Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would like you to expand on your rulings a little bit. I accept that it is your decision, and yours alone, but it seems to me that if you are going to rule out an amendment on the basis that it differs from what was agreed at the second reading, then it appears to me that the Committee can accept only amendments that are consistent with, and agreeable at, the second reading. Therefore, it does tend to restrict the ability of the Committee of the whole House to amend the bill when it comes to the Committee stage.

I would have thought that the second reading was a time when the House considered the report of the select committee, when it considered the bill as amended, and once that is done it comes to the Committee, and the Committee itself can then make further amendments. I do not know that all the amendments have to be agreeable on the second reading. Surely if that were the case, it would say so quite clearly in the Standing Orders and I do not recall that it does. It could be that an amendment is ruled out because it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. If that was the case, then I would accept your ruling immediately, but you have made a different ruling. You have said that it is inconsistent with the principles of the bill at the second reading.

The second reading has been and gone. It is now for the Committee of the whole House to consider the matter as the bill stands. Therefore, I think the Committee is at liberty to amend the bill quite freely. I accept that the amendment cannot be inconsistent with the principles of the bill, but you have ruled quite differently from that. I would like you to reflect on that because I think you are setting the Committee into new territory here.

I would like you to expand on your decision because I do not think it is particularly good practice simply to bring down a decision without an explanation. You have given us your decision and you have given us a reason, but it is not an explanation. I think you should give the Committee an explanation as to why you have ruled it out as a result of the second reading, which is different from the Committee of the whole House. I would appreciate your very considered ruling, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the Hon Rick Barker for his considered views. I make the point to him that at the second reading the House agreed to the principle of voluntary membership of students associations. So any amendments that would directly overturn that principle are not in order. One can turn to Speaker’s ruling 112/6: “Any clause is out of order which is—… (4) In conflict with the provisions of the bill.” In the second reading the House agreed to the principle of voluntary membership of students associations. So I will report this bill without amendment presently.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is a new point of order. I seek the leave for the Committee to vote again on clause 2, including voting on a handwritten amendment in my name to change clause 2 to delay the commencement from 2012 to 2013. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Any member is entitled to seek the leave of the Committee and the member is doing duly that. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.