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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (20 November) . . Page.. 3856 ..

Ms McRae: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: What will end up happening is that we will pass as a motion an amendment - - -

Mr Moore: She is speaking again.

Ms McRae: I am speaking on a point of order to explain the position. I know what Mr Moore is trying on, but listen to what this implies. It means that, any time you can get nine to put up an amendment, the amendment can then become the substantive motion and the original motion can disappear. The amendment could come into existence only because - - -

Mr Humphries: I think we will vote against it.

Ms McRae: You only have to get the nine. This is what has happened. You have to understand what is happening. Mr Speaker can take this on as a point of order and do some learned work on it. The intent is that an amendment become the substantive motion. The amendment came into existence only because there was a motion. If the amendment needed to be a motion, it should have been moved as a separate motion. I seriously question whether this is an appropriate use of the standing order.

MR SPEAKER: Order! I wish to give a ruling.

Mr Moore: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before you do that, I believe I have the right of reply in this debate.

MR SPEAKER: Would you like to have that right?

Mr Moore: Indeed. I think members have the right to speak if they wish. While on that point of order, Mr Speaker, I point out that Ms McRae was speaking a second time to the motion and really ought to have sought leave, which I am sure we would have been happy to grant, rather than pretending she was talking on some point of order.

MS FOLLETT (11.47): Mr Speaker, I would like to put two propositions to you. The first one is that if you read the relevant standing order you will see that it says:

The Assembly may order a complicated question ...

In my view, a question in two parts can in no way be termed a complicated question. How many members here do not understand the content of either of those parts? The answer is, of course, none of them. The second point I would like to put to you, Mr Speaker, is whether or not the amendment which has been passed, in fact, can be regarded as a question. The answer is no, it cannot. That question has been put and voted on. Mr Speaker, I believe that the amendment, taken alone, can no longer be termed under our standing orders a question. It has been passed. In the terms of the relevant standing order, Mr Speaker, I would put it to you that the question is not complicated and this standing order therefore does not apply. The amendment which has been passed is not a question. It has been resolved and now forms a part of a singularly uncomplicated motion.

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