Add manual of style and update to match
Add full stops to end of all footnotes Follow AGLC4 style for discursive text
This commit is contained in:
parent
683e459cb4
commit
21d2e9e5c4
GPG Key ID:
7234E476BF21C61A
72
STYLE.txt
Normal file
72
STYLE.txt
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
|
||||
===============================================================================
|
||||
General style
|
||||
===============================================================================
|
||||
|
||||
In general, follow the style described by the ‘Style manual: for authors,
|
||||
editors and printers’, 6th edition (AGPS style).
|
||||
|
||||
===============================================================================
|
||||
Numbers
|
||||
===============================================================================
|
||||
|
||||
Despite AGPS style, represent all numbers as figures, including numbers below
|
||||
10 and at the beginning of sentences. The exception is ‘one’ when used in the
|
||||
general sense of ‘a’ or ‘any’.
|
||||
|
||||
===============================================================================
|
||||
Quotation marks and apostrophes
|
||||
===============================================================================
|
||||
|
||||
Per AGPS style, use single quotation marks initially, reserving double
|
||||
quotation marks for nested quotes.
|
||||
|
||||
Use Unicode ‘curly’ quotation marks only for quotation marks. Use the straight
|
||||
apostrophe character (') for apostrophes.
|
||||
|
||||
===============================================================================
|
||||
Gender-neutral language
|
||||
===============================================================================
|
||||
|
||||
Prefer gender-neutral terms, such as ‘Chair’ or ‘Chairperson’, to gendered
|
||||
terms such as ‘Chairman’ or ‘Chairwoman’.
|
||||
|
||||
When referring to a person of unknown or arbitrary gender, use ‘they’ in
|
||||
preference to ‘he or she’ or similar constructions.
|
||||
|
||||
===============================================================================
|
||||
Referencing
|
||||
===============================================================================
|
||||
|
||||
Use the footnote (Vancouver) style of referencing. Place footnotes after any
|
||||
punctuation, except a dash. If a reference applies to multiple consecutive
|
||||
sentences within a paragraph, place only a single footnote at the end of those
|
||||
sentences.
|
||||
|
||||
When defining a reference in a reference list, or the first time a source is
|
||||
cited in a particular chapter, follow the format in ‘Citing medicine: the NLM
|
||||
style guide for authors, editors and publishers’ (Vancouver style), with the
|
||||
following modifications – except when citing legal materials:
|
||||
|
||||
* When the author is an organisation and the author is also the publisher, omit
|
||||
the author.
|
||||
|
||||
* For internet resources: Omit the type of medium. Omit ‘Available from’ before
|
||||
the URL, and always follow the URL with a full stop. Omit location/pagination.
|
||||
|
||||
* Italicise the titles of works, and surround the titles of parts of works with
|
||||
quotation marks.
|
||||
|
||||
When citing legal materials (e.g. legislation or court cases), instead follow
|
||||
the ‘Australian guide to legal citation’, 4th edition (AGLC4 style).
|
||||
|
||||
In a footnote, when referring to a previously defined source, use the AGPS
|
||||
author–date style of referencing, as in ‘Smith 2020, pp. 1–4’. Separate
|
||||
multiple sources using a semicolon. Conclude the footnote with a full stop.
|
||||
|
||||
Use the abbreviations ‘p.’/‘pp.’ (page/s), ‘¶’/‘¶¶’ (paragraph/s) and ‘§’/‘§§’
|
||||
(section/s).
|
||||
|
||||
When referring to a range of pages, show all digits on both endpoints of the
|
||||
range.
|
||||
|
||||
For matters as to the formatting of discursive text, follow AGLC4 style.
|
||||
@ -1020,90 +1020,90 @@ Recall from :mref:`‘Chair’ <chair>` that a Chair is a requirement for a vali
|
||||
|
||||
.. rubric:: Footnotes
|
||||
|
||||
.. [#fn1] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.2
|
||||
.. [#fn12] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.2, citing ‘Some authorities’; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, pp. 39–40
|
||||
.. [#fn8] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.3
|
||||
.. [#fn3] Price DJ. *Procedural motion or formal motion? Which term to use*. 2009 May 3 [cited 2021 Jan 30]. https://davidprice.com/meeting-mastery-posts/procedural-motion-or-formal-motion-which-term-to-use/
|
||||
.. [#fn42] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 61
|
||||
.. [#fn2] :ref:`Evans 2016 <odgers>`, p. 234
|
||||
.. [#fn14] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.7; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.9
|
||||
.. [#fn13] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.7; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 61
|
||||
.. [#fn1] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.2.
|
||||
.. [#fn12] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.2, citing ‘Some authorities’; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, pp. 39–40.
|
||||
.. [#fn8] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.3.
|
||||
.. [#fn3] Price DJ. *Procedural motion or formal motion? Which term to use*. 2009 May 3 [cited 2021 Jan 30]. https://davidprice.com/meeting-mastery-posts/procedural-motion-or-formal-motion-which-term-to-use/.
|
||||
.. [#fn42] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 61.
|
||||
.. [#fn2] :ref:`Evans 2016 <odgers>`, p. 234.
|
||||
.. [#fn14] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.7; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.9.
|
||||
.. [#fn13] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.7; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 61.
|
||||
.. [#fn43] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.7; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 61. :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶¶6.17–25 disagrees, providing that the reference motion and meeting adjournment (but not debate adjournment) give a right of reply.
|
||||
.. [#fn15] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.17; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.8; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 58
|
||||
.. [#fn44] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.17; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.8
|
||||
.. [#fn54] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶9.50
|
||||
.. [#fn4] :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, §16
|
||||
.. [#fn28] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.17
|
||||
.. [#fn29] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.25
|
||||
.. [#fn30] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.7
|
||||
.. [#fn47] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.25
|
||||
.. [#fn48] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.25; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 61; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.9
|
||||
.. [#fn49] None of the authorities consulted provided wording for the kangaroo closure. This wording is based loosely on Standing Order 32 of the UK Parliament. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201919/cmstords/341/body.html#_idTextAnchor169
|
||||
.. [#fn50] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.10; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 61
|
||||
.. [#fn51] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶9.15
|
||||
.. [#fn52] :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, §26
|
||||
.. [#fn19] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.19
|
||||
.. [#fn20] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.12
|
||||
.. [#fn45] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 59
|
||||
.. [#fn17] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.11
|
||||
.. [#fn18] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.18
|
||||
.. [#fn53] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶9.45
|
||||
.. [#fn60] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶9.70
|
||||
.. [#fn61] :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, §37
|
||||
.. [#fn15] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.17; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.8; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 58.
|
||||
.. [#fn44] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.17; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.8.
|
||||
.. [#fn54] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶9.50.
|
||||
.. [#fn4] :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, §16.
