Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2)

Thank you for the call on this particular matter, and I must say that it is good to see the Minister in charge of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2), Kate Wilkinson, in the Chamber. It is good to see her here, preparing to defend for the first time in the Committee stage what is an outrageous piece of legislation that is being pushed through under urgency and that had a shortened select committee process, which was very, very badly run.

There are two elements to this bill, and together they make April Fool’s Day, the implementation date for all but section 10, an appropriate date for the bill to be enacted. Legislation is coming into force on April Fool’s Day from a Government that has worked really hard to fool the public of New Zealand. This is the nasty, vindictive part of National coming out. It is the part that hates wage and salary earners and hates people who earn low incomes, and that is determined to drive their conditions down, to stop their representatives from meeting them, and to ensure they have no job security. This is the sort of legislation that National Party people go to their branch meetings for. This is the sort of horrible stuff that the people who really like ACT—the far right of National—are promoting. I say that it is the ugly side of National—

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: It’s the only side.

No, I disagree with my colleague. She said it is the only side. I think that over the years there have been some more reasonable, more centrist approaches to legislation. I know that Jim Bolger, as Minister of Labour, would never bring legislation into force on April Fool’s Day. We used to disagree with him quite a lot, but I do not think he was seen as the devil incarnate in the way that this Minister is in the way that she acts.

Clause 1 states that the title of the Act is the Employment Relations Amendment Act (No 2), and I wonder whether that is an appropriate title, or whether there could be some other titles. It could be the “Stop the Sexually Harassed Worker Getting Her Representative into the Workplace Act” or the “Fire the Low-income Worker (Without Giving Reasons) Act”. Would they be more appropriate titles for the bill? This legislation is designed to drive down the working conditions of ordinary Kiwis. I am certain there is a better and more appropriate title for this legislation than the one that currently exists.

Clause 2 provides a commencement date of 1 July 2011 for part of this bill, and the rest will come into force on 1 April 2011. Clause 3 states the bill amends the Employment Relations Act 2000. The one bit I cannot disagree with is clause 3. I do not disagree with the fact that the bill does amend the Employment Relations Act. I will not vote for it, because I do not think the bill should be amended in this way, but it is factually accurate and probably appropriate given the content of the bill. Although the content is inappropriate, it does go to the Employment Relations Act 2000.

Mr Chair, I am sure that over a period of time we will have a number of amendments come to you on this particular issue, and some of them will go, I hope, to the title. I am sure some of my colleagues have views on alternative commencement dates, and they might currently be having amendments drafted in order to defer the implementation, so that whether or not union officials should have access to workplaces when people are being sexually harassed is deferred until after the next general election in order to have an approach that is fair.

I am delighted to see the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Labour, this afternoon, and I am delighted—a little bit—to take a call on clauses 1 to 3 of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). As my colleague Trevor Mallard has outlined, there are only three little parts to this bill. I will concentrate on clause 3, “Principal Act amended”. I have to agree with Mr Mallard that that clause tells the truth. It is very sinister though. It has half a dozen words: “This Act amends the Employment Relations Act 2000.” They are words that I hoped, as a member of Parliament, I would never ever hear from a National Government, because they are filled with foreboding—they amend the Employment Relations Act 2000. This amendment bill is beyond our worst nightmares. I want to take the opportunity to talk about what amending the principal Act will mean for people who are already operating under the Minister’s previous amendment to the Employment Relations Act 2000—that is, those who are in workplaces with fewer than 20 staff. I want to talk about what it will mean for every worker in the country who will be affected by this bill.

In talking about amending the Act, I will put on record some stories that have come through, and there are many. I will not talk about the sauce and aioli story; I will talk about the stationery store worker who was fired on the 85th day of her 90-day trial period. She only worked Saturdays. She was never told there was any dissatisfaction.

There was the case of an experienced hairdresser, who had never been dismissed before over many years of working for several employers.

