edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
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:15474] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority 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. 
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:15473] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to the second reading of the Holidays Amendment Bill. I will make sure I finish the speech so that we can conclude the second reading before the dinner break. The legislation will improve the overall function of the Holidays Act 2003 the principal Act parts of which have been criticised as being overly complex and prescriptive. 
This legislation is part of a suite of employment law designed to grow the economy boost jobs and living standards and generally move the country forward. This is the main focus for the Government and I make no apology for that. 
This legislation contains practical solutions for employers and employees. It will help to reduce compliance costs thereby giving businesses confidence and the opportunity to grow. It will resolve workplace disputes faster and provide choices for employees and employers. 
A number of provisions that we have already discussed today have been hotly debated. I also want to touch on the agreement and provision in the bill for 1 week of an employee’s annual holiday to be swapped for cash if he or she so chooses. There has been widespread support from many employees. They want choice and this change gives them exactly that. 
We campaigned as a party on this particular change and this legislation achieves that. We believe in New Zealand workers and we believe that they are best placed to make their own decisions about their own personal circumstances. Importantly employers cannot apply pressure to employees to exchange holidays for cash; employees can decline any request. It is really a win-win situation for both employers and employees. We trust employees to make the decision that is best for them and their families. That is what we believe in and we make no apology for that. It is great to see that the fourth week provision was supported by Phil Goff. He supported the provision and he backed the Government policy. It is really good to see that. 
There are many other excellent provisions. Amending the average daily pay will be welcomed by businesses. That issue has been quite confusing and it is good to see clarity now in this particular area. The Opposition has talked about the request for proof of sickness or injury and how that might be used. An employer can in the first 3 consecutive calendar days ask an employee to produce a sickness certificate but this would have to be done on reasonable grounds. Employers will not use this provision willy-nilly. They will have to cover the cost of the employee going to see the doctor and getting that certificate so it will be done only when there are suspicious circumstances or a pattern of behaviour. I am quite sure it will not be used unless the concern is absolutely genuine. I will leave it at that. This is an excellent provision and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15453] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson I think you are aware that there is no requirement to put a title at the top of an amendment when an amendment is tabled. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member is right. Although the heading may be incorrect the vote is not on the heading. The vote is on the proposed amendment to the clause and that is the question I have put.
King Colin: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
King Colin: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15474] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It has been very enlightening to listen to the debate during the second reading of the Holidays Amendment Bill. I would say on balance that it certainly reinforces choice. The National Government and the ACT Party certainly trust workers. We appreciate that there is a different view across the House. However we must also be mindful that we have to reinforce our workers and I believe that providing for 1 week of holiday to be cashed up at the worker’s choice is certainly a good idea. I commend the bill to the House.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15456] 
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: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15455] 
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 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15455] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not wish to get into an intense argument on this matter but the bill has two commencement dates. Part of it is brought into force on one date and part of it is brought into force on another date. I think that any reasonable person would think that one could amend either of them. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member for that point. All of the amendments that have been lodged are to amend the commencement date in clause 2(1) which is 1 July 2011. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think you have lost one Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Well I have them here. The member has signed them. Henceforth I am ruling them all out of order.
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 Part 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. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: There is zero tolerance for comments made during voting—zero.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15454] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15454] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Whip—Maori Party) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek leave to adjust our vote not on the amendment we have just voted on but on the one before that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought to change the vote on that amendment. I ask what the member is changing his party’s vote to. He gave five votes in favour. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: Obviously it should be five votes opposed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member has sought to change that vote. The corrected vote is Ayes 51 Noes 69. The amendment is not agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15454] 
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: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15453] 
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 six amendments to clause 1 “Title” in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard are substantially the same as amendments that have already been decided by the Committee. Therefore they are not in order. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit “Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2)” and substitute “Employment Relations (Personal Grievance Claim Changes) Amendment Bill”.
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 1 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 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) “1 April 2011” and substitute “30 September 2011”.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15453] 
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 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit “Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2)” and substitute “Employment Relations (Trial Periods and Union Access) Amendment Bill”. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the amendment be 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: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 Kate Wilkinson to clause 13 be agreed to: 
to insert the following subclause after the clause heading: 
(1)Section 57(1) is amended by adding “; and” and also by adding the following paragraph: 
“(d)not to be taken on a public holiday.”
