Wilkinson wasn’t in the House today so Finlayson answered. I don’t know what the Chief Justice saw in him. He is [deleted after careful consideration - Clare]
He totally misrepresented the current legislation. Failed to mention that the air traffic excuse for this shocking bill was solved using the amendments passed under Labour last year.
Here is what he said, and what it means I think is that it is the intention of the government to force the bill through before Christmas with no Select Committee:
11. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour-Hutt South) to the Minister of Labour: What has happened since compulsory rest and meal breaks for employees came into effect this year, which has led to her proposing changes to that legislation?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Labour): From complaints received by the Minister it has become clear, if it was not already, that not everyone has a cup of tea at 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. and stops for lunch precisely at 1 p.m., except possibly Parliament when it is in urgency and, on most occasions, the courts. The changes are aimed at ensuring flexibility in the workplace by allowing employers and employees to time their breaks in a way that does not disrupt their work. The Government does not believe it should restrict the rights of employees to ask their employer if they can skip afternoon tea and go home a little earlier than usual in order to pick up their children from sports practice.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Is the Minister asserting that the legislation requires breaks to be taken for tea at 10 a.m. and lunch at 1 p.m.?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I am sorry but, because of the interjections, I could not hear that. Would the Minister-and, of course, it is one law for all of us-
Mr SPEAKER: I will ask the member to repeat his question, because it was hard to hear it. I ask members to be a little quieter, please.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Is the Minister asserting that the legislation requires breaks to be taken for tea at 10 a.m. and lunch at 1 p.m.?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: What the Minister is asserting is that the current legislation has unnecessary inflexibility. The proposal aims to restore flexibility to the workplace.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Why did the Minister vote for the legislation?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: She and the National Party voted for the legislation at the first reading and, indeed, I spoke on it in the first reading and said it should go to a select committee, because it raised important issues that needed to be looked at. We voted against the legislation in the Committee stage because there were some concerns about flexibility, but, in the overall mix, we voted for it at the third reading.
Hon Darren Hughes: What a shambles!
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I cannot see where the shambles was in doing that and then seeking to improve the legislation when the opportunity arose.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Will the Minister assure the House that she will not move to foreshorten the length of the select committee process?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I can say that the bill that was passed last year went through a select committee process, which was very thorough. The current bill is in the nature of a tidying-up.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very-
Mr SPEAKER: Is this a point of order?
Hon Trevor Mallard: Yes, it is a point of order. It was a very specific question, seeking an assurance that the Minister would not move to foreshorten the select committee process. An assurance was not given. No answer was given to that question; there was a repetition of what happened last year. There was reference to this legislation being tidied up, but the actual question was not addressed.
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I will try to help the member. The issue is what “foreshorten” means.
Mr SPEAKER: The Minister has made it clear that he was not sure what the member meant in his question by asking about the process being foreshortened. If the member wants to-[Interruption] If it will assist the House to get the information, I invite the member to reword his question.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that she will not move as part of the referral motion to a select committee that the bill have a shortened period for the report back?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I am no expert in parliamentary procedure, but I would have thought that was a matter for the House.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, that was a very specific question about whether the Minister would move a motion. That motion is not a matter for the House; it is a matter for the Minister. The Minister makes a decision on that motion. How the House votes is a matter for the House to decide, but is there an assurance that the Government will not move to cut workers out of their rightful-
Mr SPEAKER: That is not acceptable in a point of order. It would seem that what is happening here is that a hypothetical question is being asked about what the Minister may or may not do. The Minister has pointed out, in answering the question, that, finally, that is a matter for the House. That is, as I understand it, a fair answer to the question. If the Minister believes that helpful information can be added to assist the House, I am happy for the Minister to do that, but he would need to do that now if he wishes to do so.
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No.
Mr SPEAKER: I believe that under the circumstances, given that it is a hypothetical question, I cannot insist on a clearer answer than that. The Minister answered the question by saying it was a matter for the House at the end of the day, and that is a fair answer to the question.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: I fear the member is about to litigate the quality of an answer-
Hon Trevor Mallard: I know that I am sailing slightly close to the wind. It is not a matter, though, for the House as to whether a Minister moves something; that is something for a Minister to do. A Minister must, at the end of the first reading of the bill, which is currently sitting on the Table and will soon be up for its first reading, move a motion. The movement of that is not a matter for the House and the detail as to whether there is a short select committee process is something for the Minister to include in the motion, not for the House.
