[1] Constitution, ss. 1 and 2—see also Ch. on ‘The Parliament and the role of the House’.
[2] An Act to alter the Constitution must also have the approval of the electors (Constitution, s. 128). See Ch. on ‘The Parliament and the role of the House’.
[3] See particularly Constitution, ss. 49, 50, 52 and Ch. on ‘The Parliament and the role of the House’.
[4] As distinct from a private Member’s bill.
[5] May, 24th edn, p. 525.
[6] Due principally to the fact that the majority of Ministers are Members of the House and also to the House’s constitutional predominance in financial matters. The proportion of bills introduced from the Senate has declined over recent years—see Appendix 17.
[7] These figures have varied considerably over the years—for annual figures since 1901 see Appendix 17. The high level of legislation of the Australian Parliament compared, for example, with the United Kingdom and Canadian Parliaments, is due in part to the constitutional requirement (s. 55) of separate taxing bills for each subject of taxation and the federal nature of the Parliament.
[8] Not including the Federation Chamber.
[9] ‘Bill’ is thought probably to be a derivative of medieval Latin ‘Bulla’ (seal) and meaning originally a written sealed document, later a written petition to a person in authority and, from the early 16th century, a draft Act. The process of petitioning the King preceded Parliament. However the increasing part played by the Commons in making statutes was affected by a development of the procedure relating to petitions: the King’s reply was entered on the back of the petition and judges turned into statutes such of the Commons requests as were suitable by combining a petition with its response. see Lord Campion, An introduction to the procedure of the House of Commons, 3rd edn, Macmillan, London, 1958, pp. 10–14, 22–25. The basis for discussion later moved from requests to draft proposals, see Josef Redlich, The procedure of the House of Commons, vol. I, Archibald Constable, London, 1908, p. 16.
[10] E.g. VP 1993–96/1936 (8.3.1995); VP 1996–98/258 (18.6.1996), 2062 (29.9.1997); H.R. Deb. (17.9.2002) 6515.
[11] S.O.140(b). In the case of an appropriation bill, the long title must also agree with the title cited in the Governor-General’s message recommending appropriation, see Ch. on ‘Financial legislation’.
[12] VP 1985–87/520 (12.11.1985) (2 bills); VP 2002–04/100 (13.3.2002).
[13] VP 1983–84/903–4 (3.10.1984).
[14] H.R. Deb. (18.5.1988) 2515–22.
[15] And see D.C. Pearce and R.S. Geddes, Statutory interpretation in Australia, 6th edn, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2006, p. 154.
[16] For bills with a preamble, the word ‘therefore’ is inserted here.
[17] Quick and Garran, p. 386. The enacting formula in use in the United Kingdom since the 15th century has been: ‘Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:’.
[18] The heading of a Part is printed in capitals and includes a subject summary.
[19] However, identification may not be permanent—it is possible for the short (and long) title of an Act to be amended by an amending bill. For example, the Australian Passports (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2004 proposed to amend the Passports Act 1938 ‘An Act relating to Passports’ to become the Foreign Passports (Law Enforcement and Security) Act 2004 ‘An Act relating to foreign passports and other foreign travel documents’.
[20] Note that ‘the’ is not part of the short title.
[21] See definition in Ch. on ‘The parliamentary calendar’.
[22] There have been exceptions to this practice. For example, the Safe Work Australia Act 2008, introduced in 2009 as the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 [No. 2], and passed in 2009 (Act No. 84 of 2009), retained its original 2008 short title, as other legislation already passed referred to it under that name.
[23] For the numbering of appropriation and supply bills see Ch on ‘Financial legislation’.
[24] E.g. Anti-terrorism Bill 2004 followed by Anti-terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2004. As confusion can arise when bills are not passed in the year they are introduced—for example, Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No.7) 2002 became Taxation Laws Amendment Act (No.2) 2003—the Office of Parliamentary Counsel now generally prefers to avoid using identifying numbers in titles (see Drafting Direction 1.1 of 2006).
[25] E.g. Tax Laws Amendment (Retirement Villages) Bill 2004 and Tax Laws Amendment (Superannuation Reporting) Bill 2004.
[26] E.g. Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 and Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 [No. 2].
