Download Word

House of Representatives                                Ch 10                                                 p 355

Nature of debate—relevancy

The second reading debate is primarily an opportunity to consider the principles of the bill and should not extend in detail to matters which can be discussed at the consideration in detail stage. However, it is the practice of the House to permit reference to amendments proposed to be moved at the consideration in detail stage. The Chair has ruled that a Member would not be in order in reading the provisions of a bill seriatim and debating them on the second reading, ¹ and that it is not permissible at the second reading stage to discuss the bill clause by clause; the second reading debate should be confined to principles. ²

However, debate is not strictly limited to the contents of the bill and may include reasonable reference to:

However, discussion on these matters should not be allowed to supersede debate on the subject matter of the bill.

When a bill has a restricted title and a limited subject matter, the application of the relevancy rule for second reading debate is relatively simple to interpret. ³ For example, the Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1977, the long title of which was ‘A Bill for an Act to amend section 28A of the Wool Industry Act 1972 ’, ⁴ had only three clauses and its object was to amend the Wool Industry Act 1972 so as to extend the statutory accounting provisions in respect of the floor price scheme for wool to include the 1977-78 season. Debate could not exceed these defined limits. ⁵ The Overseas Students Tuition Assurance Levy Bill 1993 was a bill for an Act to allow levies to be imposed by the rules of a tuition assurance scheme established for the purposes of section 7A of the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Act 1991 , and contained only three clauses, thus allowing only a limited scope for debate.

A more recent example of a bill with a restricted title was the Extension of Sunset of Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title Bill 2004, the long title of which was ‘A Bill for an Act to extend for 2 years the operation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund’. It also contained only three clauses.

To a lesser extent, the relevancy rule is easily interpreted for a bill with a restricted title to amend named parts of the principal Act, even though the bill may contain a greater number of clauses than the above examples. The Speaker ruled that the scope of debate on the States Grants (Special Financial Assistance) Bill 1953 should not permit discussion of the ways in which the States might spend the sums granted, that the limits of the debate were narrow and that he would confine the debate to whether the sums should be granted or not. The Speaker’s ruling was dissented from, following which the Speaker stated that the expenditure methods of the States were clearly open for discussion. ⁶ Good examples of amending bills with restricted titles were the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1988, the long title of which was ‘A Bill for an Act to amend section 5 of the Ministers of State Act 1952 ’, ⁷ and the Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Male Total Average Weekly Earnings) Bill 1998, its long title being ‘A Bill for an Act to amend section 198 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 to allow increases in the rate of pension payable under paragraph 30(1)(a) of that Act to the widow or widower of a deceased veteran to take account of Male Total Average Weekly Earnings’.

When a bill has an unrestricted title, for example, the Airports Bill 1995, whose long title was ‘A Bill for an Act about airports’ and which contained a large number of clauses, the same principles of debate apply, but the scope of the subject matter of t he bill may be so wide that definition of relevancy is very difficult. However, debate should still conform to the rules for second reading debates and be relevant to the objectives and scope of the bill. Reference may be had to the second reading speech and the explanatory memorandum to help determine the objectives and scope of a bill. General discussion of a matter in a principal Act which is not referred to in the amending bill being debated has been prevented. ⁸

H.R. Deb. (24.11.20) 6906.

H.R. Deb. (22.11.32) 2601.

H.R. Deb. (29.3.35) 541-2.

VP 1977/149. Act No. 43 of 1977.

H.R. Deb. (26.5.77) 1941.

VP 1951-53/714; H.R. Deb. (8.10.53) 1170.

H.R. Deb. (14.4.88) 1635.

H.R. Deb. (19.11.35) 1768-9.