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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (20 November) . . Page.. 3857 ..

MR MOORE (11.48), in reply: Mr Speaker, it is very interesting how Labor have been presenting standing order 133. Standing order 133 - - -

Mr Berry: Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. My understanding was that there were points of order which you wished to rule on. Mr Moore is closing the debate.

MR SPEAKER: No. I said I was about to make a ruling. I did not say I was making a ruling on points of order. I was about to make a ruling. Mr Moore is closing the debate. I shall then advise the Assembly of my decision.

MR MOORE: Mr Speaker, I think the way Labor are presenting standing order 133 is entirely inappropriate. Mr Whitecross says that it is there simply for mechanical changes. That, of course, is not true. Mr Speaker, the reason standing order 133 is there, as I see it - and I hope you will take this into account in your ruling - is that it allows members, when there is a question with a diverse range of matters in it, to support some issues and to vote against other issues. It is quite clear that when you get a complicated question it is very easy to catch members out by saying, "You voted for the motion" or, "You voted against the motion". In fact, there may have been a series of complicated questions in the motion, some of which you agreed with and some of which you disagreed with. Standing order 133 allows us to vote on the parts we agree with and the parts we disagree with. That leads me to the use of the word "complicated". When there is more than one issue, members may have different views on each issue. I am in that position in this instance. The whole issue is school-based management. I am keen to support one issue but not the other.

That leads us to the second point that Ms Follett raised: What is a question? We have an amendment. Again and again, Mr Speaker, I hear you say that you will now put the question. The question is what is before us now, the amended motion. We have agreed to this motion being amended. We now have a new question before us, and that is the whole of the amended motion. That is what is before us - a question of two parts. I want to be able to vote against one part of that and vote for a different part. I think Ms McRae is quite right. You gave a ruling yesterday, Mr Speaker, about times when there is a contra intention within a motion. Under those circumstances it is entirely appropriate that you rule that the question cannot be divided. If that is how you perceive this particular question, then I would concede that that would be entirely appropriate.

I would argue to you, Mr Speaker, that both parts of this particular question deal with school-based management. They both deal with improving equity in school-based management. In other words, in my perception, they run in the same direction. However, the fact that I wish to vote against one and in favour of the other highlights that there are differences. Mr Speaker, if you feel that this fits into the same category as the motion on lakes on which you gave a ruling yesterday, then I would accept that as a sensible ruling. I do not think that is the case, but I would accept that as a sensible ruling.

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