Speaker’s Rulings — Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2)

A point of order was raised last week in relation to the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). As I ruled then, Standing Order 100 does not apply to prevent the No. 2 bill from being read a first time, even if there is a similar bill on the Order Paper, although I note that the earlier bill has now been withdrawn. I do not intend to go over this issue again.

The other point that was raised related to the fact that the No. 2 bill is drafted in two parts, while the first bill is drafted in 18 parts. It was asserted, and I think that this is fair comment, that this form of drafting has been employed so as to cut down the length of debate in the Committee stage.

The Standing Orders do contain some provisions as to how a bill is to be drafted—see, for example, Standing Orders 251 and 252 requiring title and commencement clauses. But, in the main, there is little direction as to the form in which a bill must be presented to the House, and the Speaker cannot control how it is drafted—see Speaker’s ruling 77/1. I therefore do not see how I can intervene in a Government decision to draft a bill in two parts rather than 18 parts. I think that this form of drafting, however, is a matter that the chairpersons should take into account in Committee in deciding when to accept a closure motion. I would expect that a considerably longer debate would be permitted on a part with numerous subparts than would otherwise be the case. This is something that I will discuss with the chairpersons when the bill is scheduled for its Committee stage.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to pick up on the implications of the ruling. I take it that that ruling now means that the drafting process is no longer independent of the executive—that is, the Government can direct the form and process of drafting unimpeded by points of view from either the Clerk’s Office or the Speaker’s office.

No, it never has been, and I want to tell the honourable member that in the 37 years I have been in this House I can recall no example when there has been any change to that.