[27] E.g. Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2010 (private Member’s bill) and Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2010 [No. 2] (private Senator’s bill).
[28] Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2016, and Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 [No. 2], introduced on the same day (12.9.2016).
[29] Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1975–76 [No. 3] and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1975–76 [No. 3], VP 1974–75/1067–70 (29.10.1975); Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 [No. 3], VP 2016/12 (18.4.2016).
[30] VP 2016–18/392 (28.11.2016). This was the first bill so labelled in the House of Representatives. There had been earlier Senate bills so labelled which had not reached the House.
[31] E.g. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991 (proclamation postponed until Minister had consulted industry representatives).
[32] E.g. where legislation licenses a certain activity, it may be necessary to have sections authorising the issue of licences to have effect to enable licences to be obtained before the sections prohibiting the activity without a licence come into effect. And see VP 1996–98/2033–4 (29.9.1997).
[33] Therapeutic Goods Act 1989.
[34] Sales Tax (Customs) (Wine–Deficit Reduction) Act 1993. VP 1993–96/396 (20.10.1993).
[35] Office of Parliamentary Counsel Drafting Instruction No. 2 of 1989. There was previously no requirement for a proclamation to be made within any particular time limit, see S. Deb. (24.11.1988) 2774–80. The Senate has passed an order of continuing effect requiring details of unproclaimed provisions of Acts to be regularly tabled, J 1987–90/1205 (29.11.1988).
[36] Acts Interpretation Act 1901, s. 3A.
[37] E.g. Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act 1982, s. 24; Gazette S298 (29.11.1983).
[38] H.R. Deb. (6.10.1987) 749.
[39] Office of Parliamentary Counsel Drafting Direction No. 9 of 1995.
[40] Acts Interpretation Act 1901, s. 13. The reasoning behind the traditional position was that historically such elements were added by the printer following passage.
[41] Legislation handbook, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Canberra, 2017, pp. 38–40.
[42] For a more detailed history see 'Was there an EM?'—Explanatory memoranda and explanatory statements in the Commonwealth Parliament, Parliamentary Library research brief, no. 15, 2004–05. An index to pre–1983 EMs (and this research brief) can be found on the Parliamentary Library’s website.
[43] Acts Interpretation Act 1901, s. 15AB. see also ‘Interpretation of Acts’ at page 405. Under the Evidence Act 1905, Votes and Proceedings, Senate Journals, and papers presented in the Parliament could be admitted, on their mere production, as evidence in court. (The relevant Act is now the Evidence Act 1995).
[44] S.O. 141(b). The EM is now presented when the bill is introduced (House bills) or immediately before the Minister moves the 2nd reading (Senate bills); before 2006 it was presented at the end of the Minister’s second reading speech. In 2008, for the first time, explanatory memorandums were presented for appropriation bills.
[45] Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.
[46] Most recent example in 1989, see H.R. Deb. (5.9.2005) 139. See also ‘Was there an EM?’ op cit.
[47] In the case of emergency or urgent legislation the normal steps in the extra-parliamentary legislative process may not be observed. For further information on the pre-legislative process see Legislation handbook, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Canberra, 2017.
[48] The Office of Parliamentary Counsel, under the Parliamentary Counsel Act 1970, is under the control of the First Parliamentary Counsel and is within the Attorney-General’s portfolio. The office is responsible for the drafting of bills for introduction into either House of the Parliament and amendments of bills, and other related functions.
[49] Bills may be printed in a variety of forms from the inception of a draft bill to its presentation for assent. Some draft bills never proceed beyond the ‘proof’ stage. The authority to use the material in relation to a bill rests with Parliamentary Counsel until the bill is introduced in Parliament, when it passes to the Clerk of the House while the bill is before the House of Representatives and the Clerk of the Senate while the bill is before the Senate.
[50] On occasion, when there has been insufficient time for a bill to be printed, Parliamentary Counsel has faxed a copy of the bill to the House, where photocopies have been made for the Minister to present and for circulation to Members. E.g. Remuneration and Allowances Bill 1990, Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill 1990 and Remuneration and Allowances (Amendment) Bill 1990—VP 1990–93/123–4 (31.5.1990); 129–30, 133–4 (1.6.1990).
