Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3348 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

a significant change of practice for this to occur now. If it is going to be a change of practice, let us incorporate it permanently in the standing orders so that when I move a motion, or Mr Whitecross moves a motion, in the future, critical of the Government, Mr Humphries is not going to get up and turn it around. What I am saying is: Let us be consistent in what we do. I think that this proposal needs a little more thought and perhaps a bit of discussion by the Administration and Procedure Committee to make sure we are establishing a pattern that all of us are happy with and one that we will carry into the future.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Training) (11.41): I would like to see some of the precedents that Mr Wood is speaking about. If one looks at standing order 140, Mr Moore's motion and Ms McRae's proposed amendment and compares that proposed amendment with the proposed amendments by Ms Horodny and Mr Humphries, I think, Mr Speaker, it is quite clear that your interpretation is correct, because standing order 140 says:

Every amendment must be relevant to the question which it is proposed to amend.

Mr Wood's point that sometimes motions have been totally turned around is quite valid. I can recall that happening on a number of occasions in this place, but still the amendment was relevant to the question. It was simply turning it around maybe from support to opposition or whatever. I think those are the key words. When we look at Mr Moore's motion, the question is the proposed use of three lakes in the Territory or their foreshores. When one looks at what he has spoken of in relation to his motion, he has spoken of a use close to the foreshores in terms of the futsal stadium, the multipurpose slab. He has also spoken about a car rally somewhere in the vicinity of one of those lakes, Lake Burley Griffin. What Ms McRae's amendment relates to is not anything to do with the lakes or the proposed use of the lakes and the foreshores but something very substantially different indeed; that is, any significant public works development in the ACT. The only public works I think Mr Moore is referring to would be the futsal stadium; there is no other. He refers to the car rally. He refers to use rather than actual public works. He refers to the lakes rather than any public works. I think there is a very real difference there which would be quite inconsistent with standing order 140. This is a technical point, but I think it is important to ensure that we do get our standing orders right for the proper governance of this place.

MS McRAE (11.43): Mr Speaker, I think you are being drawn into something that you really should not be drawn into.

Mr Moore: Yes, standing orders. That is why you are no longer Speaker.

MS McRAE: I am very pleased to no longer be Speaker, Mr Moore. From the Chair, I do not have to put up with your impertinence. Mr Speaker, the point is that my amendment, had it been put, if Mr Moore's case had held, would have simply been voted down. That is the process that happens every time an amendment is put. If Mr Moore believed in what he is saying, he would have allowed it to be tested. He would have put his arguments to the Assembly and the Assembly would have voted it down, as is appropriate under standing orders.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .