Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:668;Page:15411] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think members will agree that Part 2 is not quite as substantive as Part 1 which we have just debated. I ask my colleagues especially those who are more involved in the law—in particular industrial law— to have a good look at Part 2. I specifically ask them to look at schedule 2 “Consequential amendments to other enactments”. 
The question I ask members opposite and through the Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Finlayson to the officials is whether we can be absolutely sure that the right reference is cited in section 83(2)(a) in schedule 2. There is a reference there to section 223D of the Employment Relations Act. I just inform the Minister that there is no section 223D in the Employment Relations Act. I am using the statute from the lobby; the 1 April 2009 edition. It may be that changes have been made since that time. But I note there is a section 224 in that Act and that the reference to a demand notice appears to be correct. There is always a question in these things about whether one is working from the correct copy of the legislation. In the case of the next reference it appears that section 83(2)(b) refers accurately to section 224. But in the case of section 83(2)(a) the reference there is not accurate. 
It might be that the reference should be to section 223(1)(c). That is a provision that ties the Employment Relations Act to the Holidays Act and deals with the powers of labour inspectors in that particular area. It is not even section 223(1)(d) because that relates to the Minimum Wage Act but it is a matter that is meant to relate to holiday pay. That of course must refer to the Holidays Act and the proper references within this area. I say to the Hon John Carter my old friend and colleague who is now in the chair that occasionally there is a lot of politics in these things and occasionally there appears to be a minor error in the drafting. But when we have a mis-reference when relating something to an Act it could well end up being an inaccurate reference. 
The Minister of course has a group of officials who are working with him and for him and if the Minister did indicate that the lobby copy of the legislation is out of date and I am wrong I would be happy to concede on this point. But if the lobby copy is accurate it may be that the Minister would want to scribble an amendment in order to change the reference to the Act to read “section 223(1)(c)” which I think is the accurate reference. I am getting a bit of a nod. I want to plead guilty because for at least half an hour I was a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee during its deliberations on the bill and I missed this wrong reference on the way through. It does not happen very often and I will apologise to the Committee for making an error if it is— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I could have saved you further embarrassment. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I thank the member. If he wants to take a call to clarify this matter I am happy to come back after that.