1 percent of the size of the fiscal aggregates of the Government. There is clearly an ability to veto on the part of the Government if in fact that is the case. That again is something where no Minister of Finance would ever pretend—is the Hon Gerry Brownlee an Associate Minister of Finance? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: No economic development. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: He is the Minister for Economic Development. No Minister of Finance would ever pretend that this amendment would have an effect on the fiscal aggregates because it is such a small number. For example if the member had moved an amendment to bring forward the close-off date from 2019 to 2015 there might be an argument that that would affect the fiscal aggregates of the Government. It might or it might not; even a number of that size might not. But this amendment is so minor that when the Government’s spending is brought together—aggregated—no one could pretend that it would have an effect.
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:9250] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: We also have a number of amendments in the name of Carol Beaumont. These also propose to amend the Minister’s proposed amendment to the title of the bill. A number of the amendments are also ruled out of order for being either a criticism or a non-objective description of the bill. I will read them out: “Accident Compensation Corporation (Reduced Emphasis on Rehabilitation to Reduce Costs) Amendment Act 2010” “Accident Compensation Corporation (Primary of Cost Reduction) Amendment Act 2010” “Accident Compensation Corporation (Experience Ratings) Amendment Act 2010” Accident Compensation Corporation (Alignment with Commercial Insurance Practices) Amendment Act 2010” Accident Compensation Corporation (Alignment with Australian Practices) Amendment Act 2010” Accident Compensation Corporation (Non-Work and Work Account Cost Shifting) Amendment Act 2010” “Accident Compensation Corporation (Holiday Pay Exhausted Before Compensation Paid) Amendment Act 2010” Accident Compensation Corporation (Removal of Cover For Those Who Attempt Suicide) Amendment Act 2010” Accident Compensation Corporation (Reduction of Cover For Those With Hearing Impairments) Amendment Act 2010” and “Accident Compensation Corporation (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”. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Carol Beaumont 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 Corporation (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:9255] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think there are two points to be made from that. They are simple and it is easy to do so in a terse manner. 
The first point is that the House has not accepted a date; it has rejected a date. There has not been any acceptance whatsoever of a date by this House; there has not been a vote on that question. The second point I should make regards a reflection on you Mr Chairperson. Saying that the Government wishes to set aside these amendments as time-wasting as Gerry Brownlee did— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: No I didn’t. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is exactly what Gerry Brownlee said: that the Government wants to set aside these amendments. This is a decision for you to make Mr Chairperson and for the member to imply that you are doing the work of the Government is a reflection that I think is wrong and almost obscene.
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:9210] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: We now come to a typescript amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to insert new Part 3. I call the Hon David Parker.
Roy Eric: Visitors — United Kingdom—Rt Hon Lord Hunt of Wirral House of Lords 
Roy Eric: Visitors — United Kingdom—Rt Hon Lord Hunt of Wirral House of Lords 
[Volume:660;Page:9223] 
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.
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:9223] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It relates to Standing Order 320 which requires that amendments to bills that can affect or have an impact upon the Government’s fiscal aggregates need to be lodged with the Clerk at least 24 hours before they are considered by the Committee. New Part 3 and I believe subsequent parts do not meet that test and most certainly do have an impact on the Government’s fiscal aggregates. 
Hon Member 
: How so? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is the fiscal aggregates of the Government that we are talking about. 
Hon Member 
: Rubbish! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am reading from the  
Standing Orders of the House of Representatives 
. Standing Order 320(1) states that an amendment that may have an impact on the Government’s fiscal aggregates—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Points of order will be heard in silence. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That will be novel for those people. An amendment that may have an impact on the Government’s fiscal aggregates etc. must be lodged with the Clerk at least 24 hours before the House meets on the day on which the amendment is to be proposed. This part does not meet that test.
Bennett David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bennett David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9214] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tremain Chris: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9216] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.