Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2)

I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) that it have the power to consider and, if it thinks fit, adopt an amendment not proposed in the correct place.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think there will need to be a ruling made here that does not see any gap in procedural matters in our Standing Orders, in fact, unduly impede the progress of the bill. The Committee has clearly made a determination by way of a majority on how it should proceed. If this motion is debated now and it is a long debate, at that point a decision will be made by the Committee that it has already made. The absurdity here is that the Standing Orders and the procedures of the House make it clear that new parts that bring in matters that have previously been dealt with cannot stand, but we can then have a debate about whether the House can instruct itself to either accept or not accept those parts. That seems to me to be a complete mockery of the way in which the procedure of the House should progress.

I can accept that the Leader of the House has identified a problem, but the ability of the House to instruct the Committee is one that has been used on a number of occasions. It is a way of bringing things into scope that would otherwise be out of scope. The Speaker has ruled, without undue protest from this side of the House, that these amendments are out of scope for the Committee. The remedy that members have is a motion. The Leader of the House and the other National members have the ability to vote against the motion if they so wish, and it is their right to do so, but it is also the right of members to move such motions. It has happened at least two or three times in this Parliament while the House was considering a matter and before it was referred to the Committee.

Another opportunity for members is to seek leave of the Committee to see those parts brought into the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). I think we are seeing a situation where the Committee has said no, it does not accept those amendments as being within its scope and it is not going to have them progress because it has dealt with those matters before, but now the House is being asked to debate whether it should give the Committee a further opportunity to do exactly the same thing. If the Standing Orders allow this sort of thing to happen, then we have a perpetual loop, if you like, that could go on and on. I would assert that once this instruction has been given to the Committee there will be another one, and another one. That does not make for good order in the House, at all.

I have a very narrow point in respect of the Leader of the House’s contribution, in which he said the Committee had already resolved that this matter was beyond the scope of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). I say no, that was not what happened; it was that the Speaker had determined that the Committee could not consider it, which is a different matter from whether this motion should succeed.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: This is a serious issue; I fully accept that. Members are right to share their thoughts on it with the Speaker. I do not believe the Speaker has to automatically accept this motion, because the Speaker must not allow the House to go down a path that is not consistent with the Standing Orders. The particular issue, as I understand it, is that the member is trying here to enable the House to instruct itself that the Committee go back and reconsider something that the Committee has already decided on. The Committee has dealt with Part 1 of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). I was recalled to the Chamber and I have already ruled as Speaker that the member’s amendments were properly dealt with as part of Part 1, and therefore could not be dealt with by way of separate parts. That is the issue. The Committee of the whole House has already moved past the time when those amendments could be made at the Committee stage.

It would seem to me that if there is an issue here, the more appropriate way would be to look at it by recommittal at the third reading, for example; then the House could consider the matter in a more consistent way as part of the third reading. It does not seem to me to be appropriate, given that the Committee of the whole House has passed this point of the bill, to allow a debate on that matter, because I would be allowing something that the Speaker has already ruled against. That does not seem to me to be appropriate. It is my ruling that the motion is out of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Clearly it is, in the nicest possible way, challenging the ruling you have made. It is my understanding that in these matters the House is the master of its own destiny and that the House can, and often does—just about always on the motion of a Minister—make decisions for the Committee to consider a matter that it could not otherwise consider. You have ruled—and I am not saying improperly—that the Chairperson was right when he ruled this out. I just put in brackets that there is a matter of timing that you have not dealt with in your ruling as to whether once a debate has started there can be a retrospective ruling out. I put that to one side.

The point is that the House has always been the master of its own procedures. Ministers have always had the ability to move that matters that are well outside the purview of a Committee be considered. It happens on regular occasions, and I think we will see it happening later in the day from a Minister. The fact that it is not currently within the scope of the bill, as a result of reason a rather than reason b, is not, I think, a valid reason for you to rule out a motion. In my opinion it is the role of the House.

The Leader of the House has brought up the question of a perpetual loop. That cannot be right, because once a matter has been dealt with by the House it cannot be dealt with again.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think we have got ourselves into a little difficulty here. The member should recollect that the Speaker was recalled to rule on this matter. My ruling did not relate to scope; it related to the fact that the Committee had dealt with Part 1 and the issues and amendments related to Part 1. The Committee had the power to consider the matter at the appropriate time. The advice I have received is that an instruction must be moved immediately after the order of the day is called. That is not exactly the right time, but I do not want to be too pedantic.

The Committee had already voted on Part 1. The member, quite properly, raised his concern about the Chairperson ruling his amendments out. The Speaker was recalled and dealt, as Speaker, not on the issue of scope but on the issue that the Committee had dealt with Part 1. I believe that that has dealt with that matter.

In respect of the point, which the member quite rightly raises, that I did not deal with the fact that he had already made a contribution, it is my view that the member is not harmed by that, because at least the member has on the record the points he wanted to make. Even though, as Speaker, I supported the Chairperson when he ruled out the member’s amendments, the member has not been totally disadvantaged because he managed to get his points across in that he got a speech in before the Chairperson ruled the matter out, so I do not see that as being much of a disadvantage. Had the Chairperson ruled it out immediately, the member would not have been able to make his points. So I do not see that as disadvantaging the member hugely. It is my view that this motion is not appropriate right now and I cannot accept the motion.

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Schedule 1