House debates

Thursday, 16 February 2006

Statements by Members

Second Reading Amendments

9:51 am

Photo of Jackie KellyJackie Kelly (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

In a recent debate, of which members would be aware, Deputy Speaker McMullan drew the attention of members to page 361 of House of Representatives Practice. I would like to discuss that article of practice. As the House has never agreed to a ‘reasoned amendment’, it is uncharted waters as to what would happen in the event of the House agreeing to a reasoned amendment. House of Representatives Practice refers to a reasoned amendment, but I will call it a ‘principled amendment’ when it stands for a particular principle which we would like voted on before the vote on a second reading of a bill.

Page 361 of House of Representatives Practice argues that, at the end of a successful vote on a principled amendment, if there is nothing on the Notice Paper, the House can then move to have a suspension of standing orders—which would need an absolute majority of the House—to place the matter on notice so that debate on the principled amendment can proceed, as it has done to date. If that is not the way that the House chooses to go, the principled amendment would need to be incorporated into the main bill and put on the Notice Paper for future debate.

It is one practice that members can use in these types of discussions to give them the opportunity to vote on an amendment before they have to commit themselves to a yes or no vote on a difficult bill. It is different from other types of amendments. This is a wonderful opportunity for members to chart the order of votes in this House.

Later today the Speaker will be making various decisions on this procedural amendment. I would like to draw the attention of members to page 361 of House of Representatives Practice and ask them to read the several paragraphs regarding what happens with these divisions in the House. Quite frankly, the government has never negatived a second reading motion. We have not had that situation. It may occur with a private member’s bill, but in this instance there is an opportunity for a different outcome. (Time expired)