Mr SPEAKER: Before I take the matter any further, I say my dilemma is that it is a hypothetical question. When a Minister moves that motion at the end of the first reading, the Minister will not necessarily spell out the report-back time at all; the Minister will spell out the committee to which the bill is to be referred. This is a hypothetical question because the Minister is not required to specify that matter when the motion is moved, so I believe that I cannot force the Minister to answer it in that kind detail. The Minister has, in my view, given an adequate answer by pointing out that, at the end of the day, that is a matter for the House.
Apologies for the threadjack – delete this if you like.
Have done and asked for your question to be answered. Trevor
Oh hello Mr Mallard. I see my comment pulling you up on calling Mr Finlayson “nasty” has been deleted completely. Almost as if it had never existed in the first place. It seems that any comments that might cause embarrassment to the Labour Party get swift treatment. No Tim it went because of what else was there and we are getting a bit behind in moderation tonight. Must be the moon. There will be a post for your to comment on without threadjacking. Trevor
That lack of answer is ominous.
Nasty man? Passing screws?
C’mon Trevor, you are simply outclassed by about 10 to 1, that’s all.
“Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, that was a very specific question about whether the Minister would move a motion. That motion is not a matter for the House; it is a matter for the Minister. The Minister makes a decision on that motion. How the House votes is a matter for the House to decide, but is there an assurance that the Government will not move to cut workers out of their rightful-”
No, no, no… You had him by the short and curlies and gave the speaker an out by going for that little dig… Smith would have made him answer from what I’ve seen so far this term unless one of the Government members raised a point of order… Cunliffe and yourself are the worst at not resisting digs when you could score valid political points…
As an aside, why is the Speaker’s and Mr Finlayson’s names in Caps but not yours..? Is it only current ministers not former ones that are represented this way in the Hansard..?
I wondered when watching your exchange with Smith during question time, Trevor, whether there was any relevance in there surely being a Cabinet paper in the name of the Minister going to the substance of the House motion? And therefore a clear matter of ministerial responsibility, rather than a ‘hypothetical’? By the way, I also was somewhat shocked to see the ‘mean and nasty’ side of Tinkerbell. His arrogance was already legend.
housekeeping matter for you Trevor. It seems that on the home page you didn’t end the italics and so everything below this post is now in italics. I guess it’s because the ‘rest of this entry’ contained the end italics and you probably should have included it on the home page. Hope that makes sense?
Wow! Pots and kettles Mallard. balance deleted personal abuse Trevor
I think that the length of the battle in the house to get a clear answer from the Minister of Labour as to whether she will rush the bill through all stages, and the debate on this posting have sidelined the main point at issue.
The National Party voted for the rest breaks legislation before the election and now that they have been elected they have bowed to business concerns to cut out a statutory condition that gave vulnerable workers certainty of work breaks during the working day.
That certainty is about to disappear in favour of an employer’s good will, which in some workplaces is very much lacking.
Moderated by your own side Trevor? balance deleted personal abuse and defamatory Trevor
[...] Red Alert, there is a blog post saying: Wilkinson wasn’t in the House today so Finlayson answered. I don’t know what the Chief Justice [...]
Google cache.
It is on Kiwiblog too – Trevor
I’m not entering into moderating debates Sean. We might have a bit of a review over the next recess and invite comments then. Trevor
Come on Trev… play the ball not the man. You don’t want to stoop to WhaleOil’s level, and this comes close.
@ Justin fair comment. That makes it scary.
Notice this about the previous Labour legislation which bought in meal breaks.
“She and the National Party voted for the legislation at the first reading and, indeed, I spoke on it in the first reading and said it should go to a select committee, because it raised important issues that needed to be looked at. We voted against the legislation in the Committee stage because there were some concerns about flexibility, but, in the overall mix, we voted for it at the third reading.”
So in opposition they voted for it , then against it and then ( finally) for.
Now they are the government they are back to being against it.
FLIP , FLOP., FLIP, SOMERSAULT
My apologies for stepping on your delicate sensibilities Trevor.
Seriously? You really have no idea do you? Why do you think the general public loathes politicians so much?
I saw Paul Henry on the subject this morning with Andrew Little and another bloke. If anyone saw it, I’m pretty sure you will agree with my observation that Mr Little saw no real problem with the change and his lack of fight, suggested he was opposing it for no other reason than he should .. as both Leader of the Union and Party. Anyone else see it?