Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (20 November) . . Page.. 3854..
MR SPEAKER: Standing order 133 states:
The Assembly may order a complicated question to be divided and may order reports of committees and other matters be considered by parts.
The question is: That Mr Moore's motion that the question be divided be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye - - -
MS McRAE (11.38): Just a minute, Mr Speaker. You have interfered before with amendments and variations. This amendment, this change, becomes a completely new motion. It is exactly the same problem that confronted you, Mr Speaker, when I wanted to amend the lakes motion. It is a completely new issue now. It is a debate about a paper, not any other specific activity that is going on. The motion specifically related to the delay. The two were intertwined. It was specifically an amendment to the motion that was before us. If we divide the two, the second one becomes a completely different issue about whether the paper should or should not be provided. I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that that is exactly the same problem that confronted you when you sat me down with my amendment about the lakes.
MR BERRY (11.39): This is clearly something that is meant to undermine the intent of the motion. It is being carried out without anything in writing before any of the members in this place to enable them to make a judgment on where the division is supposed to occur.
Mr Moore: Look at the notice paper and look at the amendment. They are the two parts.
MR BERRY: Mr Moore, at least you should have the courtesy to circulate something in writing so members can see what you are up to. That is the point.
Mr Moore: There are standing orders, Mr Berry. You know how they operate.
MR BERRY: My word, I do know how they operate, and I know how you operate as well.
Ms McRae: The standing orders divide the question, not an amendment.
MR BERRY: That is right. The standing orders, as Ms McRae rightly points out, divide the question, not an amendment.
MR WHITECROSS (Leader of the Opposition) (11.41): Mr Speaker, I think we need to have a ruling from you.
Mr Moore: We had one yesterday.
MR WHITECROSS: Bear with me, Mr Moore. We really need to have a ruling from you, Mr Speaker. On a previous occasion Ms McRae sought to move an amendment to delete the words of a motion and to substitute new words which, in your opinion, changed the intent of the motion. On that basis you ruled it out. Mr Moore, in fact,