|
||||
.. [#fn28] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.17.
|
||||
.. [#fn29] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.25.
|
||||
.. [#fn30] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.7.
|
||||
.. [#fn47] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.25.
|
||||
.. [#fn48] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.25; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 61; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.9.
|
||||
.. [#fn49] None of the authorities consulted provided wording for the kangaroo closure. This wording is based loosely on Standing Order 32 of the UK Parliament. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201919/cmstords/341/body.html#_idTextAnchor169.
|
||||
.. [#fn50] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.10; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 61.
|
||||
.. [#fn51] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶9.15.
|
||||
.. [#fn52] :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, §26.
|
||||
.. [#fn19] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.19.
|
||||
.. [#fn20] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.12.
|
||||
.. [#fn45] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 59.
|
||||
.. [#fn17] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.11.
|
||||
.. [#fn18] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.18.
|
||||
.. [#fn53] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶9.45.
|
||||
.. [#fn60] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶9.70.
|
||||
.. [#fn61] :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, §37.
|
||||
.. [#fn62] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶11.21, referring to this as ‘recommittal’ and applying it only at the discretion of the chair when some members voted erroneously in confusion or misunderstanding.
|
||||
.. [#fn57] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶11.18. ‘A rescission motion that is accepted should be dealt with according to the normal procedure for motions’.
|
||||
.. [#fn55] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶11.15
|
||||
.. [#fn56] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.39
|
||||
.. [#fn58] :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶35:2
|
||||
.. [#fn59] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶9.65
|
||||
.. [#fn21] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.24
|
||||
.. [#fn22] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.13
|
||||
.. [#fn23] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.22
|
||||
.. [#fn24] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶13.17
|
||||
.. [#fn46] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 60
|
||||
.. [#fn91] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.21
|
||||
.. [#fn92] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.19
|
||||
.. [#fn93] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.20
|
||||
.. [#fn25] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.23
|
||||
.. [#fn26] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶13.18
|
||||
.. [#fn64] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶13.5; *Myer Queenstown Garden Plaza Pty Ltd v Port Adelaide City Corp* (1975) 11 SASR 504
|
||||
.. [#fn65] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶13.5; *Stoughton v Reynolds* (1736) Fortes Rep 168
|
||||
.. [#fn66] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶13.5; *Salisbury Gold Mining Co v Hathorn* [1897] AC 268
|
||||
.. [#fn67] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶13.6
|
||||
.. [#fn68] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶13.14; *Scadding v Lorant* (1851) 3 HLC 418; *Jackson v Hamlyn* [1953] Ch 577; Wills v Murray (1850) 4 Exch 843; *R v Grimshaw* (1847) 10 QB 747
|
||||
.. [#fn69] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.36
|
||||
.. [#fn70] The procedure described in this section is based on the clause-by-clause *consideration in detail* procedure of the House of Representatives. :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, pp. 377–379
|
||||
.. [#fn71] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.95
|
||||
.. [#fn72] :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶52:7
|
||||
.. [#fn73] :ref:`Evans 2016 <odgers>`, p. 424
|
||||
.. [#fn74] :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, p. 373
|
||||
.. [#fn55] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶11.15.
|
||||
.. [#fn56] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.39.
|
||||
.. [#fn58] :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶35:2.
|
||||
.. [#fn59] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶9.65.
|
||||
.. [#fn21] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.24.
|
||||
.. [#fn22] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.13.
|
||||
.. [#fn23] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.22.
|
||||
.. [#fn24] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶13.17.
|
||||
.. [#fn46] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 60.
|
||||
.. [#fn91] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.21.
|
||||
.. [#fn92] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.19.
|
||||
.. [#fn93] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.20.
|
||||
.. [#fn25] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.23.
|
||||
.. [#fn26] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶13.18.
|
||||
.. [#fn64] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶13.5; *Myer Queenstown Garden Plaza Pty Ltd v Port Adelaide City Corp* (1975) 11 SASR 504.
|
||||
.. [#fn65] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶13.5; *Stoughton v Reynolds* (1736) Fortes Rep 168.
|
||||
.. [#fn66] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶13.5; *Salisbury Gold Mining Co v Hathorn* [1897] AC 268.
|
||||
.. [#fn67] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶13.6.
|
||||
.. [#fn68] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶13.14; *Scadding v Lorant* (1851) 3 HLC 418; *Jackson v Hamlyn* [1953] Ch 577; Wills v Murray (1850) 4 Exch 843; *R v Grimshaw* (1847) 10 QB 747.
|
||||
.. [#fn69] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.36.
|
||||
.. [#fn70] The procedure described in this section is based on the clause-by-clause *consideration in detail* procedure of the House of Representatives: :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, pp. 377–379.
|
||||
.. [#fn71] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.95.
|
||||
.. [#fn72] :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶52:7.
|
||||
.. [#fn73] :ref:`Evans 2016 <odgers>`, p. 424.
|
||||
.. [#fn74] :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, p. 373.
|
||||
.. [#fn76] :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶¶52:19–27, which describes 2 variants, ‘quasi-committee of the whole’ (‘consideration as if in committee of the whole’) or ‘informal consideration’. The form of motion proposed in this book is intended to invoke the effect of ‘informal consideration’.
|
||||
.. [#fn77] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶7.25; *NRMA v Parker* (1986) 11 ACLR 1; *Stanham v National Trust of Australia* (1989) 7 ACLC 628
|
||||
.. [#fn95] cf. :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, pp. 500–502
|
||||
.. [#fn94] :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, pp. 498–500
|
||||
.. [#fn78] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶12.55
|
||||
.. [#fn80] :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, pp. 586–587
|
||||
.. [#fn77] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶7.25; *NRMA v Parker* (1986) 11 ACLR 1; *Stanham v National Trust of Australia* (1989) 7 ACLC 628.
|
||||
.. [#fn95] cf. :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, pp. 500–502.
|
||||
.. [#fn94] :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, pp. 498–500.
|
||||
.. [#fn78] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶12.55.
|
||||
.. [#fn80] :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, pp. 586–587.
|
||||
.. [#fn79] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶6.80. See also :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, p. 586–587, which discusses the historical background.
|
||||
.. [#fn32] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.26
|
||||
.. [#fn31] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.18
|
||||
.. [#fn36] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.6
|
||||
.. [#fn37] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶7.11
|
||||
.. [#fn33] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.5
|
||||
.. [#fn32] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.26.
|
||||
.. [#fn31] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.18.
|
||||
.. [#fn36] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.6.
|
||||
.. [#fn37] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶7.11.
|
||||
.. [#fn33] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.5.
|
||||
.. [#fn39] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.6. Contrast :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶7.11, which regards this as ‘undesirable’.
