Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8813] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to make two points in support of the submissions made by both Mr Prebble and Mr Worth. You may be tempted to the conclusion that was offered by the Chair in the Committee but if one looks at the contents pages of the bill under the heading Part 2 “Amendments to Part II of principal Act” is the heading Part 1 “Smoke-free workplaces and public areas and similarly Part 3 “Other amendments” has the subheading Part 2A “Powers of enforcement officers” one concludes that these are the insertions of new parts within the bill. So therefore the principal three parts remain. 
But I would suggest that if you were to come to that conclusion you would not only be seriously in error you would also be in breach of Speakers’ rulings. I want to share with you a ruling I am sure you know well—Speaker’s ruling 77/1 by Mr Speaker Burke which states: “Apart from a few provisions in the Standing Orders no direction is available about the form in which a bill for introduction is to be drafted.” He then makes some comments in respect of amendments. The ruling goes on to state: “In the absence of a precise definition in the Standing Orders of the form of a bill the Chair cannot move to control the drafting of a bill.” 
My submission to you is that Mr Speaker Burke’s ruling suggests that the definition of what constitutes a part of a bill is in fact not clear. So you cannot argue as the Chair of the Committee of the whole House attempted to that Part 1 “Smoke-free workplaces and public areas” and Part 2A “Powers of enforcement officers” are merely subparts of a part of the bill. They are parts in their own right. The Speaker has ruled previously that he is not in a position to determine the nature of the drafting of a bill. 
So my first point to you is that you have no option but to uphold the point of order raised by Mr Prebble which means we would then go back to the Committee of the whole House and have a brief debate—and that is the second point I want to raise—upon what purports to be Part 2 before reporting back on Part 1 then Part 3 and then Part 2A. 
The second point I want to raise is to draw to your attention a comment that was made by the Associate Minister when this matter was raised in the Committee of the whole House. This I think has some quite serious implications. The Associate Minister told the Committee when Mr Prebble first raised the point—and this is a paraphrase of his words—that in effect we have had a wide-ranging debate on Part 1 and the deal was that that debate could take place and we could basically get all the issues out of the way there and then we would proceed. The inference I took from that was a clear direction being offered by the Associate Minister to the Chair as to the way in which the subsequent nature of the debate on Part 2 Part 1 Part 3 and Part 2A was to be conducted. 
That is serious enough in the course of ordinary events. But this is a member’s bill being dealt with by most parties in the House on a conscience basis. And here was a Minister seeking to give direction to the Chair as to how many speakers should be allowed on a bill on which there is contention anyway and there is now contention about the nature of the drafting of the bill. So I think we do have a serious situation and I do not think there is any real alternative but for you to rule in two ways: firstly to uphold Mr Prebble’s point; and secondly to make it clear to the Committee that the widest-ranging debate possible ought to be permitted on this issue given the confusing and bewildering way in which the original bill has been drafted.