Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

In the spirit of the new paradigm it is my understanding that my participation in this debate will not affect my first speech, which is to be given tomorrow. I participate on that basis. Much has been made of the agreement reached with other members of the crossbench, but there was in fact a prior agreement reached between me and other members of the Australian Greens and the Labor Party that contained a number of matters relevant to the current debate, including this question of the recommittal of any vote.

As reflected in that agreement, which says, ‘Amending the standing orders of both houses so that there can be a recommittal of any vote within one sitting day where a member was absent from that vote due to inadvertence’, it was our intention in entering into that agreement that it be reflected in the standing orders the spirit that the true will of this House is represented at any given time. As happens in the Senate, the recommittal of a vote as a result of misadventure is more or less automatic. Especially in a House as finely balanced as this one, there ought to be the minimum procedural impediments in place to allow the recommittal of a vote as a result of misadventure.

The true purpose, as it appears to me, of the amendment put by the opposition is to simply have a higher bar and to increase the number of procedural impediments in place for testing the true will of the House. So the Australian Greens do support, in general, the amendments to the standing orders but cannot support the amendment to the standing order with respect to inadvertence.

See this speech in context