Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill

Mr Speaker, you have been recalled because there has been a request by the Hon Peter Dunne, who is concerned that there were not enough speakers on Part 3. The member did refer me to the previous rulings you gave some time ago. As the Chair, I listened to the debates. I had some trouble in getting relevancy on some parts of this legislation, and having listened to the debate and accepted 19 speakers, I felt it was time that the closure motion be accepted.

I referred at the commencement of the whole proceedings this evening to your comments on 17 September, which were reiterated the last time we debated this measure, that because of its significance—and I am quoting you from 17 September—there must be a very full and wide-ranging debate. You will be aware that on Part 2 the Chairman allowed some 40 speakers to be heard. When the Committee moved into Part 3, I took a point of order to seek his assurance that the ruling you gave about a very full and wide-ranging debate would be upheld. He gave that assurance. I accept that the Chairperson was a different one from the one presently in the chair. My point of order leading to your recall was that the Chairman—in accepting 19 calls on a part that is more limited but still has some very important measures in it, compared with the 40 calls that were accepted on the earlier part—did not seem to me to be upholding your requirement of a very full and wide-ranging debate. Hence my request for you to come back and rule, given your original ruling.

💬 Dail Jones: Point of order, Mr Speaker—

I need no further assistance. The member will please be seated while I am standing, or he will leave. I am not having any nonsense on this. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 54/2, which is quite specific. It goes back to 1931, to Speaker Statham, and states: “The [chairperson] is the sole judge as to whether or not he ought to sanction the putting of the closure motion, and it must be left entirely in his”—or her—“hands. The [chairperson], who has been presiding and has listened to the debate in committee, must be the best judge whether the closure ought to be put. I can only express the hope that it will not be applied too harshly.” I listened to the member, and I heard the debate over the radio. I heard him say that Part 3 was not as wide as Part 2, and I note that point. I uphold the rule of the Chairperson, and that is where the matter ends.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When the Chairman addressed you a moment ago, he raised the question of relevancy. He said that a speaker had been not relevant. I have been here for the entire time during the debate on Part 3, and the only speaker who was not relevant was the speaker supporting the Government, Ms Kedgley. The Chairman had to constantly call her in, and we had about 20 minutes of points of order because Ms Kedgley was not being relevant. Are those members who are opposed to the bill to be punished by the very fact that a Government-supporting member was the one who was not relevant, whereas all the speeches on the Opposition side of the House have been extremely relevant? Mr Lockwood Smith brought in a new concept, as did Mr Williamson, Mr Brown, and Mr Mark. I believe that you have been misled by the Chairperson, which is wrong.

I thank the member for his contribution, but Mr Robertson gave his reasons for accepting the closure, and under the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings, I cannot review those. That is the end of the matter. Of course, this carries on now that the member has accepted the closure. The closure will be put before the House adjourns this evening.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am the ACT health spokesperson and I sat on the Health Committee hearing this bill. I have been here for over an hour now, trying to get the call on Part 3. In fact, I was here for the end of Part 2 as well and sought the call then. I have not had one single call tonight on this bill, and I think that as ACT’s health spokesperson I should have been given the opportunity to take a call this evening.

I want to repeat what I said. The Speaker cannot review the reasons for accepting the closure, and that is where the matter ends. I declare the House now—

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can the Chairman reassess his decision? My colleague here, an ex – school principal, has been seeking a call for a long time, to talk about the effect of enforcement officers in schools.

I thank the member for that, and that is an interesting point. By leave the Committee could do that, but that is a matter for the Committee, not for me. Mr Robertson gave his reasons for accepting the closure, and I cannot review them.

I withdraw my point of order because it was to be the same point that Mr Brown raised. But if I heard you correctly, members of the Committee could seek leave for the Chairman to accept additional speakers?

That is absolutely correct, but once the presiding officer has accepted the closure we proceed from there and we finish the debate this evening. There is no interruption to that. I declare the House in Committee on this bill.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If I do not raise it, I think we will have to call you back again. You said that when we go back into Committee, a member who feels he has not had the chance to debate the issue fully can seek leave.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If it is granted, then it carries on.

But you subsequently said, as you went to leave the Chair, that we had to proceed with the vote before the option of seeking leave occurred, as I understood it. So we need clarification.

I thank the member. Perhaps I was not clear enough when I said it. Leave can be sought, but if leave is denied, then the original motion stands. I declare the House in Committee again.

In Committee

Debate Resumed.

Part 3 Other amendments (continued)