|
||||
.. [#fn38] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶7.11, suggests dissent is always permitted, but cites ‘Some authorities’ taking the contrary view. :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶6.70, suggests dissent (which it calls an ‘appeal’) is never permitted (except on ruling a motion out of order) unless the rules specifically allow.
|
||||
.. [#fn34] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.5; citing *Wandsworth & Putney Gaslight & Coke Co v Wright* (1870) 22 LT 404; *Wishart v Henneberry* (1962) 3 FLR 171
|
||||
.. [#fn5] The phrasing ‘do not’ (as opposed to ‘does not’) preserves the subjunctive mood traditionally used in motions. :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶12.71. However, ‘does not’ is common wording, even traditionally, in a motion of want of confidence.
|
||||
.. [#fn35] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶12.76
|
||||
.. [#fn40] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶6.85
|
||||
.. [#fn41] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.6
|
||||
.. [#fn10] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 56
|
||||
.. [#fn11] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 18
|
||||
.. [#fn81] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶10.12
|
||||
.. [#fn82] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 37
|
||||
.. [#fn83] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶10.11
|
||||
.. [#fn84] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶12.106; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶13.2
|
||||
.. [#fn6] Definition of adjourn. *Lexico*. London: Oxford University Press; 2020 [cited 2021 Jan 31]. https://www.lexico.com/definition/adjourn
|
||||
.. [#fn34] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.5; citing *Wandsworth & Putney Gaslight & Coke Co v Wright* (1870) 22 LT 404; *Wishart v Henneberry* (1962) 3 FLR 171.
|
||||
.. [#fn5] The phrasing ‘do not’ (as opposed to ‘does not’) preserves the subjunctive mood traditionally used in motions: :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶12.71. However, ‘does not’ is common wording, even traditionally, in a motion of want of confidence.
|
||||
.. [#fn35] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶12.76.
|
||||
.. [#fn40] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶6.85.
|
||||
.. [#fn41] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.6.
|
||||
.. [#fn10] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 56.
|
||||
.. [#fn11] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 18.
|
||||
.. [#fn81] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶10.12.
|
||||
.. [#fn82] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 37.
|
||||
.. [#fn83] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶10.11.
|
||||
.. [#fn84] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶12.106; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶13.2.
|
||||
.. [#fn6] Definition of adjourn. *Lexico*. London: Oxford University Press; 2020 [cited 2021 Jan 31]. https://www.lexico.com/definition/adjourn.
|
||||
.. [#fn7] One imagines this is inspired by the Australian House of Representatives' practice of finishing each sitting day by moving ‘That the House do now adjourn’. However, the House has adopted standing orders prescribing when each sitting day commences, so, in context, this is more akin to a true :ref:`adjournment <adjourn-meeting>` than an adjournment *sine die*.
|
||||
.. [#fn75] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.96
|
||||
.. [#fn27] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶13.19
|
||||
.. [#fn63] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶12.55; :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶6.85
|
||||
.. [#fn75] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.96.
|
||||
.. [#fn27] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶13.19.
|
||||
.. [#fn63] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶12.55; :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶6.85.
|
||||
|
||||
2
conf.py
2
conf.py
@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ copyright = '2021 Lee Yingtong Li'
|
||||
author = 'Lee Yingtong Li'
|
||||
|
||||
# The full version, including alpha/beta/rc tags
|
||||
release = '0.3'
|
||||
release = '0.3.1-dev'
|
||||
version = release
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
|
||||
</head><body>
|
||||
<p>Edition 0.1 first published 2018<br/>
|
||||
Edition 0.2 first published 2021<br/>
|
||||
Edition 0.3 first published 2021</p>
|
||||
Edition 0.3.1-dev first published 2021</p>
|
||||
<p><a href="https://yingtongli.me/pointsoforder">https://yingtongli.me/pointsoforder</a></p>
|
||||
<p>Copyright © 2021 Lee Yingtong Li. You may use this book, at your option, under either of the following licences:
|
||||
<ul><li>the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence</a></li>
|
||||
|
||||
@ -192,41 +192,41 @@ To this end, the Chair should avoid participating in debate (except in occasiona
|
||||
|
||||
.. [#fn1] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶1.22. ‘A valid meeting needs to comply with all relevant requirements’, ‘proper notice needs to be given of the meeting, a quorum must be present, and a Chair … should preside’.
|
||||
.. [#fn2] See e.g. :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ch. 1.
|
||||
.. [#fn3] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶2.05
|
||||
.. [#fn4] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.3
|
||||
.. [#fn6] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶2.05; *Ball v Pearsall* (1987) 10 NSWLR 700
|
||||
.. [#fn5] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.2; *R v Fulton* (1876) 2 VLR (Eq) 100
|
||||
.. [#fn11] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.3; *Hooper v Kerr, Stuart & Co Ltd* (1900) 83 LT 729
|
||||
.. [#fn9] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.4; *Symes v Weedow* (1893) 14 ALT 197; *Campbell v Higgins* (1957) 3 FLR 317
|
||||
.. [#fn12] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.9; *Wishart v Foster* (1961) 4 FLR 72
|
||||
.. [#fn7] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.1
|
||||
.. [#fn8] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.3; *R v Fulton* (1876) 2 VLR (Eq) 100
|
||||
.. [#fn16] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.16; *Colhoun v Green* [1919] VLR 196
|
||||
.. [#fn17] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.17; :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶3.10
|
||||
.. [#fn18] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.18; :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶3.10
|
||||
.. [#fn14] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.11; :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶3.25
|
||||
.. [#fn39] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.15; *Browne v La Trinidad* (1887) 37 Ch D 1; *Wilson v Manna Hill Mining Co Pty Ltd* [2004] FCA 912
|
||||
.. [#fn15] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.12; :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶3.30; *Re Railway Sleepers Supply Co* (1885) 29 Ch D 204; *Ex parte McCance; Re Hobbs* (1926) 27 SR (NSW) 35; *Ayres v Chacos* (1972) 19 FLR 468; *Labouchere v Wharncliffe* (1879) 13 Ch D 346
|
||||
.. [#fn13] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.10; :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶3.25
|
||||
.. [#fn19] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.19; *Bell Resources Ltd v Turnbridge Pty Ltd* (1988) 13 ACLR 429; *McPherson v Mansell* (1994) 16 ACSR 261; *McKerlie v Drillsearch Energy Ltd* (2009) 74 NSWLR 673
|
||||
.. [#fn3] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶2.05.
|
||||
.. [#fn4] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.3.
|
||||
.. [#fn6] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶2.05; *Ball v Pearsall* (1987) 10 NSWLR 700.
|
||||
.. [#fn5] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.2; *R v Fulton* (1876) 2 VLR (Eq) 100.
|
||||
.. [#fn11] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.3; *Hooper v Kerr, Stuart & Co Ltd* (1900) 83 LT 729.
|
||||
.. [#fn9] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.4; *Symes v Weedow* (1893) 14 ALT 197; *Campbell v Higgins* (1957) 3 FLR 317.
|
||||
.. [#fn12] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.9; *Wishart v Foster* (1961) 4 FLR 72.
|
||||
.. [#fn7] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.1.
|
||||
.. [#fn8] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.3; *R v Fulton* (1876) 2 VLR (Eq) 100.
|
||||
.. [#fn16] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.16; *Colhoun v Green* [1919] VLR 196.
|
||||
.. [#fn17] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.17; :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶3.10.
|
||||
.. [#fn18] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.18; :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶3.10.
|
||||
.. [#fn14] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.11; :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶3.25.
|
||||
.. [#fn39] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.15; *Browne v La Trinidad* (1887) 37 Ch D 1; *Wilson v Manna Hill Mining Co Pty Ltd* [2004] FCA 912.
|
||||
.. [#fn15] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.12; :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶3.30; *Re Railway Sleepers Supply Co* (1885) 29 Ch D 204; *Ex parte McCance; Re Hobbs* (1926) 27 SR (NSW) 35; *Ayres v Chacos* (1972) 19 FLR 468; *Labouchere v Wharncliffe* (1879) 13 Ch D 346.
|
||||
.. [#fn13] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.10; :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶3.25.
|
||||
.. [#fn19] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.19; *Bell Resources Ltd v Turnbridge Pty Ltd* (1988) 13 ACLR 429; *McPherson v Mansell* (1994) 16 ACSR 261; *McKerlie v Drillsearch Energy Ltd* (2009) 74 NSWLR 673.
|
||||
.. [#fn10] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.7; *Machell v Nevinson* (1724) 11 East 84n; *Johnson v Beitseen* (1989) 41 IR 395.
|
||||
.. [#fn21] Eagle-eyed readers may note that ‘agenda’ is plural in Latin. In English, it is effectively universally used as a singular noun. Each individual item contained in the agenda is typically referred to as an *agenda item* rather than, as the Latin would suggest, an ‘agendum’.
|
||||
.. [#fn20] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶3.2
|
||||
.. [#fn22] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.4; *Merchants of the Staple of England v Bank of England* (1887) 21 QBD 160, 165
|
||||
.. [#fn23] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.4; *Ball v Pearsall* (1987) 10 NSWLR 700
|
||||
.. [#fn24] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.4; *Re Liverpool Household Stores* (1890) 59 LJ Ch 616
|
||||
.. [#fn25] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.8
|
||||
.. [#fn26] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.10
|
||||
.. [#fn27] |CompAct|_, Sch. 3, reg. 42
|
||||
.. [#fn28] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.11; *Henderson v Louttit* (1894) 21 R (Ct of Sess) 674; Ball v Pearsall (1987) 10 NSWLR 700
|
||||
.. [#fn29] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.11, ¶5.13
|
||||
.. [#fn31] This differs to the practice in North America under *Robert's Rules*, where an inquorate meeting can continue to transact certain procedural business – namely, to fix the time to which to adjourn, adjourn, recess or take measures to obtain a quorum, as well as relevant subsidiary or incidental motions, questions of privilege, or motions to call for the orders of the day. :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶40:7
|
||||
.. [#fn30] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.11
|
||||
.. [#fn32] This differs to the practice in the Australian Parliament, and in North American meetings under *Robert's Rules*, where a quorum is presumed to be present, and business transacted without a quorum is not invalid until the lack of quorum is noticed by, or brought to the attention of, the Chair. :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.13; :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶40:12; :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, p. 272
|
||||
.. [#fn34] Even in small, informal meetings where procedural control moves fluidly from person to person, there must at all times, unless all are unanimous, be some person responsible for ‘enabl[ing] the wish or decision of the meeting to be ascertained’. :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.1; *Colorado Constructions Pty Ltd v Platus* [1966] 2 NSWR 598
|
||||
.. [#fn20] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶3.2.
|
||||
.. [#fn22] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.4; *Merchants of the Staple of England v Bank of England* (1887) 21 QBD 160, 165.
|
||||
.. [#fn23] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.4; *Ball v Pearsall* (1987) 10 NSWLR 700.
|
||||
.. [#fn24] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.4; *Re Liverpool Household Stores* (1890) 59 LJ Ch 616.
|
||||
.. [#fn25] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.8.
|
||||
.. [#fn26] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.10.
|
||||
.. [#fn27] |CompAct|_, Sch. 3, reg. 42.
|
||||
.. [#fn28] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.11; *Henderson v Louttit* (1894) 21 R (Ct of Sess) 674; Ball v Pearsall (1987) 10 NSWLR 700.
|
||||
.. [#fn29] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.11, ¶5.13.
|
||||
.. [#fn31] This differs to the practice in North America under *Robert's Rules*, where an inquorate meeting can continue to transact certain procedural business – namely, to fix the time to which to adjourn, adjourn, recess or take measures to obtain a quorum, as well as relevant subsidiary or incidental motions, questions of privilege, or motions to call for the orders of the day: :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶40:7.
|
||||
.. [#fn30] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.11.
|
||||
.. [#fn32] This differs to the practice in the Australian Parliament, and in North American meetings under *Robert's Rules*, where a quorum is presumed to be present, and business transacted without a quorum is not invalid until the lack of quorum is noticed by, or brought to the attention of, the Chair: :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.13; :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶40:12; :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, p. 272.
|
||||
.. [#fn34] Even in small, informal meetings where procedural control moves fluidly from person to person, there must at all times, unless all are unanimous, be some person responsible for ‘enabl[ing] the wish or decision of the meeting to be ascertained’: :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.1; *Colorado Constructions Pty Ltd v Platus* [1966] 2 NSWR 598.
|
||||
.. [#fn33] The distinction is necessary, for example, in the motion :subref:`LeaveChair <vacate-chair>`.
|
||||
.. [#fn35] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶6.10
|
||||
.. [#fn38] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.10
|
||||
.. [#fn35] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶6.10.
|
||||
.. [#fn38] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.10.
|
||||
|
||||
.. |CompAct| replace:: *Companies Act 1981* (Cth)
|
||||
.. _CompAct: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004A02466
|
||||
|
||||
10
meetings.rst
10
meetings.rst
@ -146,14 +146,14 @@ The following authorities, on parliamentary meeting procedure specifically, are
|
||||
|
||||
.. rubric:: Footnotes
|
||||
|
||||
.. [#fn1] *Macquarie dictionary*. Sydney: Macmillan; c2021 [cited 2021 Jan 30]. https://macquariedictionary.com.au
|
||||
.. [#fn2] :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶1:1
|
||||
.. [#fn1] *Macquarie dictionary*. Sydney: Macmillan; c2021 [cited 2021 Jan 30]. https://macquariedictionary.com.au.