Quinn Paul: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Quinn Paul: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15452] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15444] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think the problem that we have is that there has been a clear error here because a debate was accepted on new Part 3. That has been well-established here and in the House. It was wrongly accepted I think both sides now accept. But what happened was that some votes were not taken. New Part 3 was called by the Chair and you are absolutely right as to the sequence. But the question is whether a closure can apply over a period when another debate has been called. I do not want to be too critical of the Chair at the time and it was now quite a few hours ago but it is my very firm view that a closure does not apply if there has been an interruption and we have moved to a subsequent debate. 
Therefore although it is a relatively narrow debate and I discovered it was narrow because I started debating it myself earlier on quite incorrectly as Mr Woodhouse pointed out we have to find a way of sorting this out. But the closure cannot just apply 6 hours after it actually occurred. If the closure was to occur properly then the Speaker would have put us back into Committee notwithstanding the fact that we had reached 1 o’clock and we would have had the vote. If the closure applied then we just keep on having the votes and have our lunchtime at the end of those votes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I have heard enough. I have had several pieces of advice. The member’s referring to Part 3 is irrelevant. Part 3 is ruled out of order. It is as though it never existed. It has gone. It is not a matter before this Committee. The second point is that my advice from the Clerk is that there was no closure motion. The closure motion does not apply. The issue the member is raising about a closure is a complete red herring. It is irrelevant. It is here to confuse and cause distraction. There is no closure; we are not dealing with that. 
Let us come back to the fact. The fact is that a vote was started. It was incomplete at the time the Committee rose for luncheon. There is no problem with that. Votes were before the Committee before it rose for lunch and now the Committee has resumed and we are completing the votes. We are completing the votes on the schedules. There is no debate on the schedules. They are included in the original motion. The confusion of members is entirely of their own making. Without further ado I am now going to put the vote on schedule 2 and once that is completed I will then call for clauses 1 to 3.
Chadwick Steve: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15443] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We had a member on her feet trying to take a call before the vote was put. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I understand that the debate on Part 2 included clauses 39 and 40 and schedules 1 and 2. They are not separate debates. Therefore we will now have the vote on each provision.
Brownlee Gerry: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15441] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Another opportunity for members is to seek leave of the Committee to see those parts brought into the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). I think we are seeing a situation where the Committee has said no it does not accept those amendments as being within its scope and it is not going to have them progress because it has dealt with those matters before but now the House is being asked to debate whether it should give the Committee a further opportunity to do exactly the same thing. If the Standing Orders allow this sort of thing to happen then we have a perpetual loop if you like that could go on and on. I would assert that once this instruction has been given to the Committee there will be another one and another one. That does not make for good order in the House at all.
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15441] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt an amendment not proposed in the correct place.
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15429] 
4. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: How will the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill provide appropriate assurance to ensure the participation of Maori and the presence of a significant Maori voice in its programmes and programme planning? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 The Television New Zealand Amendment Bill replaces the Television New Zealand (TVNZ) charter with a new set of statutory functions which state amongst other things that TVNZ must provide high-quality content that reflects Maori perspectives. I also note that out of the total public broadcasting budget of $231 million $81 million is reserved specifically for Maori broadcasting ensuring the participation of Maori and the presence of a significant Maori voice in programmes and programme planning in State-funded broadcasting. 
Rahui Katene 
: How does the Government plan to give effect to binding decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council in relation to the broadcasting of Maori language and content on mainstream television in prime time; and what feedback has he received from Maori about the risk of diluting the Maori content in TVNZ transmissions by his proposal to remove the charter and replace it with a very broad statement of function? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Answering the second part of the question first I have had one letter which was sent to the Minister of Maori Affairs and subsequently forwarded to my office. In regard to the first part the Government gives effect to those decisions through New Zealand on Air and Te Mangai Paho. Te Mangai Paho directly funds the Maori Television Service and also makes available contestable funding to other broadcasters including TVNZ. TVNZ will continue to be eligible to apply for this funding. One of New Zealand On Air’s statutory requirements is to promote Maori language and culture. 
