Mallard Trevor: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15507] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I want to focus again on the schedules and the consequential amendments in the Holidays Amendment Bill to the principal Act. I take my lead from my colleague Darien Fenton who has made a great contribution in this area. I am sure at some stage as these matters get to the Employment Court if it still exists or the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court they will be cognisant of it. In particular I want to look at section 16(4) of the principal Act which as we established after a little bit of work last time is the Holidays Act 2003. I know it is spelt principal with an a-l and not an l-e because due to the way it has been changed it could never be described as a principled Act; it is a principal Act in this particular case. 
As a consequential amendment to the principal Act section 16(4) is repealed and substituted not surprisingly with new section 16(4). It states: “An employee’s entitlement to annual holidays remains in force until the employee has—(a) taken all of the entitlement as paid holidays; or (b) been paid out under section 28B for the entitlement in the entitlement year.” One of the questions that I want to ask is a drafting question. We have as the Minister in the chair the former “Assistant Professor” Mapp of a commercial law faculty of a polytech the name of which I cannot remember. It is a question of drafting. What is the technical name of quotation marks the thing that sits in front? I note the quotation marks are sitting at the beginning of each of the clauses but are only at the end of the last one. I wonder why the statements are not either all surrounded by quotation marks or each of the headers in the subclauses are surrounded by quotation marks. Again I think it is pretty important at some stage that we get this right. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think the member is talking about schedule 1 and we are debating schedule 2. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Sorry; I am happy to switch to schedule 2. I thought we were on schedule 2 as well because as I indicated I heard my colleague Darien Fenton make an entire speech for 5 minutes on schedule 1. I thought it was such a learned contribution that the Chair had decided we would open it up and have another debate in that area so that we could go to some of the possible drafting errors there. I know the Chairman comes from Southland and is generally pretty reasonable and not too stuffed shirt about his approach to these things— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Schedule 2. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —and I just thought that he was being generous in a way. Frankly I want to know which drafting approach is the proper one. Is it the approach in schedule 1 or in schedule 2? In schedule 2 the quotation marks are just at the beginning and the end. I think it is fair to say that in schedule 2 there is only one subclause. There are no subparts of the clause; therefore what has happened is that there are quotation marks around the beginning and the end of it. That could be the reason. But when one looks at the parental leave change one can see that the quotation mark is partway through the line and the addition repeal or substitution is outside of it. It does not appear to have the type of quotation notations that are in the earlier stage. I know that after a number of years in this place I should be used to some of the drafting foibles and some of the questions—and I ask the member not to yawn because I am likely to go sleep during my own speech if she continues— 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: I’m not yawning. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Or is she hiding her face in amazement at the contribution?