Wednesday, 8 April 2020
Statements on Indulgence
We're about to vote on a number of second reading amendments and then on the bill itself. Given the importance, as we dealt with last time, of members not crossing from one side to the other, can I suggest that it suit the convenience of the House if any questions which are likely to have the government opposing an amendment be put in the terms that the amendment be disagreed with, up until we get to the final second reading amendment, where there's a form of words we used to use 10 years ago about questions standing in their original form. That way, everyone will be able to vote the way they want, with only the crossbench, who have allocated seats on each side, being the ones who have to move back and forth.
I thank the Manager of Opposition business for that. That is my intention. For those members who are here today that weren't here on 23 March, this will be a difference. Essentially, as the Manager of Opposition Business outlined, the question will be put in a way that the government and the opposition won't swap sides. That's certainly my intention. It will obviously minimise that.
Just to recap: normally the question I would be putting on second reading amendments—I think there are about eight amendments to the amendment—would be, as you'd be familiar with, that the amendment be agreed to, and then the opposition would cross. So the question will be put that the amendment be disagreed to, which will enable the government to vote aye and the opposition to vote no. Then, as the Manager of Opposition Business pointed out, there's a different procedure for the second reading amendment itself, moved by the member for Rankin. But I suspect that's about eight or nine divisions away, so I'll recap on that when we get to it.