There was the case of a recent university graduate employed by an accounting firm. Near the end of his 90-day trial period, the employer said that he had done well and would be offered a new agreement. But when he received a new agreement, he saw that it was unlawful. It contained the 90-day trial period provision, which he pointed out was unlawful, and the boss told him not to come in on Monday.

There was the case of the farm worker, who, during his first week on the farm, picked up an infection related to his job. He was in hospital for a week, then returned to the farm, and was sacked under the 90-day trial period provision. Amending the principal Act will produce that consequence for thousands and thousands of workers—400,000 workers who change their jobs every year will risk this sort of treatment.

Another young woman told me that she started work in a heating firm, and, despite bringing in sales, she was sacked after just 8 days with no reason given. She wrote to the company to ask for a reason but she has never received a reply, because under this Act the company does not have to give an answer.

One woman moved from the North Island to the South Island to be close to her elderly parents, and took up a job with a local firm. She had positive feedback on her performance and even suggested some training on her own behalf in order to further improve. She was dismissed with no reason given. With an unsold home in the North Island, she is now living in a caravan. Those cases are the consequences of clause 3 and the amendments in Part 1.

One woman who had a hearing impairment was employed by a call centre. The employer knew about her impairment when he took the woman on. She required some special equipment, but instead of providing it, the employer changed his mind and simply fired her under the 90-day trial period provisions. He told her not to come in on Monday.

A worker in a communications company turned up for work to find the office being renovated. Unable to find alternative facilities, the company simply fired that worker. The company said that it did not have to give any reason, and that it could fire her under the 90-day trial period provisions.

Members will be familiar with the Act, but we are now talking about what this amendment bill will mean. It will have consequences for thousands and thousands of workers.

Another example was of an early childhood teacher, with 11 years of teaching and nannying experience, who took a job at an early childhood education centre over another offer. Six weeks into her new job, she was told there was a complaint against her, and she was fired the next day. No previous concerns had been raised about her performance, and she was given no chance to read the complaint or respond to it. She was an early childhood education teacher. I thought we were short of them. Mind you, there will be surplus, will there not? There will be no positions.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: There will be no positions for them.

That is right, because the Government is cutting back on early childhood education. Despite all of the investment we have put into that person and her training to make sure that she is able to provide a proper education to our children, she has gone. She will find it really hard to get another job, and she is devastated by that. The consequences of this amendment are severe.

It is a pleasure to speak on the title and commencement date clauses of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). I think the commencement date should be changed. Instead of being 1 April 2011, it should probably be 1 April 1911. I do not know whether we can have retrospective dates like that, but it is appropriate to that period in our history when our employment legislation was very weak and employees were at a serious disadvantage. This bill would fit in that period more.

In terms of the title, rather than the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2), it might be better to call it the “Employees’ Submission Amendment Bill”, because that is what the bill is about, the submission of employees in the workplace, particularly to their employers. I think clause 3, “Principal Act amended”, rather than amending the Employment Relations Act 2000 might be better to amend the Corrections Act. This bill is, in some ways, imprisoning workers, or at least taking away the freedoms of workers in the workplace. It is relevant to the Corrections Act, because under that Act I think there is now an allowance for home detention. This bill does not have home detention; it is sort of work detention. So that clause relates, perhaps, more to the Corrections Act than the Employment Relations Act, which, as has been pointed out, was passed in 2000 to improve relations between employers and employees, to create a fairer relationship, and to allow for fair bargaining between the two parties.

The Green Party was supportive both of Trevor Mallard’s amendments to Part 1 and of the prospective Parts 3 and 4. I think that if the Government was serious, it would have accepted amendments that allowed for the union to be given access to workplaces as normal, without all this hold-up, where urgent matters are concerned. Certainly health and safety and sexual harassment are urgent matters, and if someone is dismissed, the union cannot wait for a few days before it comes in to defend them, work out whether they should be in the job, negotiate redundancy payments, and all the rest of the issues. These are matters that require the urgent attention of union officials, and I think it is a pity that those amendments to Part 1 were not passed.