[51] Legislation handbook, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Canberra, 2017, p. 36.
[52] Exposure drafts of bills may be referred to a parliamentary committee, e.g. Exposure draft of the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005, VP 2004–07/553 (18.8.2005); Exposure drafts of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Bill 2012 and the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (Consequential and Transitional) Bill 2012, VP 2010–13/1682 (15.8.2012).
[53] The origin of the practice of reading a bill three times is obscure. Campion states that by 1580 it was already the usual (but not uniform) practice of the House to read a bill three times. Lord Campion, An introduction to the procedure of the House of Commons, 3rd edn, Macmillan, London, 1958, p. 22.
[54] A bill coming a first time from the Senate proceeds through all stages in the House as if it were a bill originating in the House.
[55] E.g. VP 1978–80/1502 (15.5.1980); VP 1996–98/351 (27.6.1996); VP 2002–04/1642 (27.5.2004); VP 2008–10/989 (12.5.2009); VP 2013–16/1449 (24.6.2015).
[56] Background information on these earlier provisions may be found in previous editions.
[57] S.O. 155(c).
[58] On occasion following suspension of standing orders when leave has not been obtained, e.g. VP 2002–04/147–9 (21.3.2002); VP 2004–07/2086 (16.8.2007).
[59] S.O. 178.
[60] As in other procedures of the House unless otherwise stated all references to a Minister in the following text can be taken to include a Parliamentary Secretary.
[61] S.O. 140(a).
[62] E.g. VP 1998–2001/925 (30.9.1999).
[63] A Minister has presented a bill for another Minister to whom leave had been given, VP 1932–34/895 (4.7.1934). On 8 September 1932 the Prime Minister moved a notice for leave to bring in a bill on behalf of the Minister for Commerce, VP 1932–34/304 (8.9.1932). When the bill was brought up in May 1933 the Minister for Commerce had resigned from the Ministry, and a third Minister presented the bill, VP 1932–34/665 (23.5.1933).
[64] S.O. 141(b). Prior to 2006 the EM was presented after the second reading speech.
[65] Prior to 1963, under superseded procedures, a question was put on the first reading. The question could be decided on division and there is an instance of the first reading being negatived on division, VP 1940–43/483 (24.2.1943).
[66] S.O. 141.
[67] H.R. Deb. (28.3.1973) 809.
[68] S.O. 140(b).
[69] S.O. 138.
[70] VP 1985–87/520 (12.11.1985); VP 2002–04/100 (13.3.2002).
[71] VP 1983–84/903–4 (3.10.1984).
[72] VP 1934–37/306–7 (17.10.1935), 309 (18.10.1935). The States Grants (Administration of Controls Reimbursement) Bill 1951 was not introduced as intended on 26 September 1951, as a check indicated that the long title did not agree with the terms of the Administrator’s message. A new message was prepared and the bill introduced on the next day, VP 1951–53/86 (26.9.1951), 106 (27.9.1951).
[73] H.R. Deb. (26.9.1924) 4846.
[74] E.g. the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (No. 2) 1951, ‘A Bill for an Act to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904–1950, as amended by the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1951’, which was introduced in the House on 14 March 1951 (VP 1950–51/327 (14.3.1951)), when the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill 1951 was with the Senate (passed by the House on 9 March, VP 1950–51/319–20 (9.3.1951), and introduced in the Senate on 15 March, J 1950–51/226 (15.3.1951)).
[75] www.aph.gov.au.
[76] VP 1993–96/2241 (27.6.1995).
[77] In each case, the second time a bill is presented it may in certain circumstances include amendments made or agreed to.
[78] VP 1950–51/189 (4.10.1950).
[79] And, on occasion, a third time. For numbering in the short title of such bills, see p. 346.
[80] Post and Telegraph Rates Bill 1967 [No. 2], VP 1967–68/123 (17.5.1967). The second bill was not returned from the Senate.
[81] In 1975 the main appropriation bills were passed and sent to the Senate three times. The Senate eventually passed the original bills, VP 1974–75/953–6 (8.10.1975), 1015–21 (22.10.1975), 1067–70 (29.10.1975).
[82] VP 1967–68/123 (17.5.1967).