Rahui Katene 
: In what ways will the Government measure the success of TVNZ as a public broadcaster in terms other than ratings and revenue and how will it measure non-commercial success? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: TVNZ is required to produce a statement of intent each year which outlines its plans for the forthcoming year. It then reports against these aims in its annual report. Shareholding Ministers also write to TVNZ at the start of each financial year outlining specific expectations of the company. Those expectations are discussed periodically throughout the year with TVNZ. 
Brendon Burns 
: Why did the Minister tell last Friday’s Screen Production and Development Association conference that his Television New Zealand Amendment Bill “leaves TVNZ free to determine its own priorities.” when in fact the bill tells TVNZ that its only task is to maximise revenues with no specific requirement for any New Zealand content be it for Maori audiences or anyone else? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: That is not correct. The charter has been replaced with a set of statutory functions which are laid out in the bill.
Adams Amy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Adams Amy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15425] 
2. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How is the Government ensuring the economy recovers in a sustainable way that delivers more jobs and builds faster growth? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 We have put in place a comprehensive economic plan designed to guide the economy through a period of recession. Since 2009 we have now had five consecutive quarters of growth. We have focused on building faster and sustainable economic growth over the medium and long term—growth based on savings investment and exports rather than the unsustainable growth based on borrowing consumption and Government spending that were the features of previous years. 
Amy Adams 
: What are the main policy drivers of the Government’s economic plan? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yesterday I mentioned three of them in the House: strengthening the tax system investing in productive infrastructure and supporting business innovation and trade. There are three others that we are focusing on: lifting productivity and improving public services removing red tape and improving regulation and improving education and lifting skills. All of these things are helping to tilt the economy towards saving exports and productive investment and better equipping New Zealand business to make investment decisions and New Zealanders to take the jobs that will be provided in a growing economy. 
Amy Adams 
: Within this programme what steps has the Government taken to lift the performance of the public sector? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The public sector has needed a lot of effort to lift its performance after a number of years where it grew fast both in terms of funding and numbers. We have reviewed the performance of all major Government departments and agencies. We have capped the bureaucracy and we have moved nearly $4 billion of spending from back-office into front-line public services such as health education and law and order. I might say that the leadership of the Public Service is now looking ahead to how it will manage through very limited new funding and there will be significant change in the public sector over the next few years. 
Amy Adams 
: What steps has the Government taken to remove red tape as well as to improve education and lift skills? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We have moved to simplify the Resource Management Act. We have simplified regulation in respect of water infrastructure and urban design. We are also progressing reforms in aquaculture the construction industry the food industry and the financial sector. In respect of education and skills we have introduced national standards in literacy and numeracy the Youth Guarantee and Trades in Schools and we have significantly improved the quality and relevance of tertiary qualifications—an area where the previous Government wasted hundreds of millions of dollars.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15425] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have great respect for the work that you have done with question time but we do take this matter very seriously. The Opposition will be exercising its right under Speakers’ ruling 145/3 and the member will not be asking the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is perfectly acceptable. 
Question withdrawn.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15425] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will not question my ruling. I will listen to him. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am not questioning your ruling for this case but I want you to consider the facts of this matter—that is a question to the Prime Minister was lodged and accepted by your office. The Prime Minister insisted on the word “labour” going in there and that was accepted by your office. It was the insertion of that word “labour” in there that meant that the Prime Minister could then give it to this Minister. Your office accepted it— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. He should be careful about alleging facts that he does not have knowledge of. The Speaker was not prepared to accept the question in its original form because the Speaker considered the quote was out of context. The Speaker was not prepared to accept it and that is why it was changed. It was not because of anything to do with the Prime Minister. The member should be careful what he alleges. That is the end of the matter.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15424] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 This is a very interesting exchange but quite apart from the numerous Speakers’ rulings that relate to the ability of the Government to make a choice about who is best to answer a question there is also Speaker’s ruling 144/4 which states: “A member cannot insist on a particular Minister dealing with a question.” We could spend the rest of the afternoon going over this. You have ruled on it and I think appropriately. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I will not hear further on this. I have heard quite sufficient on it. The Leader of the House makes the point that Speakers’ ruling 144/2 is not the only one on the matter. Speaker’s ruling 144/3 points out specifically—and this is a reasonably recent ruling by Speaker Hunt—that Speakers’ ruling 144/2 which the member specified in particular recognises a longstop protection against abuse in transferring a question where only one Minister could be expected to have personal knowledge of the subject. In this case the Minister whom the Government has set down to answer the question should have knowledge of the issue. It may not be the preferred answerer on behalf of the Opposition but it is the Government’s responsibility to determine who will answer questions and as the Leader of the House has pointed out even more recently Speaker Wilson has made it clear under Speaker’s ruling 144/4 that a member cannot insist on a particular Minister dealing with a question. Several recent rulings have made that clear. It is my judgment as Speaker that this is not an abuse. Because of the wording of the question it is reasonable to expect the Minister to have some knowledge of this issue.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15424] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Sorry to take your time on this. This is a very serious matter to the Opposition because the member who put the question down was very specific about putting it down to the Prime Minister. The quote as you rightly say was the subject of some discussion. It was the Minister Mr Ryall answering on behalf of the Minister of Labour; he referred to the labour portfolio and then the quote goes on. That quote was lifted out a reference was made to the labour portfolio in order to ensure that it was not taken out of context and then the Prime Minister was to be asked whether this applied just in this particular portfolio for which the Prime Minister has responsibility. I think the alternative example you have given us makes sense if this question had been set down to the Minister of Labour but we never set that down to the Minister of Labour; we set it down to the Prime Minister and one of the portfolios that the Prime Minister allocates is the labour portfolio which is why the question is worded in that way. I suspect if we worded it in the way you suggested Mr Speaker that would be right if it were set down to this Minister but I suspect if we had used the wording you suggest and continued to set it down to the Prime Minister the Government would have moved to transfer it in any case. So it is a very serious matter because it is a question that the deputy leader of the Labour Party wishes to put to the Prime Minister about the whole of Government in respect of the quote about the labour portfolio.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15444] 
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 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15424] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance and I think it will be your considered guidance on questions for written answer. This is an interesting point of order. These are in the name of Hilary Calvert—question Nos 35368 and 35366 to the Attorney-General and the questions ask whether it is the Government’s intention about something and the answer from the Attorney-General is— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not want to take up the time of the House on questions for written answer. Members know that they are perfectly at liberty to write to the Speaker when they are concerned about questions for written answer. I give prompt attention to such communications from members and it is well known that I often write to Ministers explaining to them their responsibilities to answer those questions in accordance with the Standing Orders. There is a proper process for dealing with those matters and I do not believe it is appropriate to take up the time of the House on that. It would be more appropriate for the member to write to me on that.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15423] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Well the Leader of the House might well—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I am hearing the member. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Two or three times in the time that we have been in the House Speakers have taken it on themselves to insist that particular transfers not occur and Speakers’ ruling 144/2 has been referred to. Normally this is a matter that is dealt with earlier by your office and I understand there has been some discussion about it. But if one looks at the question one can see that it is impossible to find in it any ministerial responsibility for the Minister of Labour. Her case is the exception. Does it apply only to the labour portfolio? We know it applies to the labour portfolio; the question is about every other portfolio not about the labour portfolio. My request to you Mr Speaker is that you consider that and whether this Minister is capable of answering a question on behalf of the Minister of Transport the Minister of Broadcasting the Minister for Economic Development— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made his point sufficiently. I hear what members are saying. Certainly Speakers’ ruling 144/2 enables the Speaker to refuse the transfer of a question where there is basically no responsibility for the subject matter of the question. This particular question quotes as I understand it the Hon Tony Ryall when he was answering on behalf of the Minister of Labour. The question does not ask whether that statement applies to all other portfolios; it asks whether it applies only to the labour portfolio. The Hon Trevor Mallard’s last point of order is not actually correct because the question does not ask that; it asks whether it applies only to the labour portfolio. I expect Ministers to have some idea whether a particular statement applies only to their portfolio. They probably could not answer for all portfolios but the question did not ask that. Again it is a matter of the detail of questions and I have to rule as I see the questions actually asked. It may be that members wish to put down a question that does address particularly the point that the member was getting to in his point of order. The matter of who is responsible or who will answer the question is primarily a matter for the Government unless under Speakers’ ruling 144/2 there is absolutely no responsibility whatsoever.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15422] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order under Speakers’ rulings 143 144 and 145. The question lodged by the Hon Annette King was set down to the Prime Minister asking him a specific question about a quote from one of his Ministers in respect of a particular portfolio and seeking to explore with the Prime Minister whether the approach the Government was taking in one portfolio was true for the whole of the Government and whether this was a Government-wide policy. As the acting Leader of the Opposition she will want to ask the Prime Minister that question. The Government has chosen rather than have the Prime Minister answer the question to set it down to the Minister of Labour whose portfolio was given as a particular example for the quote for a whole-of-Government question. In doing so the Government’s transfer renders the question almost to the point of being meaningless because we already know that the Government has asserted that that is its approach in that particular portfolio. There is no point asking a Minister something about a portfolio that has already been stated. 
I draw your attention particularly to Speakers’ ruling 144/2 because the Opposition would assert that that is an abuse of the transfer of the question. Often there are very good reasons for Ministers to transfer a question to another Minister but this is clearly a question about a whole-of-Government responsibility for which only the Prime Minister can have knowledge as is set out in Speakers’ rulings 144/4 and 144/5 and which is within the purview of the Prime Minister. I ask you to consider that and if necessary I will seek leave for the question to be transferred back to the Prime Minister so that the question about whole of Government can be answered which the quote and the meaning of the text of the question clearly set out to do. [ 
Interruption 
]
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15426] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to correct what I said earlier when I indicated that the Prime Minister’s office had intervened. It intervened at 10.50; according to the Clerk’s Office your intervention was at 11.30. Both of you intervened. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not see how that is a point of order but I can assure the honourable member that when I saw the question if the quote had been included in the question correctly it would have been a much fuller quote than that and I am concerned about quotes taken out of context. Question No. 3 the Hon David Cunliffe. [ 
Interruption 
] No no. Let us just move on to question No. 3. It is time to settle down.
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 Darien Fenton to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
11ADays that are public holidays 
Section 44 is amended by adding the following substection: 
“(5)Whenever Easter Monday and Anzac Day fall on the same day Easter Monday must be treated as falling on the following Tuesday.”
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:15421] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think there are two parts to it and I thank Eric Roy for his summary. Other than the conclusions I do not think there is any difference on the facts. 
The first question is the Committee having commenced debate on a particular part and a full speech on it having been accepted whether it is within the realm of the Chair of the Committee at that stage to effectively rule himself out and say that other members do not have an opportunity to debate what had started. But that is probably the lesser of the two parts although an appeal is going on on the other. 
The substantive question is whether an additional part of a bill can be moved that puts conditions on what has been agreed to previously by the Committee. There is no doubt that after quite a lot of debate and suggested changes Part 1 was passed and I think we agree that Part 2 was a fairly minor consequential transitional-type arrangement. Mr Speaker both of us have been in the House during a period when there has been increasing use of a part by part approach but I think it is fair to say not quite to the extreme we have in terms of this bill where major legislation in two major areas—to do with 90-day trial periods and to do with union access—is wrapped up in one part. I think it is fair to say that in the time of Geoffrey Palmer as Attorney-General there would have been quite a few more parts and even subsequently in the time of the Bolger administration we would have seen at least two parts each one dealing with one of the substantive issues. 
But the issue goes to whether a Committee is restricted from putting some conditions—to protect workers in this particular case—on a part that has already been agreed to saying essentially that Part 1 can work but as it does work it should be limited. That is the central question. I have been looking and I see that you are looking at the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. I cannot see something that indicates that it cannot happen. My view is that it would be a very large restriction on the right of an Opposition party to move amendments that are not unreasonable. There are only two and they both certainly go to issues that are pertinent and provide some protections that are pertinent. My appeal to you Mr Speaker is that it would be an unreasonable restriction on the rights of the House if Opposition members could not move amendments in this form and were restricted to moving amendments that restrict the approach within one part of the bill.