In the prospective amendments there is the secret ballot issue, too. There is a funny contradiction in the legislation before the House at the present time. On the one hand, there is this requirement in Tau Henare’s bill, which the Green Party opposed, to provide a secret ballot before any action is taken by unions, but, on the other hand, in this different bill—the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2)—the unions cannot even get access to hold their secret ballot, or the employer can stop them and put barriers in their way. The two measures are in contradiction.

The other amendment that was put forward by Trevor Mallard met with the approval of the Green Party, too, which was that the primary remedy of reinstatement should particularly apply to those who are involved in union bargaining, and health and safety issues, etc. Otherwise an employer could kick an on-the-job union representative down the road, and that has happened many times in New Zealand’s employment history. I think there was opposition to that interpretation by the National Government. If the National Government does not think there will be a picking off of union officials, etc. by disallowing reinstatement as the primary remedy, then it should have supported that amendment. The other points raised in the debate have been very relevant, too, particularly the one relating to access to welfare benefits if someone is dismissed under the 90-day provision.

Let us be very, very clear. We are debating the differing philosophies of the National Party and the Labour Party. That is fundamentally what this debate is all about. Perhaps the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) should be called the “Tory View on Employment Relations Bill”. When I talk about the different philosophies, I mean that the party opposite is for the few; this party represents the many. That party stands up for the enfranchised; this party stands for those who are disenfranchised and often have no voice.

I want to say three words: equality, respect, and dignity. To talk about the word “equality”, I say that I was at a conference yesterday that discussed equality in New Zealand and how important it was. Learned professors took this bill and said that it stripped away equality and that the gap of inequality grew. It is the greatest impediment to economic and social growth in this country. It is the right of every person to representation, and that is what unions do. Unions stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. They are a voice when silence reigns. They provide a voice for those who have not a voice for themselves. Perhaps this bill should be called the “Stripping Away Equality in Employment Relations Bill”.

The second word is “respect”. At the conference yesterday learned professors said that the one major variable to inequality is a lack of respect. After nearly every single crime that is committed, certainly violent crime, the perpetrator stands up and says: “He dissed me. There was no respect. I felt disenfranchised.” This bill does not allow workers to be treated with respect. So perhaps this bill should be called the “Stripping Away Respect in Employment Relations Bill”. That is what this bill does.

The third word is “dignity”. People in this country must be treated with dignity. The fact that they can be let go without being given any reason at all, having their dignity stripped away and not being told why, is an absolute travesty. Perhaps this bill should be called the “Stripping Away Dignity in Employment Relations Bill”.

This bill is a travesty because it creates inequality for all workers by not allowing them the right to representation when they are unable to represent themselves. Taking away the rights of workers’ representatives to go on site is a great travesty to many workers in this country. The Hon Trevor Mallard asked what sort of country we want to live in. What sort of country do we want to bring our children up in? This bill does not allow for a country built on equality, which is something we very much pride ourselves on. This bill strips away the respect of workers and it strips away the dignity of workers.

When I heard Keith Locke say that the commencement date should be taken back 100 years, I thought to myself, as a student of history, that that was a very good point. This bill does not drive innovation and it does not drive the workforce. It is a backward-looking step. It takes employment relations back to the time when there were no rights. This bill strips away the rights of workers. Perhaps we should call it the “Stripping Away the Rights of Employees in Employment Relations Bill”, or perhaps the “Stripping Away the Rights of New Zealanders (When Seeking a Job) Bill”. That is what this bill does.

I have a slightly different view from my colleagues Trevor Mallard and Darien Fenton, which may be because I am a newer MP and just do not understand the issue. Clause 3, “Principal Act amended”, of course amends the Employment Relations Act, so I guess it is right. To me, the changes in the bill are so fundamental, in several respects, that I think it undermines the Employment Relations Act. I do not think the bill amends the Act; “amend” sounds quite normal and quite moderate. The bill fundamentally undermines a number of the key objectives of the Employment Relations Act. That Act was designed to build productive employment relationships. The fundamental objective of the Employment Relations Act is to build productive employment relationships through the promotion of good faith in all aspects of the employment environment and the employment relationship.

There are a number of elements in this amendment bill that fundamentally alter the balance of power in the employment relationship. As my colleague Stuart Nash said, the bill does not deal with things like dignity and respect. When employers can dismiss employees for any reason they can come up with and employees have no right even to know why they were dismissed, let alone challenge the dismissal if it is not fair—no right of redress—then I do not think that is about a relationship. That provision fundamentally alters the Employment Relations Act.

The objects of the Act talk about good-faith behaviour, as I have said, but also explicitly acknowledge and address the inherent inequality of power in employment relationships. I think that point has been completely ignored by the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). Members opposite seem to think there is no inequality in the employment relationship. Many of the people who will immediately be hit by the 90-day trial period extension to all workplaces will be young people entering a job for the first time, assuming of course they can get one, which in the current environment is very difficult. But let us say they do get a job; they are then immediately placed in the situation of having no rights at work.

No one can tell me that in a situation of high unemployment those employees who do not know their rights, and are not union members, will be able to get advice on whether they should accept this 90-day trial, which has no rights. In fact, it would seem that the intention of members opposite is that the normal course of events will be “take it or leave it” employment agreements whereby it will be perfectly legitimate to advertise a job as having a 90-day rights-free period and present the person with the option of either accepting the employment agreement, which has no rights for the first 90 days of employment, or not accepting it, which means not having a job. That is not a free choice, and it is not an equal power relationship.

As I say, I am a little concerned about the amendment to the principal Act. It worries me because I think it is more than a minor amendment to the Employment Relations Act; I think it is a fundamental undermining of it. I could understand it more if it were the Employment Contracts Act being amended. Then we might say that OK, the principal Act, the Employment Contracts Act—if it had not been repealed, and that repeal was a very good thing, I might add—is being amended by things like the change to the access provisions, which would be not as bad as what was in the Employment Contracts Act. We could say that that was an amendment. But I tell members that the 90-day issue is way worse than what existed under the Employment Contracts Act, under the previous National Government. Under that Act, workers had rights to challenge unfair dismissals within the first 90 days of employment, but under this amending legislation they will not.

It worries me, as Mr Nash said at the end of his contribution, that we are not building the productive employment relationships that are envisaged by, and are the fundamental objective of, the Employment Relations Act. Productive employment relationships are what we need. We need those productive employment relationships to change the nature of work, to lift workplace productivity, and to achieve the economic growth that this country needs. That outcome will rest on a well-informed workforce, a workforce treated with respect, and a workforce that has a collective voice.

I have some suggestions for alternative titles for this awful legislation that we are debating here in urgency today. The first alternative title we could call it is the “Employment Relations (Broken Promise) Amendment Bill”, because members may remember that, back in the election campaign in order to make the 90-day trial period for small businesses appear not so Draconian, much was made of the fact that it would apply only to businesses with fewer than 20 employees. Much was made of that. National MPs went to extraordinary lengths to make it clear that this would not apply across the entire workforce, only to small businesses. So here we have another broken—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: It’s the wrong bill. It’s a new year.

There is Tau Henare. Mr Henare knows I like to say that he is the worst union organiser in the history of the universe. I actually think Mr Henare is a Trojan Horse designed to try to bring down the union movement from within. That is the only way that I can work out how he managed to get that job. But coming back to this bill, it is a broken promise, because the Government promised that it would not extend the 90-day trial period to businesses with more than 20 employees. Remember that Government members were at pains to say that it would not apply to teachers. It would not apply to teachers, even if they were in a small school, because they were employed by the ministry. Now, it applies to everyone. It is another broken promise in what is proving to be a long list of broken promises from this National-led Government.