[83] Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1982; H.R. Deb. (10.11.1982) 2998.
[84] Institute of Freshwater Studies Bills, 1981 and 1982. It should be noted that there is no impediment to identical bills being introduced and progressing in each House.
[85] Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 and Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 [No. 2], VP 2016–18/97 (12.9.2016).
[86] E.g. VP 1990–93/1358 (5.3.1992), 1782 (15.10.1992).
[87] S.O. 143(a).
[88] S.O. 45(b).
[89] A motion to refer a bill moved (without leave) after debate had been resumed on the second reading has been ruled out of order, H.R. Deb. (26.8.2002) 5659–61.
[90] E.g. VP 2002–04/239 (6.6.2002), providing for referral of bills at the conclusion of further debate in the House; VP 2002–04/1459 (1.3.2004) and VP 2008–10/285 (27.5.2008), providing for referral at the adjournment of the House.
[91] VP 1993–96/2456–7 (17.10.1995).
[92] Since the 43rd Parliament bills have been referred following the speech of the opposition spokesperson.
[93] E.g. VP 2010–13/1116 (22.11.2011).
[94] S.O. 143(b).
[95] S.O. 222(a)(iii). The Selection Committee may provide reasons for the referral or indicate issues for consideration.
[96] Provision for bills to be referred to joint committees was added in 2010 (S.O. 222). Previously standing orders had been suspended to enable bills to be so referred, e.g. VP 1993–96/2678 (30.11.1995); VP 1996–98/265 (19.6.1996), 2534 (27.11.1997) (Public Accounts); VP 1996–98/2919 (2.4.1998) (Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund); VP 2002–04/151 (21.3.2002), 1253 (15.10.2003) (ASIO, ASIS and DSD); VP 2002–04/462 (26.9.2002) (National Crime Authority). The earlier provision in S.O. 227 for reference to a committee formed of House of Representatives members of a joint committee was never used.
[97] By motion moved on notice, S.O. 229(c).
[98] S.O. 215(d).
[99] S.O. 143(c).
[100] S.O. 148. This restriction applies only to bills referred under S.O. 143(b).When by oversight a bill was read a third time prior to a committee’s oral report on the bill, the House corrected the situation by motion affirming the action of the House notwithstanding S.O. 148 and authorising the Speaker to transmit the bill to the Senate, VP 2010–13/2265 (16.5.2013). S.O. 148 has been circumvented in the case of a bill referred to a joint committee by suspending standing orders after the second reading to enable the remaining stages to proceed immediately, VP 2013–16/1939–40 (24.2.2016).
[101] S.O. 144.
[102] E.g. VP 1993–96/1151 (29.6.1994), 1318 (21.9.1994), 1963 (9.3.1995); VP 2010–13/495 (11.5.2011).
[103] E.g. VP 1993–96/921–2 (4.5.1994).
[104] VP 1901–02/455 (12.6.1902), 519–20 (2.9.1902) (Select Committee on the Bonuses for Manufactures Bill).
[105] VP 1985–87/1029 (4.6.1986), 1343 (20.11.1986), 1608 (30.4.1987) (Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception)—see 2nd edn, p. 392.
[106] VP 2010–13/51–2 (29.9.2010).
[107] VP 2010–13/881–2 (13.9.2011).
[108] E.g. H.R. Deb. (9.2.1995) 835.
[109] E.g. H.R. Deb. (13.5.1999) 5420.
[110] E.g. VP 1959–60/155 (18.8.1959), 261 (17.11.1959); VP 1961/133–4 (17.5.1961); VP 1987–90/920 (24.11.1988); VP 1993–96/699 (2.2.1994); VP 2008–10/110–1 (21.2.2008).
[111] S.O. 142(a). It is sufficient that some copies are available in the Chamber, H.R. Deb. (2.11.2005) 4–5.
[112] VP 1968–69/583 (24.9.1969) (copies of the National Health Bill 1969 not available for distribution).
[113] VP 1950–51/151 (21.6.1950).
[114] VP 1956–57/49 (13.3.1956).
[115] Either without notice, VP 1951–53/443 (24.9.1952); or pursuant to contingent notice, VP 1956–57/109 (3.5.1956).
