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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 4205 ..

not expand it. The subject of Mr Moore's motion was the use of Canberra's lakes and foreshores and the proposed requirement for the Government to put any new use before the Assembly. Thus the amendment proposing to restrict the requirement on the Government to consult with the Assembly to consultation on "significant" proposals for the use of the lakes or their foreshores was ruled in order. Ms McRae's amendment as originally worded and foreshadowed, proposed to require the Government to undertake appropriate consultation in regard to significant public works development in the Territory as a whole. This was ruled out of order as it expanded the question beyond the initial proposal which dealt only with new uses (not necessarily capital works) of the lakes and their foreshores (not the whole of the Territory).

Ms Follett also requested guidance on the form of legitimate amendments and referred to previous occasions where amendments went so far as to negate a motion entirely.

The standing orders do not contain a reference to amendments which are a direct negative of a question before the Assembly. However, as pointed out in House of Representatives Practice, there is a parliamentary rule that such amendments are not in order if they are confined to the mere negation of a motion. The proper method of expressing a completely contrary opinion is to vote against a motion. For example, an amendment proposing to insert the word "not" before a verb would be out of order. A working rule for determining whether an amendment is a direct negative is to ask the question whether the proposed amendment would have the same effect as voting against the motion. If so, it would be out of order.

Many amendments have been moved in the Assembly which could be claimed to be expanded negatives as they usually seek to put an alternative proposition to the Assembly and have been accepted as being in order. The practice the Assembly has followed is that of the House of Representatives in that amendments have been allowed which evade an expression of opinion on the main question by altering its meaning and object. For example, on 19 June this year a Minister moved a motion of censure of an Opposition Member. The Leader of

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