Tisch Lindsay: Psychoactive Substances Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Psychoactive Substances Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 09 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11801. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members we come to the vote on Part 1. Before we put the Minister’s amendments I will just explain what will happen. If the Minister’s amendments are passed then part of Mojo Mathers’ amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 260 will be ruled out as being inconsistent. I am just making that point now. The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Supplementary Order Paper 268—Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether you could explain for the Committee which parts of Mojo Mathers’ Supplementary Order Paper will be ruled out.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well I will come to that at the time because some of them are still in order and some of them will be inconsistent. I am just making that point but I will explain it at the time when we come to vote on those.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have a further point of order. Your explanation could well influence our vote on the Minister’s amendments. Can I just seek the indulgence of the Committee to ask you to do the explanation slightly prematurely.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members I sought advice on this matter because it has been a possibly contentious issue and I just felt it would be fair to the Committee as a whole if we knew what the process was and what the consequences would be in terms of an affirmative vote for the Minister’s amendments. I will answer the question that Kevin Hague has asked which I think explains this to the Hon Trevor Mallard. In Mojo Mathers’ amendments the clauses that would be ruled out as being inconsistent would be 11A 35 and 31—that is 11A 31 and 35. The other amendments would still be put to the vote.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am not as familiar with the bill as Kevin Hague is and he might be having a look at this as we do it. But I think that the Minister’s amendments are quite different and separate. They deal with different issues. There are trial periods and there is a penalty clause change in there I think for clause 29 which is more technical as is clause 48. I think it is hard to say that clause 83 is a substantive amendment but it is a distinct amendment. I am happy to seek the leave. I want to make the point that we are going to end up in the same place in the end but I think especially given the discussion it would be a real pity if any substantive part of Mojo Mathers’ amendment did not get a proper individual vote. I am wondering whether the Committee could be better served by my seeking leave for the Mathers amendment to be voted on first and dealt with and then the Minister’s amendments after that because I think there is a general view that the Minister’s amendments will other than for that question be supported. I am looking to Kevin Hague and Brendan Horan to make sure that they are—I know that people have a different view on the substance. We will end up at the same point but I think that people will get the sense of being dealt with fairly if the Mathers amendment is put first and I seek leave for that.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Sure. The leave to have Mojo Mathers’ amendment put before the Minister’s amendments is a matter for the Minister to decide. The Minister has indicated to me that he would accept that and so we will put Mojo Mathers’ amendment first and then we will go through the process of that. We do not need leave for that. The Minister has agreed.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 260 in the name of Mojo Mathers to Part 1 be agreed to.