The requirement for a recommittal of the bill before a decision of a previous committee could effectively be reversed was the equivalent of giving notice to senators and was therefore a fundamental parliamentary safeguard.
SO 118(1) reflects the important principle that President Baker had attempted to establish in relation to SO 111 ; namely, that relevance should be determined by reference to the subject matter of a bill rather than its title alone. Here it was appropriately applied to amendments and was adopted without debate, as was paragraph (4) which demonstrates that the title of a bill does not limit its contents because the title may be amended if amendments made to the bill exceed the scope of the original title. Note, however, that amendments which are not relevant to the subject matter of a bill in the first place, cannot be made relevant by a subsequent amendment to the title.
The long titles of bills are not frequently amended, doubtless due to the practice noted by Senator Symon (FT, SA) in 1903 for parliamentary drafters to include the words “and for related [or other] purposes” at the end of them. When amendments are made to the title, this fact is reported separately in the report from the committee of the whole.
The form of the question prescribed in paragraph (3) for clauses as amended is consistent with the constitutional requirements for voting in the Senate referred to under SO 116.