|
||||
.. [#fn2] :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶1:1.
|
||||
|
||||
.. _sievers:
|
||||
.. [#fn3] Sievers AS. *Associations and clubs law in Australia and New Zealand*. 3rd ed. Sydney: Federation; 2010. pp. 37–38; *Ward v Eltherington* [1982] Qd R 561
|
||||
.. [#fn8] :ref:`Sievers 2010 <sievers>`, pp. 6, 44; Stewart N, Campbell N, Baughen S. *The law of unincorporated associations*. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011. ¶¶1.09, 9.05
|
||||
.. [#fn3] Sievers AS. *Associations and clubs law in Australia and New Zealand*. 3rd ed. Sydney: Federation; 2010. pp. 37–38; *Ward v Eltherington* [1982] Qd R 561.
|
||||
.. [#fn8] :ref:`Sievers 2010 <sievers>`, pp. 6, 44; Stewart N, Campbell N, Baughen S. *The law of unincorporated associations*. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011. ¶¶1.09, 9.05.
|
||||
.. [#fn9] Confusingly and unfortunately, the term *body corporate* is also used in housing to refer specifically to owners corporations.
|
||||
.. [#fn10] :ref:`Sievers 2010 <sievers>`, p. 93
|
||||
.. [#fn10] :ref:`Sievers 2010 <sievers>`, p. 93.
|
||||
.. [#fn5] Meeting procedure in the USA, which gained independence from the UK much earlier than other colonies, branched off. Its legislative branch became Congress, and the procedures of ordinary meetings, modelled on the UK Parliament, became known as *‘parliamentary’ procedure*: :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ‘Introduction’.
|
||||
.. [#fn6] See e.g. the former |CompAct|_.
|
||||
.. [#fn7] See e.g. the |VicAssoc|_.
|
||||
|
||||
@ -190,43 +190,43 @@ All business of the meeting having concluded, the Chair should formally declare
|
||||
|
||||
.. rubric:: Footnotes
|
||||
|
||||
.. [#fn35] See e.g. *indigenous.gov.au*. Canberra: Australian Government; [cited 2021 Feb 11]. ‘Welcome to Country or Acknowledgement of Country’. https://www.indigenous.gov.au/contact-us/welcome_acknowledgement-country
|
||||
.. [#fn1] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.10
|
||||
.. [#fn35] See e.g. *indigenous.gov.au*. Canberra: Australian Government; [cited 2021 Feb 11]. ‘Welcome to Country or Acknowledgement of Country’. https://www.indigenous.gov.au/contact-us/welcome_acknowledgement-country.
|
||||
.. [#fn1] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.10.
|
||||
.. [#fn2] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.11. Renton goes on to suggest that if no challenge is raised at this point, the right is waived. :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.8, disagrees, citing *Henderson v Bank of Australasia* (1890) 45 Ch D 330; as does :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶3.35, citing *Werner v Boehm* (1890) 16 VLR 73.
|
||||
.. [#fn36] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.12
|
||||
.. [#fn4] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.13
|
||||
.. [#fn5] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶18.3
|
||||
.. [#fn36] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.12.
|
||||
.. [#fn4] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.13.
|
||||
.. [#fn5] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶18.3.
|
||||
.. [#fn6] Some bodies prefer to jazz up the wording; for example, ‘*That the minutes be confirmed as a true and accurate record*’.
|
||||
.. [#fn7] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.14; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶18.14; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 26
|
||||
.. [#fn14] In North America, *Robert's Rules* requires all substantive motions to be recorded, whether carried or lost. :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶48:4
|
||||
.. [#fn8] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶18.7; *John J Starr (Real Estate) Pty Ltd v Robert R Andrew (Australasia) Pty Ltd* (1991) 6 ACSR 63, 89–90
|
||||
.. [#fn7] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.14; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶18.14; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 26.
|
||||
.. [#fn14] In North America, *Robert's Rules* requires all substantive motions to be recorded, whether carried or lost: :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶48:4.
|
||||
.. [#fn8] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶18.7; *John J Starr (Real Estate) Pty Ltd v Robert R Andrew (Australasia) Pty Ltd* (1991) 6 ACSR 63, 89–90.
|
||||
.. [#fn9] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶18.7. Some authorities suggest that this right is only available to those who abstain.
|
||||
.. [#fn10] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶18.7
|
||||
.. [#fn37] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶18.6
|
||||
.. [#fn10] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶18.7.
|
||||
.. [#fn37] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶18.6.
|
||||
.. [#fn38] There is possibly some confusion caused by comparison with the *Hansard* produced by UK and Commonwealth Parliaments (cf. the United States *Congressional Record*), which does serve as an approximately verbatim transcript of debates. Minutes are generally more comparable to the Parliamentary *Votes and Proceedings* or *Journals of the Senate* (cf. the United States *House Journal* and *Senate Journal*).
|
||||
.. [#fn33] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.19
|
||||
.. [#fn12] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.20; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶18.14
|
||||
.. [#fn13] In North America, *Robert's Rules* takes the opposite view, where a motion is neither necessary nor desirable, and the minutes are automatically confirmed once no more corrections are forthcoming. This is on the basis that the only allowable way to object to the minutes is to offer a correction. :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶41:11
|
||||
.. [#fn11] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.14; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶18.12
|
||||
.. [#fn15] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.21; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶18.15; *Re Cawley & Co* (1889) 42 Ch D 209; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, pp. 27–28
|
||||
.. [#fn16] This differs to the practice in North America under *Robert's Rules*, where confirmed minutes may be later amended in the same way as any ordinary resolution. :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶48:15
|
||||
.. [#fn17] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.21; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶18.15
|
||||
.. [#fn32] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.24
|
||||
.. [#fn34] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.22
|
||||
.. [#fn18] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.25; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 33
|
||||
.. [#fn19] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 33
|
||||
.. [#fn22] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶¶2.28, 2.30, 2.35
|
||||
.. [#fn23] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 35
|
||||
.. [#fn20] :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶51:15
|
||||
.. [#fn21] In the Australian Senate, a motion to ‘take note’ of a document is the vehicle for allowing debate without effecting a substantive decision. :ref:`Evans 2016 <odgers>`, p. 579
|
||||
.. [#fn24] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.41
|
||||
.. [#fn25] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.32
|
||||
.. [#fn26] |CorpAct|_, s. 249L(1)(c)
|
||||
.. [#fn27] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶¶10.20–21; *Re Willaire Systems plc* [1987] BCLC 67; *Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Veterans' Association of New South Wales Ltd v Gadd* (1998) 146 FLR 161; *NRMA Ltd v Scandrett* (2002) 171 FLR 232
|
||||
.. [#fn31] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶¶2.43–44; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.18
|
||||
.. [#fn30] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.45
|
||||
.. [#fn28] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.46
|
||||
.. [#fn29] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.47
|
||||
.. [#fn33] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.19.
