Chapter 20 - Bills

This standing order brings together four original standing orders dealing with amendments to a bill in committee of the whole. Following the debate referred to in the previous standing order with respect to SO 117(2), senators in 1903 postponed their decision on paragraph (2) above, initially believing it to require either amendment or abandonment in consequence of the changes to SO 117(2). It was subsequently agreed to on 12 August without amendment, President Baker having explained its rationale as a safeguard against unfairness:

Our present practice is that a matter may be reconsidered in the same Committee without a report [SO 117(2)]. That practice has its advantages, but it also has great disadvantages. One advantage is that on the same evening those who have a majority can reverse decisions formerly arrived at; but one great inconvenience and unfairness involved is that no notice is given to honourable senators present that it is proposed to reverse decisions which the Committee has already arrived at. It was that unfairness which led the Standing Orders Committee to propose this standing order as it now stands.[1]

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.[2]

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.[3] 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.