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:9259] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is close to but not exactly on the point that my colleague Darren Hughes has raised. I think it is close enough that we do not have to start a new one. It goes to the question of what is substantially the same. I find a compelling logic in your suggestion that shifting the date by a day would not make a lot of difference. 
The question I have is whether a 1-month change or a 6-month change is in fact something that is substantially the same. I think that is what you are being asked to rule on. With some reluctance and I can feel some stares already from the members behind me I can accept a ruling that indicates that a day-by-day approach is— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s not the ruling. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I ask the member to constrain himself. I want to hear Mr Mallard make his point of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The point I am making is that I can accept given the compelling logic we have had from the Chair on the point that a day-by-day approach is one where there might not be a lot of substance in the difference.  
The question I have though is that if something is a month apart—even a week apart but say a month apart—whether that is substantially different and whether the Committee should be given the opportunity to rule on that. What I am inviting you to do is to amend your ruling to probably rule out the majority of the amendments but to allow the Committee to vote on a sample of them say a month or a week apart with a ruling that that is enough of a difference for the Committee to be allowed to voice an opinion. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Can I just say to the honourable member that I am certainly not going to do that. The moment I draw a line and say that it is a month or 6 weeks I can hear another 3 hours of debate and points of order saying that I have got the snapshot wrong. I will not take any more points of order on this issue but I will make a couple of preliminary comments. 
Firstly it would seem to me that the substantiality argument would be a judgment that would be made at the time by any future Chair. It would be made on the basis of how important the date was in terms of the implications of the legislation. That would be driven by the debate about the issue during the Committee stage or during the discussion of the bill. I have heard no such debate thus far only at this particular point in time. In respect of the substantiality argument on some occasions it might be small numbers and on other occasions it might be big numbers but it would be determined by the debate. I will not hypothetically project into the future what substantiality would be. I think any ordinary member of the public would say that an amendment to shift the date from 30 November to 29 November is not substantial. I think the ordinary public would say that it is a minor technical amendment. I will not entertain any more points of order on this and we will now move to the vote.