|
||||
.. [#fn12] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.20; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶18.14.
|
||||
.. [#fn13] In North America, *Robert's Rules* takes the opposite view, where a motion is neither necessary nor desirable, and the minutes are automatically confirmed once no more corrections are forthcoming. This is on the basis that the only allowable way to object to the minutes is to offer a correction: :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶41:11.
|
||||
.. [#fn11] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.14; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶18.12.
|
||||
.. [#fn15] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.21; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶18.15; *Re Cawley & Co* (1889) 42 Ch D 209; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, pp. 27–28.
|
||||
.. [#fn16] This differs to the practice in North America under *Robert's Rules*, where confirmed minutes may be later amended in the same way as any ordinary resolution: :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶48:15.
|
||||
.. [#fn17] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.21; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶18.15.
|
||||
.. [#fn32] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.24.
|
||||
.. [#fn34] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.22.
|
||||
.. [#fn18] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.25; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 33.
|
||||
.. [#fn19] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 33.
|
||||
.. [#fn22] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶¶2.28, 2.30, 2.35.
|
||||
.. [#fn23] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 35.
|
||||
.. [#fn20] :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶51:15.
|
||||
.. [#fn21] In the Australian Senate, a motion to ‘take note’ of a document is the vehicle for allowing debate without effecting a substantive decision: :ref:`Evans 2016 <odgers>`, p. 579.
|
||||
.. [#fn24] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.41.
|
||||
.. [#fn25] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.32.
|
||||
.. [#fn26] |CorpAct|_, s. 249L(1)(c).
|
||||
.. [#fn27] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶¶10.20–21; *Re Willaire Systems plc* [1987] BCLC 67; *Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Veterans' Association of New South Wales Ltd v Gadd* (1998) 146 FLR 161; *NRMA Ltd v Scandrett* (2002) 171 FLR 232.
|
||||
.. [#fn31] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶¶2.43–44; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.18.
|
||||
.. [#fn30] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.45.
|
||||
.. [#fn28] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.46.
|
||||
.. [#fn29] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.47.
|
||||
|
||||
.. |CorpAct| replace:: *Corporations Act 2001* (Cth)
|
||||
.. _CorpAct: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2021C00025/Html/Volume_1#_Toc62021976
|
||||
|
||||
@ -69,7 +69,7 @@
|
||||
\begingroup\footnotesize
|
||||
Edition 0.1 first published 2018 \\
|
||||
Edition 0.2 first published 2021 \\
|
||||
Edition 0.3 first published 2021
|
||||
Edition 0.3.1-dev first published 2021
|
||||
|
||||
\vspace{1cm}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -490,77 +490,77 @@ Some authorities also recognise other types of ‘points’ which may be raised.
|
||||
|
||||
.. rubric:: Footnotes
|
||||
|
||||
.. [#fn6] Some authorities reserve the term *substantive motion* only for motions after they have been amended. :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.3; :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 38; :ref:`Lang 2015 <renton>`, ¶10.24; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 38
|
||||
.. [#fn1] In North America, *Robert's Rules* calls these *original main motions*. :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶6:2
|
||||
.. [#fn36] :ref:`Natzler et al. 2019 <may>`, ¶20.2
|
||||
.. [#fn6] Some authorities reserve the term *substantive motion* only for motions after they have been amended: :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.3; :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 38; :ref:`Lang 2015 <renton>`, ¶10.24; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 38.
|
||||
.. [#fn1] In North America, *Robert's Rules* calls these *original main motions*: :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶6:2.
|
||||
.. [#fn36] :ref:`Natzler et al. 2019 <may>`, ¶20.2.
|
||||
.. [#fn7] Even more traditionally, motions begin with the longer phrase ‘Be it resolved that’.
|
||||
.. [#fn5] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.5
|
||||
.. [#fn18] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 17
|
||||
.. [#fn15] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.28
|
||||
.. [#fn8] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.8
|
||||
.. [#fn5] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.5.
|
||||
.. [#fn18] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 17.
|
||||
.. [#fn15] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.28.
|
||||
.. [#fn8] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.8.
|
||||
.. [#fn9] When using the longer ‘Be it resolved that’ form, the motion also may be preceded by a more formal preamble beginning with ‘Whereas’. For example, ‘Whereas the rules require a Secretary to be appointed and Charlie is the only nominee, be it resolved that Charlie be appointed Secretary’.
|
||||
.. [#fn14] Though still proscribed by many as informal, beginning motions with words other than ‘That’ has been around since at least 1982. :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 16
|
||||
.. [#fn14] Though still proscribed by many as informal, beginning motions with words other than ‘That’ has been around since at least 1982: :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 16.
|
||||
.. [#fn35] This form is common in meetings outside the English-speaking world; for example, in the United Nations, or the Chinese National People's Congress.
|
||||
.. [#fn10] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.6
|
||||
.. [#fn65] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.1
|
||||
.. [#fn10] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.6.
|
||||
.. [#fn65] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.1.
|
||||
.. [#fn2] ‘Move’, in this sentence, has the meaning ‘propose’, so if it helps in understanding the grammar, think instead ‘I propose that the expenditure be approved’. This also explains the use of the subjunctive mood: one would not typically say ‘I propose that the expenditure *is* approved’.
|
||||
.. [#fn48] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.17
|
||||
.. [#fn37] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.12; *Re Horbury Bridge Coal, Iron & Waggon Co* (1879) 11 Ch D 109, 117–18; *National Australia Bank Ltd v Market Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq)* (2001) 161 FLR 1
|
||||
.. [#fn39] Some rules even require a motion to be seconded before the *mover* can speak in favour of it. The author, as well as :ref:`Lang (2015, ¶10.12) <horsley>` and :ref:`Puregger (1998, p. 40) <puregger>`, believe this to be an undesirable practice – how can one know whether to second a motion before the mover has a chance to explain it?
|
||||
.. [#fn49] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.14; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.22
|
||||
.. [#fn38] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.12
|
||||
.. [#fn73] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 40; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.23
|
||||
.. [#fn50] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.10; *Re Horbury Bridge Coal, Iron and Waggon Co* (1879) 11 Ch D 109
|
||||
.. [#fn51] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.16; *National Australia Bank Ltd v Market Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq)* (2001) 161 FLR 1
|
||||
.. [#fn74] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.15; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 42; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶¶4.31, 4.33
|
||||
.. [#fn48] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.17.
|
||||
.. [#fn37] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.12; *Re Horbury Bridge Coal, Iron & Waggon Co* (1879) 11 Ch D 109, 117–18; *National Australia Bank Ltd v Market Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq)* (2001) 161 FLR 1.