[116] S.O. 142(b).
[117] VP 1956–57/50 (13.3.1956).
[118] H.R. Deb. (9.6.1903) 587.
[119] NP 46 (11.2.1975) 5085.
[120] H.R. Deb. (12.2.1975) 134.
[121] S.O. 142(a).
[122] The Deputy Speaker explained to a Minister whose second reading speech was ranging beyond the contents of a bill that a certain latitude was allowed during a second reading speech. However, when the second reading debate occurred it would be difficult for the Chair to rule against speeches made in reply to the subjects raised by the Minister, H.R. Deb. (22.2.1972) 38–41.
[123] S.O. 1.
[124] A few instances have occurred in conflict with this rule. On one occasion leave was granted for a Minister to incorporate a series of second reading speeches, H.R. Deb. (27.8.1980) 804–13 (this instance preceded the comprehensive position set down by Speakers Snedden and Jenkins on the incorporation of material in Hansard, H.R. Deb. (21.10.1982) 2339–40, H.R. Deb. (10.5.1983) 341–2). On one occasion, instead of a second reading speech being made in the normal manner Members were referred to the Senate Hansard, H.R. Deb. (30.11.1995) 4447, and on another a brief summary of the provisions was given and Members then referred to the Senate Hansard, H.R. Deb. (12.11.1992) 3359. On one occasion, by leave, a Minister tabled the second reading speech to a Senate bill without reading it, VP 1996–98/1824–5 (26.6.1997), H.R. Deb. (27.6.1997) 6623. On one occasion leave was granted for a Minister to incorporate a second reading speech in circumstances when a bill had been withdrawn and presented again with a change to its long title, and substantially the same speech had been made previously (the speech was also presented), H.R. Deb. (13.3.2002) 1139–42, VP 2002–04/100 (13.3.2002). On one occasion, although it was acceptable to Members present for the remainder of a Minister’s speech to be tabled because of time constraints, the Deputy Speaker noted that such action would be subject to the Speaker’s agreement; this was not given, and the Minister completed the speech after intervening business, H.R. Deb. (29.5.2008) 3849–50, 3853–5.
[125] E.g. VP 1985–87/1608 (30.4.1987); VP 2002–04/1533 (25.3.2004). Examples of other papers tabled at this time include VP 1998–2001/695 (30.6.1999) (regulation impact statement), 1135 (8.12.1999) (proposed amendments to guidelines and code), 2406 (27.6.2001) (draft protocol), 2583 (30.8.2001) (report of a review of the principal Act); VP 2002–04/1297–8 (5.11.2003) (brief); VP 2004–07/626 (14.9.2005) (report); VP 2010–13/742 (6.7.2011) (draft regulations); VP 2013–16/856 (25.9.2014) (correspondence).
[126] The mandatory requirement is a provision which ensures that the House will have some time to study the bill before it is proceeded with. This provision does not apply to a second reading moved pursuant to contingent notice, as standing orders have been suspended.
[127] S.O.s 78, 79.
[128] VP 1968–69/117 (5.6.1968).
[129] VP 1970–72/596–8 (5.5.1971).
[130] VP 1978–80/1473 (13.5.1980). But see VP 2002–04/175 (16.5.2002)—‘resumption of the debate not occur until the House has had the opportunity to consider the following motion: … [condemning the Government]’.
[131] NP 45 (5.12.1974) 4942. For example the House resolved on 28 November 1974 to make resumption of the second reading debate on the Family Law Bill 1974 an order of the day for 11 February 1975, VP 1974–75/383–4 (28.11.1974). The item was listed as order of the day No. 3 but was not called on, NP 46 (11.2.1975) 5085.
[132] S.O. 120.
[133] VP 1973–74/243 (30.5.1973).
[134] E.g. VP 1978–80/1188 (14.11.1979); VP 1990–93/1963 (16.12.1992), 2001 (17.12.1992); VP 1996–98/3173 (30.6.1998); VP 2004–07/1082 (10.5.2006); VP 2010–13/1631 (26.6.2012); VP 2013–16/1449 (24.6.2015).
[135] H.R. Deb. (21.3.1972) 906.