Another alternative title could be the “Employment Relations (Legalised Discrimination) Amendment Bill”, because that is essentially what this bill does. We already had trial periods under New Zealand employment law. It was nothing new to have a trial period. Labour is not opposed to trial periods at all. The only change National made when it came into Government was to the ability of an employee to challenge a dismissal if it was unfair. I want to know why National members think that it is unreasonable for employees to be told why they are being fired. Why is it unreasonable for employees to be told why they are being fired or why they are having their livelihood taken away from them? How can they improve themselves, and how can we increase productivity through employees being able to improve their work, if they are not told what is wrong with their performance? There is no requirement to tell them. They can just be told “Don’t come Monday.”, and no reason given.

This is where we come to the legalised discrimination. If, for example, a woman is employed and within the first 90 days she becomes pregnant and the boss does not want to have to deal with a woman who will go on maternity leave, he or she could just say “Don’t come Monday.” That could happen even if all of her performance reviews up to that point had been exemplary, and she had had wonderful feedback from the boss saying that the firm was so happy to have her, was so lucky to have her, and she was fantastic, and then suddenly she announces she is pregnant and the next day she is fired. Under this legislation that the National Government has passed and is extending to the rest of the workforce she would have no ability to challenge that, even though it is clear that she is being fired for being pregnant. As long as the boss says that her job is not working out, or she does not fit in there, or if the boss finds out that someone is gay, or if they join a union and the boss does not want to have to deal with that, or finds out that they are a member of the Labour Party and the boss does not agree with their political affiliations, then that will be OK.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am very pleased to take a call on the title and commencement clauses of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2), and I refer back to the speech made by Mr Locke, and in particular to the comment about the dark ages and the suggestion that the commencement date could be put back to 1911. That would be a very interesting development, because it would give us the opportunity to put certain members of this Chamber under a 90-day probation period. I am sure we sure that members on this side would be quite keen to put Mr Mallard under a 90-day probation period. Although there is some merit in the backdating I do not think I could support it, tempting though it might be.

I am really concerned at the suggestion by members on the other side of the Chamber that this legislation could somehow undermine people’s human rights. The member who has just resumed her seat, Ms Mackey, mentioned that a person who became pregnant would somehow be fired under a 90-day trial period provision. I would be very happy for a member on the other side of the Chamber to take a call to challenge this, but I am almost certain that the Employment Relations Act would absolutely rule that out as a possibility, because the provisions of the legislation—

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: Didn’t the member listen to examples being cited?

It was really hard to listen because it was about as underwhelming a speech as we could get. I am particularly interested in the issue of pregnancy. As far as I am aware, firing a person for becoming pregnant would be absolutely forbidden under the provisions in this bill. [Interruption] Here we go again! According to Labour members, it does not matter what the law says; employers will act so badly that they will simply ignore it.

💬 Darien Fenton: And they are.

Then the employee is absolutely free to seek the remedies that are available. If an employee believes she has been wrongly dismissed because she became pregnant in the first 90 days of her employment, she is absolutely justified in using the grievance processes available under the Act as it is now, and that will not be changed.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: All powers are being stripped away.

Not all powers—that is the point I am trying to make. We can debate the merits of the powers as they have been diminished, but does not help when members throw around Chicken Little examples of what might happen when this bill is passed. They absolutely will not be the case.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: It’s happening.

If it is happening, then a personal grievance can be taken. This is the point. Members opposite are saying that the poor old employees are completely disempowered and absolutely cannot do anything, certainly not without the unions. I absolutely reject the notion that this bill’s title needs to be changed to reflect those things.

This bill contains very moderate and very reasonable changes that will add flexibility to our employment relations legislation and will not lead to the sky falling in, as my friends on the side of the Chamber would have us believe. I simply reject those notions. Here is one suggestion for a new title: the “We Actually Trust Employees To Do and Think For Themselves, and To Make Choices for Themselves Bill”.

💬 Lynne Pillay: That’s why you’re dumping them.

There they go again! Those members are saying that the 90-day probation period is terrible, that it will undermine workers’ rights, and that it will give nobody the sorts of opportunities we believe are possible.

Let us look at an example of that choice. An employee may be marginalised, may be a new immigrant, may be a new graduate, or may be a youth. That employee is trying to get back into the workforce, and the employer, quite often—and we certainly saw this with small and medium sized businesses—is not sure about whether to give them a chance. This provision would certainly do that, so I think there is every opportunity to put the word “fairness” in the title. But, clearly, this bill is the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2), and I think that title should stay.

