David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for McPherson for her question, which raises some complex procedural considerations. I will attempt to place these considerations before the House.

The House has no precedent of its own to follow if a second reading amendment should be agreed to. However, the specific terms of the amendment indicate that the bill is unacceptable in its current form, and that a different policy approach is preferable. If the House agrees to this amendment, the effect would be similar to that if the second reading of the bill were negatived. No further progress would be possible on the bill as transmitted from the Senate.

A substitute bill could be introduced that implements the policy approach preferred in the amendment by the member for Lindsay. This would only be possible immediately following the granting of leave or the suspension of standing orders. A notice of motion to this effect could be lodged contingent on the amendment moved by the member for Lindsay being agreed to, but, to be effective for the next sitting, this would need to be lodged before the House rises today.

If the second reading amendment is negatived, the House will have made a clear decision in relation to the policy approach proposed by the amendment. It would not therefore be possible to move amendments during consideration in detail that would seek to implement that policy approach.

See this speech in context