[136] E.g. VP 1968–69/312 (21.11.1968); VP 2002–04/291 (25.6.2002); VP 2008–10/289 (28.5.2008), 607 (15.10.2008); VP 2013–16/1437 (23.6.2015).
[137] A contingent notice of motion usually appears on the Notice Paper to facilitate this, see ‘Contingent notices’ at page 391.
[138] VP 1974–75/449 (12.2.1975).
[139] S.O. 79(b); H.R. Deb. (16.9.1958) 1251.
[140] H.R. Deb. (24.11.1920) 6906.
[141] H.R. Deb. (22.11.1932) 2601.
[142] H.R. Deb. (29.3.1935) 541–2.
[143] VP 1977/149 (26.5.1977).
[144] H.R. Deb. (26.5.1977) 1941.
[145] VP 1951–53/714 (8.10.1953); H.R. Deb. (8.10.1953) 1170.
[146] H.R. Deb. (14.4.1988) 1635.
[147] H.R. Deb. (19.11.1935) 1768–9.
[148] S.O. 145.
[149] S.O. 145.
[150] For general examples of amendments ruled out of order as not being relevant see VP 1967–68/18 (22.2.1967); VP 1970–72/1144 (17.8.1972).
[151] An amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Bill 1949 was ruled out of order by the Deputy Speaker as it was outside the specific proposals set forth in the long title of the bill, VP 1948–49/344 (29.6.1949), 358 (6.7.1949).
[152] VP 1977/380 (1.11.1977); H.R. Deb. (1.11.1977) 2609.
[153] VP 1977/422 (7.11.1977).
[154] The long title of the Child Care Payments Bill 1997 was ‘A bill for an Act to provide for payments in respect of child care and related purposes’. An amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition was ruled out of order when the Chair upheld a point of order that the amendment did not come within the title and was not relevant to the bill, VP 1996–98/1984–6 (23.9.1997).
[155] VP 1964–66/603 (12.5.1966); H.R. Deb. (12.5.1966) 1812.
[156] VP 1964–66/604 (12.5.1966).
[157] E.g. amendment to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1996–97, VP 1996–98/408–10 (9.9.1996).
[158] Private ruling.
[159] H.R. Deb. (7.12.1998) 1503, 1509. An extension of time was agreed to permit the Member to read out the amendment.
[160] H.R. Deb. (28.11.1988) 3368.
[161] S.O. 145(a)(iv); VP 1920–21/90 (25.3.1920). There is a sound reason for this rule because, if the wording of a second reading amendment is similar to the wording of a detail amendment and the second reading amendment is defeated, the moving of the detail amendment could be prevented by the application of the ‘same motion’ rule, S.O. 114(b).
[162] VP 1951–53/246 (29.11.1951); H.R. Deb. (29 and 30.11.1951) 3140. The Speaker accepted a second reading amendment, some aspects of which could have been moved in committee, as it was the wish of the House (it was felt preferable to have one clear-cut issue than to be involved in numerous discussions in committee), H.R. Deb. (10.9.1952) 1214–16; and see H.R. Deb. (28.9.1954) 1666. see also VP 1978–80/727 (4.4.1979)—in this case the proposals of the Opposition were so complicated that resources were not available to draft committee amendments. Following an assurance that the amendments would not be moved in committee, the proposals were incorporated into a second reading amendment.
[163] The amendment was also ruled out of order on the ground of irrelevancy, VP 1912/143 (26.9.1912).
[164] S.O. 145(a)(iii); VP 1940/87 (30.5.1940). Until a change in the standing orders in 1965 this prohibition was not explicit and attempts to move amendments seeking to add words to the motion for the second reading were ruled out of order on the basis of House of Commons practice.
[165] May, 24th edn, p. 549. Other kinds of amendment with conditional wording have been accepted by the House (‘ … will not decline to give the bill a second reading if … ’, VP 1993–96/1777–8 (2.2.1995)).
[166] But see p. 367 for restrictions on length of amendment.
[167] VP 1998–2001/207 (9.12.1998).
[168] VP 1998–2001/233–5 (10.12.1998).