This is my first call on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). I am grateful to take a call on the commencement and the title clauses of this bill, in particular. I feel that in all of this debate we have left out one crucial point, and perhaps the title of the bill should be changed to reflect the fact that in none of this debate have we ever discussed the perception that seems to exist amongst employers that employing people should be something to be feared. That is essentially what Government members have told us through all of this debate. They have said that some particular groups in our society are less likely to be given a chance by an employer because employers fear those groups.

If that is the case, I ask why, in this debate and generally, have we never ever addressed the question of why employers fear employing new staff, regardless of the age of individuals, regardless of their background, and regardless of how long they have or have not been in the workforce. I think this bill should be renamed the “Missing the Point or Avoiding the Real Issue Bill”, because nowhere have we discussed why that fear exists or the best solution for it. I believe that the Government is currently absolutely copping out, by bowing to a perception that our employment laws are something to be feared. It is simply stripping those laws away for the first 90 days. That is its solution. It bows to the perception and strips away the laws, rather than asking whether that fear is based on perception or reality.

Why do I come back to this question, and why do I therefore think this bill should be renamed the “Missing the Point or Dodging the Real Issue Bill”? I spent several years working in the UK in an organisation called the Better Regulation Executive, and this issue was one we tackled. I would love to talk to the member Tau Henare about this, but I see he is currently engaged on his cellphone in the Chamber. I believe that that may be against the Standing Orders. He is not engaged in the debate, which is a disappointment.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. My friend and colleague Tau Henare appears to be taking a phone call on his cellphone in the Chamber. That has been ruled out of order on a number of occasions.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): If that member is on a call, I ask him to go into the lobby.

I was loath to point that out, because I would like Mr Henare to hear what I have to say on this issue.

I spent some time working in the UK in the Cabinet Office there, where we began looking at this very issue. We detected that there may have been a perception amongst employers that employment law was difficult to deal with, and perhaps if that perception pervaded too deeply then it may have impacted on an employer’s desire to employ people. We spent some time looking at the issue and found that, actually, a lot was based on perception and misinformation. I would have liked to see the Government spend more time looking at that issue.

Again, I come back to the fact that I do not believe that the title truly and adequately reflects what the Government has done here. The way New Zealand is ranked within the OECD is probably the best indicator of whether this is simply a perception issue. New Zealand is currently ranked third in the world for ease of doing business. Amongst that mix is employment flexibility, where we are ranked on whether there is flexibility in our employment market, and we come out third in the world. I would like to point out that that is a slippage of one place since the Labour Government was in power, when we were second in the world for ease of doing business. I am afraid that in producing this bill this Government has simply bowed to perception and has not scratched beneath the surface of why employers have this perception. If this perception holds true, why has the Government gone for just the first 90 days? Why is this Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) not scrapping workers’ rights entirely? If that perception pervades generally, then why has that principle not held true throughout our employment legislation?

I think this bill should be renamed the “Employment Relations Cop-out Bill”, because the Government has avoided the real issue here. Instead, it has simply turned to a legislative solution for an issue for which it has not dug beneath the surface. That is incredibly disappointing, because as a consequence it leaves workers unnecessarily without rights for the first 90 days of employment.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek your assistance, given that I believe we are probably looking at the same tabled document. The document I am looking at is entitled “Amendments to the Employment Relations Bill (No 2)”. We are currently debating and voting on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). Therefore, I ask whether the document with suggested amendments is out of order.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think that if you look carefully, you will see there are two sets of dates for which there are amendments, not just one. Although a decision has been made not to amend one of the dates, there has not yet been a decision not to amend the other.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): It does not matter that the member has asked for leave to withdraw one of the amendments. All the amendments are to commencement dates, and I have ruled that they are out of order, as the decision of the Committee has already been made on the commencement date.

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.

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.

I move, That the report be adopted.