Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a statement on the stating of the question on amendments. Standing order 122 sets out the various ways the question is put when amendments are moved to motions. The most common form of amendment to motions is that certain words be omitted and other words substituted. Traditionally a question 'that the words project posed to be omitted stand' has been put. Depending on the result of that question, a further question may be put 'that the words proposed be inserted'. This process has its advantages, but it has caused confusion and, in a finely balanced House, it could lead to a meaningless outcome.

A discussion paper on this matter was circulated to all members by the Clerk last November. The Procedure Committee has now commented on the matter in its report on the new arrangements. The committee has reported that it sees merit in the simplified form 'that the amendment be agreed to' being trialled. Accordingly, I intend to use the simplified form for the remainder of this parliament and I thank the House for its assistance when we did so on two occasions this morning. I will ask all occupants of the chair to do the same and, importantly, I note that it will remain open to any member to object and require the traditional form to be used in a particular case.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome your discussion on this matter, Mr Speaker. The Procedure Committee has indeed considered this matter and I think a trial of such a measure is an appropriate way to determine whether it is the best way to function or not. One of the historical reasons resolutions are put in that way is to enable people to stay on the same side of the chamber, thereby reducing the time of transfer. So there is a practical historical reason it has been put that way. I welcome the trial and the government supports the initiative. The government will also be responding to other measures contained in the report of the Procedure Committee after discussion with the opposition and the crossbenches.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Even though he has been warned and he did make an interjection, I do indicate to the Manager of Opposition Business that this is an unfortunate conjunction of events and it does not directly relate to an event earlier this week. After yesterday, I wish that I had made this statement earlier.