|
||||
.. [#fn39] Some rules even require a motion to be seconded before the *mover* can speak in favour of it. The author, as well as :ref:`Lang 2015, ¶10.12 <horsley>`, and :ref:`Puregger 1998, p. 40 <puregger>`, believe this to be an undesirable practice – how can one know whether to second a motion before the mover has a chance to explain it?
|
||||
.. [#fn49] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.14; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.22.
|
||||
.. [#fn38] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.12.
|
||||
.. [#fn73] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 40; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.23.
|
||||
.. [#fn50] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.10; *Re Horbury Bridge Coal, Iron and Waggon Co* (1879) 11 Ch D 109.
|
||||
.. [#fn51] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.16; *National Australia Bank Ltd v Market Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq)* (2001) 161 FLR 1.
|
||||
.. [#fn74] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.15; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 42; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶¶4.31, 4.33.
|
||||
.. [#fn44] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.14; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 41
|
||||
.. [#fn40] This differs from the practice in North America under *Robert's Rules*, where each member may speak twice (provided that no member may speak a second time before all who wish to have spoken a first time) and there is no right of reply. :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶4:28
|
||||
.. [#fn63] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.46
|
||||
.. [#fn41] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶7.7
|
||||
.. [#fn46] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.35
|
||||
.. [#fn42] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶7.10
|
||||
.. [#fn47] :ref:`Renton 2005 <joske>`, ¶4.34
|
||||
.. [#fn43] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶7.10; *Toohey v Melville* (1892) 13 LR (NSW) 132
|
||||
.. [#fn45] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.26; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.25; :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`; pp. 28–29
|
||||
.. [#fn76] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 57
|
||||
.. [#fn77] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 57; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.25
|
||||
.. [#fn52] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.26
|
||||
.. [#fn70] Some authorities that suggest the right of reply may only be exercised before the first amendment is voted go on to explain that the right is forfeit if not then exercised as, if the amendment is agreed to, it is no longer the mover's original motion. :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 95
|
||||
.. [#fn75] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 53
|
||||
.. [#fn53] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.12; *R v Rector of Birmingham* (1837) 1 A&E 254
|
||||
.. [#fn55] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶8.2
|
||||
.. [#fn54] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 53
|
||||
.. [#fn26] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 62; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.14; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶8.16
|
||||
.. [#fn27] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.14; *Johnson v Beitseen* (1989) 41 IR 395, 414
|
||||
.. [#fn25] It is a common misconception that Chairs always have a casting vote. At common law, unless the rules provide otherwise, the Chair of a meeting does not have a casting vote. :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.14; :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶10.25; *Bishop of Chichester v Harward* (1787) 99 ER 1300
|
||||
.. [#fn29] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶8.16; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.14
|
||||
.. [#fn31] :ref:`Natzler et al. 2019 <may>`, ¶20.90
|
||||
.. [#fn30] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.14; *R v Bradford City Metropolitan Council; ex parte Corris* [1990] 2 QB 363, 371
|
||||
.. [#fn28] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶8.16
|
||||
.. [#fn23] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 62
|
||||
.. [#fn78] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, pp. 42, 67–68
|
||||
.. [#fn56] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.5; *Bland v Buchanan* [1901] 2 KB 75
|
||||
.. [#fn24] *Constitution of Australia*, s. 23
|
||||
.. [#fn19] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 33
|
||||
.. [#fn21] A distinction is sometimes made between *inserting* and *adding*, where words are *inserted* into the middle of a passage, but *added* to the end. :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶12:8
|
||||
.. [#fn22] In North America, *Robert's Rules* reserves the term *substitute* for units of at least a paragraph. :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶12:8. In Australia, the term is regularly used for substitutions of any size (including single words).
|
||||
.. [#fn40] This differs from the practice in North America under *Robert's Rules*, where each member may speak twice (provided that no member may speak a second time before all who wish to have spoken a first time) and there is no right of reply: :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶4:28.
|
||||
.. [#fn63] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.46.
|
||||
.. [#fn41] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶7.7.
|
||||
.. [#fn46] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.35.
|
||||
.. [#fn42] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶7.10.
|
||||
.. [#fn47] :ref:`Renton 2005 <joske>`, ¶4.34.
|
||||
.. [#fn43] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶7.10; *Toohey v Melville* (1892) 13 LR (NSW) 132.
|
||||
.. [#fn45] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.26; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.25; :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`; pp. 28–29.
|
||||
.. [#fn76] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 57.
|
||||
.. [#fn77] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 57; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.25.
|
||||
.. [#fn52] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.26.
|
||||
.. [#fn70] Some authorities that suggest the right of reply may only be exercised before the first amendment is voted go on to explain that the right is forfeit if not then exercised as, if the amendment is agreed to, it is no longer the mover's original motion: :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 95.
|
||||
.. [#fn75] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 53.
|
||||
.. [#fn53] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.12; *R v Rector of Birmingham* (1837) 1 A&E 254.
|
||||
.. [#fn55] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶8.2.
|
||||
.. [#fn54] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 53.
|
||||
.. [#fn26] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 62; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.14; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶8.16.
|
||||
.. [#fn27] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.14; *Johnson v Beitseen* (1989) 41 IR 395, 414.
|
||||
.. [#fn25] It is a common misconception that Chairs always have a casting vote. At common law, unless the rules provide otherwise, the Chair of a meeting does not have a casting vote: :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.14; :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶10.25; *Bishop of Chichester v Harward* (1787) 99 ER 1300.
|
||||
.. [#fn29] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶8.16; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.14.
|
||||
.. [#fn31] :ref:`Natzler et al. 2019 <may>`, ¶20.90.
|
||||
.. [#fn30] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.14; *R v Bradford City Metropolitan Council; ex parte Corris* [1990] 2 QB 363, 371.
|
||||
.. [#fn28] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶8.16.
|
||||
.. [#fn23] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 62.
|
||||
.. [#fn78] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, pp. 42, 67–68.
|
||||
.. [#fn56] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.5; *Bland v Buchanan* [1901] 2 KB 75.
|
||||
.. [#fn24] *Constitution of Australia*, s. 23.
|
||||
.. [#fn19] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 33.
|
||||
.. [#fn21] A distinction is sometimes made between *inserting* and *adding*, where words are *inserted* into the middle of a passage, but *added* to the end: :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶12:8.
|
||||
.. [#fn22] In North America, *Robert's Rules* reserves the term *substitute* for units of at least a paragraph: :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶12:8. In Australia, the term is regularly used for substitutions of any size (including single words).
|
||||
.. [#fn11] The rationale for leaving the word ‘That’ stems from the view that, if all the words of the motion were omitted, the motion would no longer exist, and it would not be possible to then substitute words into something which does not exist.
