Tabling statement
From Hansard, 28 October 1996, page 5853
Mrs SULLIVAN (Moncrieff) (12.31 p.m.)—On behalf of the Parliamentary
Standing Committee on Procedure, I present the committee's report entitled
Bills—Consideration in detail: review of the operation of standing
order 226 together with the minutes of proceedings.
Ordered that the report be printed.
Mrs SULLIVAN—This is the Procedure Committee's second report
of the 38th parliament. It addresses an issue which is probably not in
the forefront of members' thoughts but, nonetheless, is fundamental to
their rights and responsibilities as members of the House of Representatives.
In July this year, Mr Speaker, you wrote to the Procedure Committee drawing
its attention to changes in standard drafting practice which have been
adopted by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. You asked the committee
to consider and, if appropriate, report on the consideration in detail
of bills by the House in the light of the varying format of bills presented
to it.
The issue arises from the fact that in 1995 the OPC altered its standard
drafting practice so that proposed amendments to existing acts became
items in schedules attached to amending bills. Previously they would have
been contained within the clauses of the bills, other than minor or machinery
amendments which were usually placed in schedules. Bills for new acts
still contain the principle provisions within the clauses.
This means that there are now two basic types of bills, each type having
different structures. New bills are structured in the traditional way
with all the substantive matters in the clauses, but amending bills contain
the substantive provisions in one or more schedules to the bill. The new
format of amending bills raises the question as to whether the House's
traditional method of considering the provisions of a bill is still the
most appropriate.
Standing order 226, which prescribes the order in which the House will
consider a bill in detail, provides for clauses to be considered individually,
but for each schedule to be taken as a whole. Previously, amendments to
laws were drafted as several clauses of an amending bill and each clause
could be considered and voted on separately. Under the new format they
may comprise many varying items within a schedule which are considered
and voted on as one.
The committee was unanimous in its view that the right of the House to
examine amending legislation in the detail traditionally enjoyed by the
House should be maintained. Thus the standing orders should reflect and
protect the right of the House to examine each significant part of an
amending bill in the same way as it can for a new bill.
The committee has therefore recommended an amendment to standing order
226 which will have the effect of ensuring that the House has the right
to consider individually each item within a schedule attached to an amending
bill, unless the House grants leave for certain items—or the entire
schedule—to be considered together. This would be consistent with
the procedures currently followed in respect of the consideration of clauses
of bills and the consideration of schedules attached to appropriation
bills. Most importantly, it would ensure that the House enjoys the same
rights in respect of amendments contained in the schedules to amending
bills as it does in relation to the clauses of new bills—whilst,
of course, retaining the right to streamline the process by agreement
of all members present.
As I said at the beginning, this is probably not the sort of provision
that moves members very much. In fact, the change to presenting amendments
in schedules is one that even long serving members of the House probably
had not noticed or at least they may well not have realised the import
of the change. I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for having written to
me to ask the committee to consider this matter. The right of members
to consider amendments is very important. I personally have always been
rather disturbed by the statute law amendment bills which come into this
House from time to time, usually a couple of times a year, listing under
one heading amendments to a very wide range of bills. The breaking down
of any such bill into individual bills is to be welcomed, although I do
recognise there would be an additional cost and an amount of work involved
in that.
It is important that members have placed before them individual amendments
to bills to draw their attention to the changes proposed. The recommendation
that the committee has made will extend members' rights to consider proposed
amendments in the sort of detail that those amendments ought to attract.
The Leader of the House (Mr Reith) is presently waiting on some further
advice from the Procedure Committee in relation to a range of previous
recommendations that the committee has made over the years to various
governments. I hope that, when he considers all the reports that the committee
hopes to bring in by the end of this session, this amendment is one that
will be included in any proposed changes next year. I commend the report
to the House.
|