[169] S.O. 116(a), e.g. H.R. Deb. (10.12.1998) 1857—time expired under guillotine before amendment seconded; H.R. Deb. (13.10.2003) 21259–60—amendment not seconded; H.R. Deb. (9.2.2010) 882–3, 887—not seconded.
[170] S.O. 122(b). The question was traditionally put in the form ‘That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question’, see previous editions for detail. See also ‘Putting question on amendment’ in the Chapter on ‘Motions’.
[171] VP 1987–90/570 (24.5.1988).
[172] S.O. 1.
[173] VP 1978–80/239 (25.5.1978); VP 1996–98/1237 (4.3.1997).
[174] VP 1996–98/2913 (2.4.1998).
[175] VP 1937–40/369 (11.5.1939);VP 2010–13/2202 (21.3.2013).
[176] E.g. VP 2013–16/132 (21.11.2013).
[177] E.g. H.R. Deb. (24.6.2004) 31611.
[178] E.g. VP 2002–04/330 (19.8.2002).
[179] VP 2016–18/201 (12.10.2016). In 2017 a second reading amendment was agreed to on division; however the vote was taken again in accordance with standing order 132, and negatived, VP 2016–18/980–1 (15.8.2017).
[180] House of Representatives Practice, 6th edn, p. 370.
[181] VP 2016–18/201–2 (12.10.2016).
[182] H.R. Deb. (12.2.1975) 180; H.R. Deb. (13.2.1975) 320.
[183] VP 1974–75/449 (12.2.1975).
[184] NP 56 (4.3.1975) 6006.
[185] H.R. Deb. (28.2.1975) 934–5.
[186] This view was taken by the Speaker in 2006 in respect of a second reading amendment to a Private Member’s bill. In the event, the amendment was defeated, VP 2004–07/954–5 (16.2.2006).
[187] May, 24th edn, p. 550.
[188] May, 24th edn, p. 549.
[189] VP 1993–96/2504–5, 2516 (19.10.1995);VP 1996–98/363 (27.6.1996).
[190] S.O. 146.
[191] Parliamentary Allowances Bill 1922, VP 1922/207 (11.10.1922); H.R. Deb. (11.10.1922) 3571–97.
[192] E.g. VP 1937–40/496 (20.9.1939); VP 1976–77/130 (8.4.1976), 442–3 (4.11.1976), 487 (18.11.1976); VP 2010–13/342–3 (24.2.2011); VP 2010–13/2319 (30.5.2013).
[193] May, 24th edn, p. 548.
[194] Odgers, 14th edn, p. 311–2. E.g. 2nd readings of 4 Luxury Car Tax bills negatived on 4.9.2008 (J 2008–10/805 (4.9.2008)); notice given same day that the bills be now read a second time, SNP 30 (15.9.2008) 3; motion agreed to (J 2008–10/903–4 (22.9.2008)).
[195] E.g. following the report of a joint select committee the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1986 was replaced by another bill incorporating many of the committee’s recommendations, VP 1985–87/1029 (4.6.1986), 1343 (20.11.1986), 1608 (30.4.1987).
[196] S.O. 150(a).
[197] S.O. 37(c); VP 1974–75/534 (5.3.1975).
[198] VP 1973–74/190 (16.5.1973); H.R. Deb. (16.5.1973) 2219–20.
[199] VP 1976–77/512, 524 (1.12.1976); H.R. Deb. (1.12.1976) 3083.
[200] VP 1978–80/321–4 (8.6.1978); VP 1980–83/133–4 (11.3.1981).
[201] For a description of the operation of legislation committees see pp. 331–2 and 341–2 of the 1st edition. see also comments by the Procedure Committee in its About time report, PP 194 (1993) 6.
[202] S.O. 148(a).
[203] S.O. 148(b).
[204] Described in earlier editions. The origin of the committee of the whole is covered at p. 233 of the 2nd edition.
[205] PP 194 (1993) 7–8.
[206] VP 1993–96/807 (23.2.1994).
[207] S.O. 149. Greater detail is also possible, e.g. paragraph by paragraph.
[208] May, 24th edn, p. 564.
[209] S.O. 150(a). See examples of inadmissible amendments at p. 375.
[210] S.O. 150(d).
[211] S.O. 149(c).
[212] S.O. 151.
[213] H.R. Deb. (24.8.1984) 398.
