Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9217. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise to the member who is seeking the call but I want to clear up a matter that has arisen I suspect inadvertently and it may well require the Speaker to be recalled. On 17 September when we were last discussing the bill the Speaker was recalled on the question of the scope of the debate. I want to quote from the ruling he gave then because I think it is at variance with the ruling he gave this afternoon: “An instruction to take a bill part by part relates to the parts of the bill that are before the committee.” Members may recall that there was a discussion about how the bill was drafted. “I did rule earlier this year that the insertion of new parts in a principal Act is a factor for the Chair to take into account before accepting the closure and the Chair should do that here.” The confusion is that if we look at the bill the part we are now debating has parts inserted into it and so too does Part 3 which we will get to eventually. When the Speaker ruled before the start of the debate today he appeared to me to change his ruling to say that he certainly agreed there should be the widest possible debate on this part not on both parts. Yet when I refer to his ruling of 17 September he makes the point that where there are parts inserted in a bill by a part then that is scope for a wide-ranging debate. I apologise to Mr Woolerton who I know is keen to take a call but I do not think there is any option at this stage but for the Speaker to be recalled to clarify the intent of this ruling and I so move. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is my understanding that the Speaker ruled earlier today that there should be a wide-ranging debate on that part. That is my understanding. His reason as I understand it is that we are on this part now. He gave an instruction to the House to take into account the fact that the debate is happening now and his ruling was to do with the part as it now stands. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Mr Chairperson I genuinely do not wish to delay things unduly but I need to be clear on this point. Is it your understanding that the ruling given by the Speaker today relates purely to the part he expects us to be debating today but that it also relates to Part 3—when we eventually get to it—given his earlier comment that where bills insert new parts in a principal Act it is a factor for the Chair to take into account before accepting the closure? If your understanding of the Speaker’s ruling is that it relates only to this part and not to Part 3—whenever we get to it—then that matter needs to be clarified. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is my understanding that it would apply to any part where parts have been inserted. That definitely means the part we are currently on and it may well also take into account Part 3 where parts have been inserted.