Suspended Members, a Scope Ruling and a Reconsideration Motion
The National Assembly has 113 members. Its standing orders set quorum at one-third (38) and provide that "a member under suspension shall not be counted for quorum or for vote." Bill 42, establishing a licensing scheme for ride-hailing platforms, was reported by the Transport Committee on a 7–6 vote. At second reading, Member A moved to add a new clause 19: "A platform operating without a licence commits an offence punishable by up to three years' imprisonment." The Deputy Speaker, presiding, ruled the amendment out of order as "beyond the scope of the committee's report," because the committee text contained no criminal provisions. Member A appealed the ruling. The appeal was put and carried 58–54; three of the members voting in favour had been suspended the previous week for disorderly conduct and had not been readmitted. The bill then passed second reading 57–55. Member B, who voted with the majority, gave notice of a motion to reconsider, to be moved the following sitting day. By then the bill had already been transmitted to the Senate. The Speaker asks you for procedural advice.
1. Rule on the Deputy Speaker's scope ruling and on the appeal against it.
Read the worked answer
The Deputy Speaker conflated two questions: whether the amendment is germane, and whether the ruling is appealable.
Germaneness. The measure is the subject matter of the bill as introduced, not the committee's reported text. Bill 42 establishes a licensing scheme; a criminal penalty for operating without a licence is a direct enforcement mechanism and is germane. The committee's decision to omit criminal provisions is a political choice; it does not narrow the House's power to amend. On substance the ruling should be reversed.
The stated ground is wrong. "Beyond the scope of the committee's report" is not a recognised limitation on amendments at second reading in most standing orders. The correct question was germaneness, and the amendment passes that test.
The appeal. An appeal from a ruling of the chair is procedurally proper where the standing orders permit it, and a Deputy Speaker presiding in the House is subject to the same appeal as any other chair. The vote on the appeal is a vote on the ruling, not on the amendment: if carried, the ruling is reversed, the amendment is in order, and the House proceeds to debate it. The appeal does not enact clause 19.
Advice. Advise the chair that the ruling cannot be sustained on the ground given. A ruling on a wrong ground can sometimes be upheld on another ground; none is available here. The House should be invited to reverse the ruling and take the amendment.
2. What is the effect of the 58–54 and 57–55 tallies given the three suspended members? What must the House do about the transmission to the Senate?
Read the worked answer
The standing orders are explicit: a suspended member is not counted for quorum or for voting. Suspension is a disciplinary sanction that removes the right to sit and vote until readmission; physical presence is irrelevant.
Arithmetic.
- Appeal: 58–54. Three of the 58 were ineligible. Corrected: 55–54. The appeal still carried, so the ruling is reversed and the amendment is in order.
- Second reading: 57–55, 112 votes cast. Three of the 57 were ineligible. Corrected: 54–55 on 109 valid votes. The bill was not carried. The test is a majority of members voting, excluding ineligible members; 54 is not a majority of 109.
Consequences. A negative vote at second reading is decisive; the bill falls and cannot be transmitted. The transmission to the Senate is a nullity. The Senate should be formally notified and should return the papers. Correcting the record affects members' rights and the validity of a proceeding, so the House itself - not the chair alone - should resolve it by motion on notice.
Anticipate the objection. Could the House treat the ineligible votes as harmless because the result was clear? No. The question is not whether the votes changed the outcome but whether the required majority existed on valid votes. It did not. Note also that quorum was never in doubt: 109 valid voters far exceed 38.
3. Is Member B's motion to reconsider in order? Advise the Speaker on the proper course.
Read the worked answer
Three obstacles, in order of importance.
1. Mootness. The corrected tally shows the bill failed at second reading. There is no second-reading vote to reconsider. A motion to reconsider presupposes a valid decision; none exists. This alone disposes of the motion.
2. Standing to move. Member B voted with the prevailing side - the ayes - so B satisfies the usual requirement that only a member who voted with the majority may move reconsideration. Notice was given the following sitting day, which is timely under the usual same-or-next-sitting-day rule. These points would matter if a valid vote existed.
3. Transmission. Once the bill has been transmitted to the second chamber, the first chamber is functus officio as to that bill. Reconsideration is barred unless the second chamber returns the bill or the rules expressly permit recall. Even then, the proper course is a request for return, not a direct motion to reconsider.
Advice. Strike the reconsideration notice from the order paper. Notify the Senate and request return of the papers. Table a motion to correct the journal, then, if the House wishes, reschedule Bill 42 for a fresh second reading and a fresh vote. Do not let the House vote on a reconsideration motion that presupposes a valid second reading - that would compound the error and create a second, worse record for the courts or the standing-orders committee to unpick.