[214] H.R. Deb. (22.11.1951) 2633.
[215] E.g. VP 1929–31/660 (3.6.1931); VP 1950–51/145 (20.6.1950); VP 1978–80/493 (25.10.1978) (Legislation Committee).
[216] S.O. 1.
[217] S.O. 150(b).
[218] H.R. Deb. (14.9.1961) 1195–6.
[219] H.R. Deb. (25.10.1955) 1856.
[220] H.R. Deb. (16.5.1961) 1903.
[221] S.O. 122(b).
[222] E.g. VP 2002–04/439 (24.9.2002).
[223] S.O. 150(c).
[224] S.O. 150(d).
[225] VP 1961/291 (26.10.1961) (two proposed amendments).
[226] VP 2010–13/267 (25.11.2010).
[227] E.g. VP 1946–48/527 (29.4.1948).
[228] E.g. VP 2002–04/1701 (17.6.2004); VP 1974–75/863 (21.8.1975) (proposed new clause).
[229] VP 1961/76–7 (2.5.1961).
[230] VP 1945–46/278 (3.10.1945).
[231] E.g. amendments designed to alter the short title of the Government Preference Prohibition Bill 1914 to (a) the Anti-Trades and Labour Unions Bill 1914, (b) the Government Preference to Contractors, Lawyers, Doctors, and Others Bill 1914, and (c) the Government Preference to the Bar Association, to the British Medical Association, to the Contractors’ and Employers’ Associations, etc. Bill 1914, were ruled out of order, VP 1914/48–9 (21.5.1914). Similarly amendments proposing to substitute ‘Reduciary’, ‘Reductionary’ and ‘Inflationary’ for ‘Fiduciary’ in the Fiduciary Notes Bill 1931 (on the ground of being outside the scope of the bill), VP 1929–31/503 (26.3.1931); Words in short title ‘Work Choices’ to, inter alia, ‘No Work Choices’, VP 2004–07/768 (10.11.2005), H.R. Deb. (10.11.2005) 38.
[232] VP 1945–46/420 (23.7.1946). An amendment to the Wheat Export Charge Bill 1946 proposed to add a subclause to the effect that the bill should not be submitted for assent until approved by a majority of wheat growers at a postal ballot. The Chair ruled the amendment was not in order as the standing orders required a bill which had passed both Houses to be forwarded for assent, and a committee of the whole, by amendment to a bill, could not alter the operation of the standing orders.
[233] VP 1946–48/527 (29.4.1948); VP 2013–16/133 (21.11.2013). However, enforcement of the standing orders is the main concern of the Chair, who may not be in a position to judge constitutional implications.
[234] S.O. 150(a).
[235] H.R. Deb. (31.5.1928) 5400.
[236] E.g. VP 2002–04/1701 (17.6.2004). There is no record of the House suspending standing orders to allow an unrelated amendment to be made to a bill.
[237] VP 1983–84/145–6 (26.5.1983).
[238] S.O. 150(e). see e.g. VP 1964–66/491 (2.12.1965), where an amendment to a proposed new clause was ruled out of order by the Chair as the amendment was substantially the same as a proposed amendment to an earlier clause negatived. Leave has been given for an amendment which had been defeated to be moved again; it was then agreed to, VP 2004–07/1249 (21.6.2006).
[239] E.g. VP 1934–37/484 (4.12.1935); VP 1940/74 (27.5.1940).
[240] S.O. 149(a), (d).
[241] S.O. 149(c).
[242] VP 1962–63/342 (4.12.1962). Consideration of the clause had begun before it was ordered to be considered by divisions and the first question following the order was ‘That the clause to the end of Division 1 be agreed to’ (thereafter ‘That Division 2 be agreed to’ etc.).
[243] VP 1960–61/270 (17.11.1960). The clause proposed to insert new sections in the principal Act. Consideration of the clause had begun and the first question was ‘That the clause to the end of proposed section 24 be agreed to’.
[244] VP 1959–60/264 (18.11.1959). The clause had been debated before the order and the first question after the order was ‘That the clause to the end of paragraph (a) be agreed to’ (thereafter ‘That paragraph (b) be agreed to’ etc.).