Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Hansard source

No, not a crisis—there may be a crisis for either of us. At this point in time I am not sure that I can accept the second reading amendment on the basis of its relevance to the legislation, but I do not want to rule it out. What I suggest, and what I am stressing at this time, is that whilst it would not be in his name, if he would allow me to hold the amendment in abeyance until we could have some further discussions about it, I might allow it in somebody else's name and not use the rule that I have already dealt with this with the same wording. It may be that there will be a question about the wording of the second reading amendment but, even if it was the case that subsequently the chair accepted the same words, if I knock it out now that will not be possible.

I know that this is an exceptional way but, on the run, I have tried to look at the bill before us and the sentiments in the second reading amendment. I know that the honourable member for Sturt in his contribution made remarks, and even then I was trying to be alert to see the relevance of those remarks directly to the bill. I do not want to rule it out point blank with no further opportunity to have a look at the second reading amendment. As I said, one of the problems would have been, if I knocked it out now, anybody on behalf of the member for Sturt would not be able to move the same words. But I am not saying that. I am saying that there is the possibility that these same words will be allowed—or a modification—but I think it might assist if we were to have the discussion about the second reading amendment so that we can work out a way to go forward.

I apologise that I have used this complex way of dealing with this matter, but if I was to make a ruling on the run at this time it would be to not allow the second reading amendment. But I think we can at least have some discussion about it.

See this speech in context