Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill

Mr Speaker, you have been recalled to hear and adjudicate on the matter I was dealing with in Committee.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Thank you. Would you please explain the circumstances.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): On Part 2 of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill, which we have been debating, there have been several hundred amendments of a particular nature. These amendments came from many members. They were to section 12 in clause 6B to add a new subsection (4), and to section 13 in clause 6B to add a new subsection (4). All the amendments sought to exempt certain premises from the provisions of the bill. It was my judgment that the amendments were out of order, because they were in the nature of private legislation and not admissible as amendments to a public bill. With some explanations, I so ruled, and the authority for it is on page 849 of Erskine May.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Does anyone wish to contribute to the debate?

I raised a point of order concerning that decision, on the grounds that earlier in the process of putting the questions, the Chairperson accepted an amendment from Mr Worth relating to cigar bars. There are very few cigar bars in New Zealand—and there will be even fewer after this measure is passed—and the Chairperson commented that it was essentially a generic resolution, whereas the amendments he ruled out of order were specific. The counter to this is that because there is a very limited number of cigar bars, the application of the phrase is particularly limited. There appeared to be an inconsistency in allowing that amendment to be put—which was not questioned by the Committee—and then ruling out a large number of amendments. I have a latent suspicion that they were ruled out more because of the inconvenience and time it would take to deal with them all individually, than because of any substantive argument.

I also took a second point of order in response to a comment from the Chairperson, when he referred—I do not have the precise words in front of me, but I think they were from the page 849 of Erskine May he referred to—to categories of bodies that cannot be included in this legislation, which are individuals, public corporations, and one other. My submission was that these institutions did not come within that ambit, at which point Mr Carter—who may well want to take a call—then took up the cudgels and raised another very valid point in respect of this matter.

I brought the Chairperson’s attention to his comment that the amendments being private was one reason why they were ruled out. Like Mr Dunne, I cannot remember the exact wording as I do not have the book in front of me, but you have, Mr Speaker. I made what I thought was the very valid point that these places are, by their very nature, public places. Hotels call themselves public bars, and people gather there to celebrate, associate, partake, or do whatever it is that they might wish to do in those public places. It is not right to say that they are private. They might be privately owned, but they certainly are not private in the sense that they are private homes, or that the public are not allowed to be involved in them. By their very nature, that is their purpose, and that is the reason why we are dealing with public issues.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I thank honourable members for the very interesting points that have been raised. There are four types of bills, as prescribed by Standing Order 249. There is a distinction between members’ bills, which deal with matters of public policy, and private bills, which are for the benefit of a person, or a body of persons. These rules about the contents of bills are reflected in Speakers’ rulings 79/4 and 79/5, and prevent matters that should be in private bills from being introduced into public bills by way of amendment. Amendments to exempt individual establishments, or establishments that are part of a particular association, from the general law, are clearly matters for the particular interest or benefit of a person or body of persons. They should therefore be promoted in a private bill by that person or body of persons—see Standing Order 249(1)(d). They cannot be introduced into a member’s bill or a Government bill by way of amendment. Katherine Rich’s amendments, for example, all relate to particular establishments owned, leased, or operated by someone. If the owner, leaseholder, or operator wishes exemption from the general law, it is for him or her to promote private legislation.

Referring to the argument raised by the Hon Peter Dunne, to which I listened with a lot of interest, a generic amendment relating to cigar bars is in quite a different position. Even though it has only limited application, because there are few such bars, it is drafted generally, and is permissible. I declare the House in Committee once again for consideration of this matter.

In Committee

resumed.

Debate

Part 2 Amendments to Part II of principal Act (continued)

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 117 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to new section 13(1) in clause 6B be agreed to.