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15435] 
8. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: Have recent events at Taipa had an impact on the progress of the Muriwhenua Treaty of Waitangi land claims settlements? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 No and I certainly hope that they will not have any impact. As the member knows the iwi of the Muriwhenua have been seeking settlements for some time. Huge issues need to be dealt with. An agreement in principle was signed at Ahipara on 15 January and great progress has been made towards a deed of settlement with those iwi. I certainly hope that the unfortunate events of recent days will not get in the way of just and durable settlements for those people up there. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Is there a precedent for local government and the Crown collaborating to effect the return of reserve lands to tangata whenua and is he willing to explore such an option as it pertains to the Taipa reserve lands? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: There are precedents for that kind of innovation. There is no reason why people cannot approach the Crown on those issues but there are ways of doing things and ways of not doing things. Illegal occupation of that land is not an appropriate way of dealing with matters. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: What does the Minister say to the far north community that has watched the abandonment of the local sailing club regatta and the cancellation of annual fishing competitions because of fear associated with this land occupation connected with obviously troubled Treaty negotiations? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: In answer to the last point I say that the negotiations are not troubled; very good progress has been made. I say to those people that they have every right to be upset and disappointed. The selfish actions of a few have harmed the legitimate activities of the entire community and those groups have every right to feel frustrated and disappointed. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: When he told the Taipa protesters who are nephews to Hone Harawira to go to hell what directions did he have in mind and whom did he think they might meet there? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Well Trevor Mallard is not dead yet. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Based on that answer are we now to consider this Minister to be the “Black Prince” amongst Maori Treaty negotiations? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I certainly hope not. The phrase is a figurative phrase. It expressed my frustration that after all the good work that had been done by the negotiators of Ngai Takoto Ngati Kuri Te Rarawa and Te Aupouri we have had what Harold Macmillan would have called a little local difficulty which is getting in the way of deeds of settlement being signed so that just and durable settlements can finally be entered into—a hope of the late Mat Rata from over 20 years ago.
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:15480] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That the Chairperson report progress to obtain the Speaker’s ruling on a personal reflection that the Chairperson had ruled against. 
 The reason I am doing that is that I think it is unfair for the Chair to make a ruling on a matter that I realise in retrospect was a reflection on him as well. 
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed.
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15454] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I ask with your leave to withdraw one of the amendments in my name to clause 2. I am afraid that I forgot that only 30 days hath November and I have an amendment to change the commencement date to 31 November. It is the first amendment on one of the sheets. I apologise to the Committee because of course that amendment would have been facetious as the date does not exist. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “1 July 2011” and substitute “31 December 2011”.
Roy Eric: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Roy Eric: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:668;Page:15420] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Mr Speaker the Committee of the whole House has moved to recall you for a determination on a ruling I made in relation to two amendments in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to insert new parts. Can I say I chose not to give the matter the appropriate amount of attention at the time and for that I take some responsibility. The Committee at the time was debating Part 2 and I was trying to determine that it be a narrow debate on two clauses and that affected my attention to relevance. It did distract me somewhat. We then commenced debating the new Part 3 and I gave the matter some further consideration. In that regard I can understand that the member in whose name the amendments are is a bit perplexed as to why the debate began then at the end of his first call I subsequently ruled it out of order. The issue in relation to the amendments is whether in my rationale they are contradicted by something that is in Part 1 or whether they should be associated with it. I did seek some advice and ruled subsequently after the debate had begun that they were out of order because the pertinence of what the amendments contained should be attached to Part 1 and should have been debated at the time of that debate. It is on that basis that I gave my ruling.
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 Speaker. I think you alluded to one further matter in your ruling. Your quotation from Speakers’ rulings goes to the second part of the matter. There are two parts to the objection. One was the objection by Ms Fenton to the reflection on her and her role but also there was a reflection on parties. Included in the comments of Mr Henare which I understand that you heard was an indication that the Labour Party was receiving stolen money. As a member of the Labour Party I find that grossly offensive. It is inaccurate and I am not sure what the right procedure is—whether we have to go back into Committee for that to be brought up with the Chair or whether it is appropriate for you to deal with it now. As well as not being able to make reflections against members there was the matter of making reflections against parties. There was the accusation of both the theft and the receiving and I take offence at the receiving element as well. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. Possibly that should have been brought up when the Chairman was actually making his ruling. I will not add anything further to my ruling. My ruling is clear in terms of personal reflections. I understand the sensitivity of these matters; I certainly do not want to downplay that. The Chairman has ruled. It is in line with previous Speakers’ rulings. That is my ruling.
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:15420] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Of course I take your word that you did not listen to what John Carter said. I move  
That the Chairperson report progress to obtain the Speaker’s ruling on the admissibility of a proposed amendment. 
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed.