edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9320] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 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. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The amendments in the name of Jacinda Ardern to insert new clause 2A an expiry clause are ruled out of order because they are inconsistent with Standing Order 3: “preliminary clauses means the title clause and the commencement clause and if applicable a principal Act clause”.
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:9225] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The words you used then were that it was not for the Chair to determine whether the impact on the fiscal aggregates is large. Speaker’s ruling 119/1 states: “During the committee of the whole House the Government will be able to make a submission to the chairperson that an amendment or a change proposed to be moved appears to have more than a minor impact on the fiscal aggregates …”. It goes on to say that if there is doubt whether the effect is more than minor then the amendment should be ruled out. I suggest to you Mr Chairperson that there is no doubt that the impact of this amendment is minor. This is the most minor sort of review and I cannot see how it could have a more than minor impact on the fiscal aggregates. In order for you to rule it out Mr Chairperson you have to be satisfied that there is at least doubt that the impact is minor.
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:9247] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I appreciate that we are testing your patience but let me see where we might need to go. We might need to go to the Speaker now or at some later time to try to get clarity around this. 
The Speakers’ ruling has two parts to it. You have read it out to us more than once and I thank you for doing so. The two parts are that the amendment must achieve several things. It must be a serious amendment to the title. It must be a serious amendment that describes the legislation on the one hand. Then the Speakers’ ruling goes on to say that it must be that rather than a criticism of the legislation. Well the problem the Opposition has is that a serious description of the title an accurate description of the title may be—and we would assert in this case must be—critical. So it is no fault of yours dear Mr Chair because it is a Speakers’ ruling from earlier times. But the Speakers’ ruling has two parts to it as if one of the two must be true. In fact it is easy to show that an accurate description of legislation must in order to be accurate also be critical. That is in the essence of it our conundrum. I say that the problem for you Mr Chairman if I may be so bold is that you are obliged to choose one of the two parts of that dichotomy. We would assert that you should choose the other. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Well it is the Chair’s decision. I have heard plenty on this. I want to make the point again that the amendments to the title are to be serious and objective descriptions and are not to attempt to criticise the contents. Many of the amendments I have ruled out do exactly that; there is no question about that. There are some and I am just coming to them that are serious amendments in my opinion and that do not attempt to directly criticise the contents. I want to move on to these. 
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 (Rebalancing Between Non-Work and Work Accounts) Amendment Act 2010”.
Barker Rick: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Barker Rick: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9321] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted.
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:9266] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to make it very clear that we are always open to negotiate these matters with the Opposition when it behaves— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: That was just playing politics. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet and that was not a point of order. The member is perfectly at liberty to negotiate with whomever he wishes but that was not a point of order. 
I declare the House back in Committee in consideration of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill.
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:9254] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. [ 
Interruption 
] Before I do so I ask that you deal with David Bennett and Gerry Brownlee who interjected after I was given the call on a point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I am not going to deal with anybody. People on both sides have been guilty of making comments and interjecting on points of order. It has not yet got to a level that I have found objectionable. If the member wants complete silence on points of order then I suggest to the member and to his own party that they set that standard for themselves and I will judge the rest of the Committee accordingly. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The first thing I refer you to Mr Chairperson is the rulings made on 7 April 2005 in regard to the Hon Dr Nick Smith and his approach at that time. It is something that I think does need to be looked at. The second point is to ask you: when the Government has a remedy—[ 
Interruption 
] What is happening now Mr Chairperson? The Minister is talking into an open— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member will sit down. If I want to talk to the Minister and ask him a question as an aside I can do three or four things at once. I do not need that member to tell me not to do so. Secondly I had my finger on the microphone. It was not an open microphone. This is the second time the member has interrupted his own point of order. If the member wants to raise a point of order he should stand make the point of order and be terse and direct. I will listen to it attentively.
Bennett Paula: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Bennett Paula: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9313] 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I want to take members back to the title of this bill which I think is entirely appropriate: the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill. It covers this legislation incredibly well. The bill states that only those children who commit absolutely terrible heinous crimes will be seen in the Youth Court. They can then be sent back to the Family Court if necessary. I think the title and the commencement date fit well with this bill and I am happy to speak briefly on that part.
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9307] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That 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 not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: With the House in Committee expressing no desire to amend the bill by adding an expiry clause in a new clause 44A I rule out all other similar amendments as being out of order.
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 do not want to show disrespect Mr Chairperson but you came to the Committee with the answers to a series of questions. I cannot accept that you did not have some sort of briefing on this matter before you came to the Committee. I have enormous personal respect for you Mr Chairperson I have known you for a long time and I respect your integrity but I do not think you should attempt to tell the Committee that you had not been briefed and you were unaware of this matter. You clearly were aware of it.
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 1 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 1 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:9231] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will now rule on the matter that the Hon Darren Hughes raised. I thank him for his expression of respect and I will look at taking up the luncheon offer. But I want to correct him on something that—[ 
Interruption 
] Points of order are heard in silence. I want to clarify—because the member picked me up wrongly—that I said that it was not for the Chair to rule whether something is trivial. The member said that the Chair ruled whether something was a trivial matter. There is a pertinent difference. I have not ruled whether this matter is trivial; I have simply ruled as per  
McGee 
 that the possibility exists. I have therefore chronologically followed through that process in determining that. So I have not ruled that it is trivial. 
The fundamental point that the member made is that the Chair can rule out amendments. I pick up on Speaker’s ruling 119/3 which Mr Brownlee raised. It is there for good reason and it is not neutral. I think it is just a little wake-up call that where there is a possibility of a fiscal aggregate implication anyone putting in an amendment simply has to obey the 24-hour rule. That does not rule out the possibility of debate at all. I will now put the question on schedule 1.
Ardern Shane: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Ardern Shane: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 It is always a privilege to follow the previous speaker Dr Prasad. 
We are here today because 70 percent of New Zealanders support the direction that the John Key Government has taken. So for the 30 percent of the House who have been putting up a debate against that direction tonight I say that this is what the John Key Government has proposed for its work programme going forward. [ 
Interruption 
] Seventy percent support the current economic direction of the John Key Government. 
In 2011 the Government will focus on two key areas. We will build foundations for a stronger economy and build better results from the Public Service sector. I think those comments just strike fear into the hearts of Labour members. We will build better results from within the public sector. Their mates the guys they employed the thousands of people who were put on the payroll under the Labour Government will be asked for the first time in a number of years to front up and say how they will do better without coming back to the Government for more money. 
We listened to a number of speakers from the other side of the House and it is interesting to note that one in particular gave a life story of hardship and oppression in her childhood. She rounded it off by saying that the National Government intended to make things worse for people like her. Members make those comments in a way that suggests they are unique and have the total franchise on growing up poor. They make comments about those kinds of things as though they are the only ones who have knowledge of what it is like to come up on the lower socio-economic side of the track. I just inform the House that one or two of us on this side have been in those circumstances ourselves. 
I have not heard but I have waited throughout this debate to hear it what those members are going to do about those circumstances going forward and how they will fund the social policies that everybody in this House wants to see: more social policy in the low socio-economic area. How will they do that? The only answer I have heard from speaker after speaker is that they will charge more taxes. A number of those members have been school teachers; thank goodness they were not mathematics teachers because they certainly cannot count. When they do the sums on those figures they will find out that there is no way they can fund the type of social spending they are talking about without growing the economy. 
Debate interrupted.
Calder Cam: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Calder Cam: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 This Government is committed to helping and protecting the most vulnerable in our society and creating an environment where all New Zealanders can dare to dream our dreams unlock the potential that lies within us all and achieve our goals and aspirations in a better society. We have a considered logical plan to grow our economy. We are delivering world-class infrastructure to unblock the arteries of the economy and we are demanding better more efficient public services. We have introduced a number of regulatory changes to make it easier to do business and we are fostering better skills in the workforce and a research climate that encourages innovation. We are pursuing an ambitious free-trade agenda led by the very able Minister of Trade to my right to expand our markets for our products and we have introduced a growth-friendly tax system that rewards effort. Alongside that we are hauling back on new spending allowances and confronting the challenges of lifting our national savings rates so that we can reduce our debt to overseas lenders—a fiscally prudent economically literate plan. 
Contrast our plan with the Labour spiral of spending promises costed so far at $5 billion and still climbing steadily towards the stratosphere. Although many New Zealand families are being prudent being careful with their money and paying down debt Labour is talking of doing exactly the opposite. It is behaving fecklessly recklessly and irresponsibly. Where is the money coming from? So far the search for answers to this fundamental question has been singularly unrewarding; no answers have been forthcoming because Labour does not have an answer. How will Labour grow the economy? Labour is offering a pot-pourri of policies made on the hoof; it is a case of fruit-loop thinking leading to fruitcake policies with absolutely no sound economic foundation. Maybe that is an explanation for why Labour would remove GST on fruit and vegetables even though this policy has long been discredited even by its own caucus as a meaningful intervention at any level let alone as a driver of a nation’s economy. 
What exactly is Labour’s mechanism to encourage economic growth? Sadly it is a continuation of Labour’s old tax borrow spend and hope philosophy that served New Zealanders so poorly in the past. Perhaps it is using a carrot and stick philosophy: reduce GST on carrots and whack with a big stick—in the form of increased taxes—many of those helping to create jobs. Labour’s recipe of loose spending more borrowing and higher taxes is a clear contrast to this Government’s responsible programme to keep debt under control promote savings and get the economy working faster to create a better society for all New Zealanders. 
I would like to talk about education. Education is at the root of our belief in the need to unlock the potential that lies within all New Zealanders. We have never spent more than we are spending now on education.
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
Although the questions were properly accepted this morning they are now out of order. A question to a chairperson of a select committee must relate to a matter for which the committee has charge. I refer members to Standing Order 370(1) and Speaker’s ruling 149/2. 
Questions ruled out of order.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Members of the Opposition are in a difficult position here because the normal procedures of the Maori Affairs Committee have been severely truncated. We have only one House in this Parliament and therefore we are reliant on good select committee procedures in order to get good law. What remedy do I have but to ask questions about those poor processes? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now that the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill has been reported back to the House the member will have ample opportunity I am sure during what I am sure will be significant debates in this Chamber to raise all the concerns that he has about that.
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15517] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The remaining amendments in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 2 are ruled out of order as they are substantially the same as the amendment already negatived by the Committee. The substantiality rule applies and they are out of order.
Twyford Phil: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Twyford Phil: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15535] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I am very happy to take what I think will be a fairly brief call. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15535] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority be agreed to.  
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Question agreed to.
Blue Jackie: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Blue Jackie: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15508] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The question is  
That the question be now put 
. Those who are of that opinion will say Aye of the contrary opinion will say No. Party vote called for? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Absolutely. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The Clerk will conduct a party vote.
Boscawen John: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Boscawen John: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15534] 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill is a great bill and the ACT Party will be supporting it.
Upston Louise: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Upston Louise: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15532] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 This Government knows that good strong local government leads to strong communities. This is a Government and a Minister of Local Government that are listening to ratepayers. We listen to ratepayers when they tell us about their ongoing concern about the constant increase in rates and when they tell us that they want better information in local government elections which they will get in their pre-election report. They want better information so that they can influence what happens in their community. That is why it is called local government. This is a Government that will keep the “local” in local government. We are listening to what ratepayers want and delivering what they want. 
I will touch on a few things and I know there will be plenty of opportunity to do so tomorrow as we move into the more detailed Committee stage. We have heard a lot from the Opposition benches but not anything that has any credibility. 
This bill delivers choice for ratepayers and more important choice for local government. We recognise that councils across the country are different and that therefore they need the ability to make decisions that suit their community. One thing that I will leave members to dwell on is the fact that local communities and local councils should have the ability to choose how where and for how long they contract their services. I will leave it on that note. 
This bill is about choice. This bill is about listening to our ratepayers and removing the burden of rates—the increase in the collection of taxes that the guys opposite think is totally acceptable. Well we do not.
Tisch Lindsay: Voting — Correction—Holidays Amendment Bill 
Tisch Lindsay: Voting — Correction—Holidays Amendment Bill 
[Volume:668;Page:15532] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The result of the vote in the Committee of the whole House on the Holidays Amendment Bill on the question that clause 2 be agreed to was incorrectly announced as the Ayes 69 and the Noes 49. The correct result is Ayes 69 and Noes 51. The record will be corrected.
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15517] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 69 Noes 49.
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15517] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: We now come to clause 1 and the question that it stand part. There are nine amendments in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to the title. Each of these is ruled out of order as it is not an objective description of the bill as provided for in Speakers’ rulings 112/4.
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15518] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Adams Amy: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Adams Amy: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15513] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15509] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15508] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
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:15508] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not think you declared a result. I think you have to declare a result before we challenge it. You did not say that the Ayes have it or the Noes have it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am not sure that is the case. I can make a determination that it is a split call. I said “Party vote” and the member consented that that is what Labour wanted. That is what we are doing. The Clerk will now conduct a party vote.
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15502] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15502] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The Hon Trevor Mallard’s second amendment to in clause 14 add new paragraph (c) to section 68(1A) in relation to genuine reasons for sick leave is ruled out of order as the amendment is substantially the same as an amendment already negatived by the Committee.
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15502] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; United Future 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to add to new section 68(1A) the following paragraph: 
“(c)informs the employee of the grounds upon which the employer suspects that the sick leave being taken by the employee is not genuine because none of the grounds in section 65(1) are met.”
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15501] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to omit from new section 44A(3) all the words after “for working on a public holiday”.
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15501] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to insert in new section 44A the following subsection after subsection (2): 
“(2A)Any reasonable request by an employee under subsection (2) must not be refused by the employer.”
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15500] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to add to new section 28D(b) “ nor may it be raised at any time in the future as a reason for not providing a pay increase to an employee”.
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15500] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to omit from new section 44A(2) “the employee and his or her employer may agree in writing (whether in an employment agreement or otherwise)” and substitute “the employee may request that”.
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15499] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next three amendments in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to substitute other amounts of days are ruled out of order as being substantially the same as an amendment already determined by the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to add to new section 28A(2) the following paragraph: 
“(d)may only be made once in a 10-year period of continuous employment.”
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15499] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15498] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 59 Noes 51. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to insert in new section 28A(2) the following paragraph above paragraph (b): 
“(a)must be informed and voluntary; and”.
Woodhouse Michael: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Woodhouse Michael: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15498] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Upston Louise: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Upston Louise: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15495] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Upston Louise: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Upston Louise: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15517] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15499] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next eight amendments in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to substitute other dates are ruled out of order as being substantially the same as the amendment already determined by the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to omit from new section 28A(4)(b) “not”.
Blue Jackie: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Blue Jackie: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15494] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Calder Cam: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Calder Cam: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15534] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It is great to see passionate debate as the previous speaker pointed out at five to 12 in the evening. There has been passionate debate there has been some informed passionate debate and there has been some debate that has been alarmist and extremist. 
I must say I have enjoyed the contributions from Mr Jones which were somewhat hyperbolic in nature. He seemed at times to be speaking on another bill completely as did some of the other contributors. However it is always a pleasure to hear his rounded tones and demi-basso profundo voice. We miss him in the Local Government and Environment Committee—come back Mr Jones. 
The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill will be welcomed by the vast majority of ratepayers. I look forward to talking about it further in the Committee stage. I commend the bill to the House.
Bennett David: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Bennett David: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15492] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
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:15483] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It will not take a genius to work out what this point of order is. It is the subsequent point of order and the offence that I have taken as indicated by the Deputy Speaker. When there is reflection on a party then that is similar to a reflection on a member. I agree with the sidebar comment made by the Deputy Speaker very recently and I say that I take offence at the accusation made by Tau Henare that the Labour Party is guilty of receiving stolen money. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I thank the member. That is a fresh point and I think it is a fair point. It is inappropriate to say that a party has received stolen money. Theft is stealing and I ask the member to withdraw. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I must mention something else that should have occurred to me at the time. At the time I gave my ruling I should have made a delineation between parties inside this House and parties outside this House. I say to members that if an organisation outside this House has been offended it is not for members of the House to take umbrage for them; it is for those organisations outside to do so. The Standing Orders provide for them to make an application to make a response. I refer members to Standing Order 155.
Tisch Lindsay: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15482] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for those comments. This is certainly a robust debate. I was listening so I heard the interchange—but I have to say not all of it. It has been a robust debate. One of the things that I believe is important is that if members feel that they are overstepping the mark they need to be very mindful of how that could reflect on others. In respect of robust debate however I would have to say that the Chair of the Committee was the best person to judge. He was here at the time and he was able to get the feel for what was happening in Committee what was being said and the reactions of members. 
Personal reflections as mentioned by the Hon Trevor Mallard are covered by Standing Order 116. It refers to a personal reflection against a member or against a party. In the ruling that the Hon Rick Barker made there was no reference to that Standing Order in terms of interpretation. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 41/7. The same thing applies under the definition of personal reflection—that is that something dishonourable must be attributed to another member for there to be a personal reflection. Words used robustly in debate that do not impugn the honour of the member will not be ruled out of order. 
