David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Hansard source

The member for Melbourne asked me questions yesterday about certain consequences of negativing a second reading amendment. My response is as follows: the question before the House is that the second reading amendment moved by the member for Lindsay to the RU486 bill be agreed to. If the House negatives that question, it will not be possible for her or any other member to move amendments in detail the same in substance as the policy outlined in that second reading amendment.

In addition to a question about the specific matter, the member for Melbourne asked me about the general position following the negativing of a second reading amendment. In most instances, following the moving of such an amendment, the question put to the House is: ‘That the words proposed to be omitted by the amendment stand part of the question.’ If this question is agreed to, the House does not proceed to make a decision on the words proposed to be substituted. It is therefore in order for similar specific amendments to be moved during consideration in detail.

See this speech in context