Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill

The House is in Committee on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. Before we start, I remind members that this bill is constructed a little bit differently from what members are used to. Members have become accustomed to some latitude in debate on the title clause. However, this latitude is limited to a bill that is drafted in parts and where the title clause is considered at the end of the debate on the parts. That is the procedure we usually have. This bill is drafted in clauses, however, and there has been no agreement to have a wide-ranging debate on this clause or any groups of clauses. Each clause is to be treated separately. The first clause is about the title of the bill.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I listened carefully to your comments relating to the title and I understand the point you are making. However, I think it is appropriate for two or three points to be made at this stage prior to the discussion. As I am sure every member of the Committee is aware, this is a significant bill, and it is controversial, to say the least. It is also a conscience issue and it is not whipped in the strict manner of whipping. Although there may well be some split votes and some votes cast on behalf of parties, it is accepted that it is a conscience issue. It seems to me that there are two or three things that you might also want to reflect on, Madam Chairperson, and I intend to seek leave on one matter following your comments.

Given that it is a conscience issue and it is controversial—and I am sure there will be significant interest in it from a good number of members—it is not unusual on conscience issues that are controversial for the Chair to be more tolerant about the number of speakers allowed. There is some precedent for that and I just wanted to comment on that at the beginning, rather than have fights as we go part-way through when you accept the closure, etc. Perhaps the promoter may make a comment on this, I do not know, but I think it would be fair and reasonable to allow some reasonable discussion, rather than to have the normal limit to the time allowed.

The second point I make is that normally these speeches are restricted to 5 minutes each. I just wonder whether the Committee might consider both the promoter, and the member with the amendment of significance, Chester Borrows, being allowed to speak for more than just 5 minutes. Although the promoter can get a second call, I wonder whether it might be appropriate to seek leave to allow the promoter to have two 5-minute speeches on end if she wishes, then also for Chester Borrows to be allowed 10 minutes in response to put his amendment as we go through.

I intend to seek leave for that to happen, and, following your comments on the title, Madam Chairperson, I also intend to seek leave in relation to the title, the debate on which, as you say, is limited. Under the way in which the bill is structured, that is true. It would seem more appropriate to consider a wider-ranging debate than normal under this clause, otherwise the debate on the title is, quite honestly, very limited in what it allows. I wonder whether the Committee might think it appropriate to allow a reasonable debate to take place at the beginning, rather than have what is set down under the Standing Orders, which is that the debate is limited to what the clauses state.

It seems to me that it might be more appropriate for a more fulsome debate to be had upfront, because that is normally how we now structure debates in Committee. It makes more sense. We changed the Standing Orders to allow that to happen. I am sorry I have not had a chance to talk to anyone else about this, but it seems to me to make good sense for the promoter and others to have a more wide-ranging debate at the beginning, rather than narrow it down.

So I want to seek leave on two matters, and, of course, any member can object. First, I want to seek leave that both the promoter and Mr Chester Borrows—the promoter first, of course—get two 5-minute slots on end if they wish to take it. Chester Borrows would then be allowed leave for two 5-minute slots as well—

💬 Anne Tolley: What’s happening?

It is a conscience issue.

💬 Anne Tolley: It’s not a conscience issue.

I beg your pardon, Madam Chairperson, I am mistaken, then. I apologise to the Committee and I retract everything I have said. I am sorry, I thought it was a conscience issue. I had understood that this—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Can the member repeat his statement?

No, thank you. I apologise, Madam Chairperson, and I apologise for taking up the time of the Committee. I thought it was a conscience issue.

I thank the member for his comments. I assure the member that there is wide-ranging debate on clauses 3 and 4. It is quite clear what the other clauses are, such as the title. But there is plenty of opportunity for a wide-ranging debate on clauses 3 and 4. The member can still seek leave for anything he wants.

💬 John Carter: No, no thank you.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Just before we start, I want to check that we are going to debate this clause by clause. Have I got that absolutely right?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Yes, as I said at the beginning, this bill is structured in clauses, which is something we are not all used to, so there is a debate on clauses. But because it is on clauses, people must be relevant to the clause.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I want to raise a bit of a concern, given your explanation about clauses 1 and 2, that there is a limited debate in regard to them. Perhaps you could clarify the reason for that for me. To me, the title is important and the commencement date is important. These are issues on which the Committee should be allowed to determine the outcome of the debate in regard to those two clauses.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I clarify for the member that it is not a limited debate, but debate on clause 1 is limited to the relevance of the matter of the title, and that applies to about three or four clauses in this bill. Clause 1 is just a clause and the debate is limited to the relevance of the debate on the title; members can speak about the title in debate on the first clause. Then, as I said, debate on clauses 3 and 4 is wide ranging.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I appreciate that, and I think it can be said of every clause that it must be relevant. The debate must be relevant. There is no question about that—that can be applicable to clause 1, to clause 2, and right through however many clauses we have. That is the point I am making. Why should we point out clauses 1 and 2 when, in fact, the question of relevancy in debate applies to all clauses?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): As I started to say, this bill is structured differently from most bills. Usually debate on the title clause is now used at the end of a bill as a wrap-up speech, and it tends to be wide ranging. I think that is what a lot of people assume, and it is the only reason I reminded people at the beginning that this bill was structured differently.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Perhaps you could clarify for me why this particular bill is different from every other bill in that regard, because I do not quite understand what you are actually saying.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): As I said at the beginning, these are clauses, not parts—OK?

Clause 1 Title