I say to members that the Chairperson was the best person to judge at the time; he was here. He is the best person to rule on that matter. The personal reflection was not attributed to one particular person. He has ruled in that way and it is a matter of taste. A reflection has not been made against the member and I uphold the Chairman’s ruling. It is consistent with rulings of previous Speakers.
Chauvel Charles: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15482] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I want to make three points in response to what we have heard from the Leader of the House and I think they reflect concern on this side of Chamber. The first is that although Mr Brownlee may not have been present for the entire debate members who were present knew very well the status of Ms Fenton as general secretary of the union concerned because she referred to it a number of times in her speeches of which there have been several in this debate. Certainly Mr Henare knew about the status of Ms Fenton in respect of the matter. 
The second relevant point is that there is a world of difference between accusing a party of “advantaging its Tory mates” and imputing criminal behaviour to an organisation and by extension to a member who has been its principal officer. 
Finally one of the aspects of Mr Barker’s ruling in his rejection of the point of order was his comment rightly that this is a Committee of robust debate. But he commented that if a member had made a disorderly statement or one that caused offence without in his ruling breaching the Standing Orders the proper response from the Opposition would be to engage in similarly robust debate. My submission is that that comment is simply an invitation to disorder in the Chamber and that is really why I think it is appropriate to uphold the point of order that Mr Mallard originally raised in response to the comment and in support of Ms Fenton having taken offence to it.
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:15481] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 The Hon Rick Barker has summarised the situation well and there is not much doubt about the facts of the matter. The problem as I see it is that there are within the Parliament a large number of people who know that both Mr Barker and Ms Fenton have had national secretary responsibilities for the Service and Food Workers Union and that they would have been the people legally responsible for theft on the part of the union. If there was theft and disbursement of stolen funds to a particular party they would have been the people responsible. I know that with Tau Henare we have to be a little bit careful about taking accusations seriously but if anyone in the Chamber—and I would say that half the people in the Chamber know the facts and the relationships—took that accusation seriously it is a very bad reflection on those two individuals. 
Ms Fenton quite properly took offence because Tau Henare was clearly aiming the comments at her. To be generous to him I think he was not attempting to reflect on Mr Barker who was in the Chair at the time but some of us who have been around in and out of the union movement for a period of time and know the history are offended by that. Really the additional factor for recalling you was that there is always a temptation on the part of a Chair to overcompensate the other way when these matters are being dealt with and I thought it was therefore appropriate to get the Hon Rick Barker out of the position where he was making a final ruling on something that a number of us knew was a reflection on him personally through accusations that he was involved in theft and passing money on.
Barker Rick: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Barker Rick: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15480] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Mr Deputy Speaker the Committee has passed a motion asking that you be recalled to make a ruling. The matter had its genesis in a speech made by the Hon Tau Henare on the Holidays Amendment Bill. In making reference to the Holidays Act Mr Henare made reference to his own personal knowledge of unions and union activity. As part of that he said that the Service and Food Workers Union had been involved in theft and that the money was from union funds and had been paid to the Labour Party. 
Darien Fenton raised a point of order and said that she objected to that statement and found it offensive. I ruled that it was not offensive. I ruled that it was in fact a matter of taste and that the accusation of theft had not been directed at a person and I left it at that. Subsequently a point of order was raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard who brought to the attention of the Committee the fact that Darien Fenton had been an official of the Service and Food Workers Union and that therefore an accusation of theft against the Service and Food Workers Union was by implication an accusation of theft against Darien Fenton. That piece of information might have been known to people personally but it certainly was not a matter that was put on the record by the Hon Tau Henare. I ruled that although that may have been the case no direct accusation had been made against Darien Fenton and therefore it was a matter of taste and I refused to rule it out of order. 
The Hon Trevor Mallard then raised a further point of order and drew to the Committee’s attention the fact that I also had been an official of the Service and Food Workers Union and by implication was compromised. He thought that it was inappropriate for me to rule on the matter. At that point I simply put the motion to recall the Speaker and you have been recalled to make a judgment. 
In my opinion the issue rests principally on the words of Mr Tau Henare and his making the statement about theft and the Service and Food Workers Union. In my opinion he had not crossed the line on that regardless of the positions that members of this House have held previously. I thought those matters were not relevant because they had not been brought into the debate.
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15518] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15475] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Holidays Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a second time.