Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4718 ..
That the amendment (Mrs Carnell's) be agreed to.
The Assembly voted -
AYES, 7 NOES, 10 Mrs Carnell Mr Berry Mr Cornwell Ms Follett Mr De Domenico Ms Horodny Mr Hird Ms McRae Mr Humphries Mr Moore Mr Kaine Mr Osborne Mr Stefaniak Ms Reilly Ms Tucker Mr Whitecross Mr WoodQuestion so resolved in the negative.
MR SPEAKER: Ms Tucker, before you speak, let me say that I have had a look at your proposed amendment and I believe that it is out of order, in conformity with the lakes ruling that was made some time ago. I would remind members that in that particular case Ms McRae, I think it was, wished to expand a motion which related to the lakes and foreshores - - -
Mr Wood: It would be good if we could go back a few years.
MR SPEAKER: No. In fact, it went back to 25 September this year, Mr Wood.
Mr Wood: But it has changed from rulings earlier. That is what I meant.
MR SPEAKER: This rule is also set down in standing order 140, which stipulates:
Every amendment must be relevant to the question which it is proposed to amend.
Clearly, an amendment can be proposed to alter details of a motion, another amendment, clause or Bill; but it cannot propose to alter the subject matter of the question under consideration. Now, you are expanding the matter of the Moore Street Health Building to incorporate the sale of any other major marketable fixed assets that we may think of. That is not in conformity with the ruling I made in relation to the lakes matter, which was Mr Moore's motion and an attempt by Ms McRae to amend it. Therefore, I must rule this amendment of yours, Ms Tucker, out of order for the same reasons.