Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill

I am now confronted with exactly the same decision as I was before. I am mindful that the Speaker has supported my previous ruling, which was to rule these amendments out because they are substantially the same as the amendment the Committee has already negated. I am of a mind to test the Committee’s opinion. I have two conundrums here. One is that the Speaker has said that the matter will be referred to the Standing Orders Committee, so as to give the Chair discretion. I will stick with that decision because I think the Standing Orders Committee needs to make a decision about the ambit of the Chair’s discretion in this. As I see the matter at the moment, I have full discretion. However, I make the observation that the practice in other places was for the most radical amendment to be taken first and the least radical after that, and if both are negated, then all in between go. I have taken from Moana Mackey’s amendments the least radical, which is to amend the date to 2007, and the most radical, which is to amend the date to 2015. I will now put the latter amendment. If the Committee negates both, I will rule out all subsequent amendments in between those dates.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That sounds like an excellent suggestion. Just to clarify, you referred to the least radical amendment as being 2007 and the most radical as being 2015. I think you meant the reverse way round: that the least radical would be 2015 and the most radical would be 2027—just so we are clear about what we are voting on.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): That is right. The House has negated the most radical, 1 November 2027, and the least radical is 10 August 2015.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Moana Mackey to clause 2 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (2) “on the day after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent” and substitute “10 August 2015”.

There are amendments to clause 2 in the name of the Hon Steve Chadwick to insert a new clause 2A. There are 1,066 of these amendments, and I rule all of them out of order because they are not consistent with the Standing Order that defines a preliminary clause as a commencement clause and, if applicable, a principal clause in the Act. These amendments propose an expiration clause and should have been in the body of the legislation. They are ruled out of order.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 111 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 3 be agreed to.