Brownlee Gerry: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9263] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Mr Speaker I think that in the opening remarks made to you by the shadow Leader of the House on this issue there was a little bit of a betrayal about why we find ourselves in these positions and I say this only because those remarks went unchecked for quite a long time. The reality is that I understand his disappointment but there we are: we are in this situation. I want to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just urge the honourable member please—the contributions have been of good quality and I do not want to see a deterioration of this procedural discussion under points of order. It is an important procedural issue and I ask the member to respect that. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is indeed a very important procedural issue but I would ask that you check the  
Hansard  
just to assure yourself as to that quality in relation to the opening statement from the shadow Leader of the House. I think that two Speakers’ rulings are relevant here. As well as the conclusion reached by Chairman Rick Barker this afternoon which I strongly support there are two Speakers’ rulings 112/6 and 113/1 that are also relevant. 
The first one goes to the issue of relevancy. The most important point there is 112/6(4). The issue has been ruled on by Speakers continually over a long period. I note that obviously there was a problem with this sort of thing in the late 1800s and early 1900s but the point remains that if an amendment is in conflict with the provisions of the bill then it is not relevant. Further coming to Speaker’s ruling 113/1 that ruling states: “A bill can be amended only in ways that are relevant to the text. It cannot be turned into something that it is not and did not start out as.” The text reference in that ruling is most important because we are repeatedly reminded in this House that there are occasions when the courts will turn to  
Hansard 
 debates select committee reports and a range of commentary on the passage of legislation through this House for some guidance as to how it should be read. 
I would suggest that it has been abundantly clear for a very long time that this legislation is to commence on 1 July 2010 and to have its effect from that point. We know that there is a need to have some provisions in this bill dealt with by 1 April as well so that the people dealing with it have a fair and reasonable amount of time before that. To accept a series of amendments that of themselves do not substantially change the initial intention of the preceding amendment and to let that run out for some thousand amendments—or in other words nearly 3 years’ worth of date changes—I think contravenes the idea that it is not turning the bill into something that it did not start out as. I think that it is also in conflict with the provisions and the purpose of the bill in the first place. 
As to the issue of there being no certainty about the voting support for any one amendment or another that would be assuming that in the few intervening seconds between a vote being put for one date and a vote being put for the next an entire Government coalition could deconstruct and there could be some sudden change that no one in the Chamber knew about. I think that is an implausible position and it is an argument that cannot be run too strongly. But on those other two longstanding Speaker’s rulings I think that the conclusion reached by Chairman Barker today is the correct one. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will accept the Hon Dr Nick Smith as long as he is brief. Interesting issues have been raised and I am ready to rule on the matter.