Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am trying to work out what Part 2 is. What do you believe it to be?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Part 2 is clauses 3 to 7A.

I suggest to you that I have not seen a bill put out in the way that this one is. It appears to me—

💬 Peter Brown: If you haven’t, we haven’t.

I have not, either. It appears that it is an attempt by the Government to limit debate. If I understand it correctly, a part by part motion has been moved. If that is the case, when we look at the bill we see we have Part 2, clause 3, and then a Part 1, with clauses 4 to 7A. We then have a Part 3 and a Part 2A. I put it to you that the instruction to the Committee was to take the bill part by part, and therefore what we should do is to have a debate now on Part 2, which is clause 3. Then we should go back to something that is headed Part 1. Although the fact is that Part 1 follows Part 2, nothing in the Standing Orders states that there should not be a separate debate on it. We have said we would consider the bill part by part, and those are separate parts. The Government cannot just renumber parts and then limit debate. From your point of view, Madam Chair, you should adopt whatever ruling enables the Committee to debate the bill to the greatest possible extent. So I suggest to you that the proper debate that we should now have is on Part 2, which is clause 3.

I would like to support the views that have been offered to you in connection with the clear understanding of the parties that this would be a part by part debate, which has the consequence that Mr Prebble has referred to. In the world of choices, where there are choices you should prefer the choice that permits the greatest possible debating time on what are clearly significant issues.

I concur with the point that was raised earlier. This bill is highly confusing in its drafting. We have had a title debate and a Part 1 debate, and we now have a Part 2 debate beginning. However, if you look at the way in which the bill is physically laid out you will see that “Part 1 Preliminary” and “Part 2 Amendments to Part II of principal Act” are in bold type, signalling that they are separating the bill out. “Part 1 Smoke-free workplaces and public areas”, is equally in bold type, and then we go to “Part 3 Other amendments”. On page 2 of the contents page “Part 2A Powers of enforcement officers” is in bold type.

Either this is the most extraordinarily inept drafting that we have seen in a long time or it is a case of trying to stifle debate on what is not a particularly lengthy bill. As I look at the totality of the bill, I see that if we were to take it clause by clause, there are still only something like 12 clauses in the bill. We could be looking at 12 separate debates. According to the way in which the bill is crafted at the moment there will be something like four debates, but then there are at least one or two other parts within parts. The issue that needs to be resolved—I think in the interests of good order as much as anything else, given that this is a controversial and complex matter—is whether you will allow a separate debate, as Mr Prebble has suggested, on Part 2, on the new Part 1, and then on Part 3, and so on, or whether you will rule that, given the way in which the bill is drafted, we should allow for the widest possible debate on whatever parts of the bill we are debating, and that there will not be an early acceptance of closures. A range of views needs to be expressed. The bill is confusing in its drafting, in just its physical layout for a start. Members have a right to debate these contentious issues thoroughly.

I think those issues were acknowledged at the start of the debate on this bill. There was very wide-ranging debate on the first part. Perhaps the member was not here for that debate, which went for quite some time on the basis of that agreement.

The Committee has been instructed to consider the bill part by part. The bill is drafted in three parts. Part 2 of the bill, amongst other things, substitutes a Part 1 heading in the principal Act. That Part 1 heading is an amendment to the principal Act, not a separate part of the bill. Part 2 encompasses clauses 3 to 7A, as I stated, and that is what the Committee has been instructed by the House to consider. That gives lots of time for debate. We will debate Part 2, clauses 3 to 7A.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Your previous ruling was about the structure of the part. This point of order is about the scope of the debate. Mr Damien O’Connor alleged that there had been a wide-ranging debate in which everyone had been able to take part. That is simply not correct. I sought a call on Part 1 and had not spoken on the bill previously, but the closure was accepted. I ask for the Chair’s assurance that there will be a full debate on this part, to the point that everyone who seeks to contribute will have the opportunity to do so, at least once, anyway. That did not happen with regard to Part 1. I seek your assurance that every person who seeks a call and who has not had a previous call will have that call accepted.

I take the member’s point. I note that there were 23 calls on the previous part.

Following the logic that you have just given us, I think that your ruling is that only Part 2 and Part 2A are in the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No.

I am just telling you that that is what the bill is. Either one accepts that there is Part 1 and Part 3 as you are putting it, or the logic is that there is Part 1, which is clause 1A and 2, then Part 2, which is either clause 3 or, as I read it, goes all the way through from clause 3 to clause 12—which, of course, would be an outrage—and then Part 2A. The instruction of the House was to take the bill on every part. It did not say we should ignore some parts, and it is not for you to decide to ignore some parts. I ask you to reconsider this matter, because, if you do not, I think we should call back the Speaker. This appears to be an attempt by the executive, by means of quite extraordinary drafting, to prevent the Committee from being able to debate every part that has been put. Unless I have misunderstood the situation—and you can read the motion out to me—it is my understanding that we had a motion that instructed the Committee to take the bill part by part. Those were the words. The parts are there, and the fact that they are out of order cannot matter. Perhaps you will not take Part 2A; perhaps you were going to decide that that is not a part. I would really like to know what you think the parts of this bill are.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have already indicated that, and it is not up to me to distinguish the parts. The parts are very clearly set out in the bill, as I have already ruled.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have ruled on this.

I am challenging your ruling, and I am asking for the Speaker to come back, because to have the Chair just sit there and say it is not for her to say what the parts are is unsatisfactory. I am looking at the motion, and I see it states that the Committee was to debate the bill “part by part”. Here are some other parts. Why has the Chair decided that some parts count and some do not? We have never had a ruling like that from a Chair before.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have given the ruling very clearly. Would the member like to move for the Speaker to be recalled?

Yes. If you are not prepared to give us an explanation as to why some parts do not count, perhaps we should have the Speaker back to let us know why some parts do not count.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member has the right to so move.

I move, That the Speaker be recalled to give a ruling on the matter.

Motion agreed to, and House resumed.

Speaker Recalled