Mr HARTSUYKER (12:17 PM) —I second the amendment, and put on record my concurrence with the general thrust of the changes to the standing orders that are being proposed and the fact that they will result in a better parliament. But I do have a concern in relation to the issue of the recommittal of a vote and I think it is something that we should not be doing lightly. I think it is appropriate that standing orders be suspended before a decision is made on the recommittal of a vote.

It is incumbent on all of us in this House to do our very best and to attend all votes wherever possible. The failure to have a provision where standing orders would need to be suspended certainly does lower that obligation. It gives a perception that there should, perhaps, be some lower standard on members of this House. We should be striving to put the maximum possible pressure on all members of this House to fulfil their obligations to represent their electorates in a vote. When there is a recommittal it should only be after a proper debate on the suspension of standing orders.

With regard to the general thrust, as I have said, I certainly support it. The ability of this House to more properly get information from the government in question time is something that certainly will be welcomed by not only the members of this House but also the wider community. For too long we have seen the processes of question time frustrated by long, unwieldy and irrelevant answers to questions that are quite properly asked by the members of the opposition. These changes will certainly result in a better question time and a question time that betters services the people of this country as well as the House. I am pleased to be able to second this amendment.