|
||||
.. [#fn12] Note that, in this expression, it is the *new words* which are substituted *for* the *old words*.
|
||||
.. [#fn13] *Amending forms manual*. 15th ed. Canberra: Office of Parliamentary Counsel; 2019. https://www.opc.gov.au/sites/default/files/s05pu518.v81.pdf
|
||||
.. [#fn61] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.18; *Walkley v District Council of Northern Yorke Peninsula* (1987) 27 APA 381
|
||||
.. [#fn79] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶5.23, citing ‘Some authorities’; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, pp. 45–46
|
||||
.. [#fn62] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶5.40; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 50–51
|
||||
.. [#fn57] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.22; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 51
|
||||
.. [#fn58] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.22; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 51; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶5.12
|
||||
.. [#fn59] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.22; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 51; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶5.12, citing ‘Some authorities’
|
||||
.. [#fn64] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶5.36
|
||||
.. [#fn60] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.22; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶5.15, citing ‘Some authorities’
|
||||
.. [#fn32] :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, p. 313
|
||||
.. [#fn33] This practice is said to have originated when the UK House of Commons had only one division lobby – the Noes would retire to the division lobby, while the Ayes would remain in the chamber. This would allow government MPs to vote against an opposition amendment without needing to leave the chamber, collecting the votes of anyone too lazy to move. In the Australian House of Representatives, it means that government MPs can vote against an opposition amendment without leaving their seats. It also means that, once the question is negatived, no further amendments may be moved to those words. :ref:`Wright et al. 2012 <horp6>`, p. 315
|
||||
.. [#fn34] :ref:`Natzler et al. 2019 <may>`, ¶20.35
|
||||
.. [#fn68] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.3; :ref:`Renton 2012 <renton>`, ¶7.4
|
||||
.. [#fn66] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.3
|
||||
.. [#fn67] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 91; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 54
|
||||
.. [#fn69] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.3; :ref:`Renton 2012 <renton>`, ¶7.5
|
||||
.. [#fn71] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 92; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 54–55
|
||||
.. [#fn72] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 92
|
||||
.. [#fn13] *Amending forms manual*. 15th ed. Canberra: Office of Parliamentary Counsel; 2019. https://www.opc.gov.au/sites/default/files/s05pu518.v81.pdf.
|
||||
.. [#fn61] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.18; *Walkley v District Council of Northern Yorke Peninsula* (1987) 27 APA 381.
|
||||
.. [#fn79] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶5.23, citing ‘Some authorities’; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, pp. 45–46.
|
||||
.. [#fn62] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶5.40; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 50–51.
|
||||
.. [#fn57] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.22; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 51.
|
||||
.. [#fn58] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.22; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 51; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶5.12.
|
||||
.. [#fn59] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.22; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 51; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶5.12, citing ‘Some authorities’.
|
||||
.. [#fn64] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶5.36.
|
||||
.. [#fn60] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.22; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶5.15, citing ‘Some authorities’.
|
||||
.. [#fn32] :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, p. 313.
|
||||
.. [#fn33] This practice is said to have originated when the UK House of Commons had only one division lobby – the Noes would retire to the division lobby, while the Ayes would remain in the chamber. This would allow government MPs to vote against an opposition amendment without needing to leave the chamber, collecting the votes of anyone too lazy to move. In the Australian House of Representatives, it means that government MPs can vote against an opposition amendment without leaving their seats. It also means that, once the question is negatived, no further amendments may be moved to those words: :ref:`Wright et al. 2012 <horp6>`, p. 315.
|
||||
.. [#fn34] :ref:`Natzler et al. 2019 <may>`, ¶20.35.
|
||||
.. [#fn68] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.3; :ref:`Renton 2012 <renton>`, ¶7.4.
|
||||
.. [#fn66] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.3.
|
||||
.. [#fn67] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 91; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 54.
|
||||
.. [#fn69] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.3; :ref:`Renton 2012 <renton>`, ¶7.5.
|
||||
.. [#fn71] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 92; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 54–55.
|
||||
.. [#fn72] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 92.
|
||||
|
||||
70
voting.rst
70
voting.rst
@ -281,44 +281,44 @@ Again, an in-depth discussion of these systems is beyond the scope of this book.
|
||||
|
||||
.. rubric:: Footnotes
|
||||
|
||||
.. [#fn2] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.13
|
||||
.. [#fn19] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶16.10
|
||||
.. [#fn18] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶16.8
|
||||
.. [#fn1] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.12
|
||||
.. [#fn3] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.4; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶8.2
|
||||
.. [#fn4] The correct terms on a voice vote are ‘Aye’ and ‘No’. In North America, during a roll call, the terms ‘Yea’ and ‘Nay’ are sometimes used. :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶45:47. The combination of ‘Aye’ with ‘Nay’ is not attested to anywhere internationally.
|
||||
.. [#fn5] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶8.8
|
||||
.. [#fn2] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.13.
|
||||
.. [#fn19] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶16.10.
|
||||
.. [#fn18] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶16.8.
|
||||
.. [#fn1] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.12.
|
||||
.. [#fn3] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.4; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶8.2.
|
||||
.. [#fn4] The correct terms on a voice vote are ‘Aye’ and ‘No’. In North America, during a roll call, the terms ‘Yea’ and ‘Nay’ are sometimes used: :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶45:47. The combination of ‘Aye’ with ‘Nay’ is not attested to anywhere internationally.
|
||||
.. [#fn5] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶8.8.
|
||||
.. [#fn6] :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶¶45:47–54. The roll call is not attested to in any Australian authority consulted, but has been experienced by the author and is presented here for completeness.
|
||||
.. [#fn7] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.6
|
||||
.. [#fn12] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶15.3; *Holmes v Keyes* [1958] Ch 570
|
||||
.. [#fn13] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶15.3; *Anthony v Seger* (1789) 1 Hag Con 13
|
||||
.. [#fn16] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶15.6
|
||||
.. [#fn14] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶15.6; *R v D'Oyley* (1840) 113 ER 763
|
||||
.. [#fn15] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶15.6; *R v Archdeacon of Chester* (1834) 1 A&E 342
|
||||
.. [#fn17] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶15.9
|
||||
.. [#fn8] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.7
|
||||
.. [#fn9] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶¶14.8–9; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶8.13
|
||||
.. [#fn10] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`
|
||||
.. [#fn11] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶11.7
|
||||
.. [#fn7] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.6.
|
||||
.. [#fn12] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶15.3; *Holmes v Keyes* [1958] Ch 570.
|
||||
.. [#fn13] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶15.3; *Anthony v Seger* (1789) 1 Hag Con 13 .
|
||||
.. [#fn16] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶15.6.
|
||||
.. [#fn14] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶15.6; *R v D'Oyley* (1840) 113 ER 763.
|
||||
.. [#fn15] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶15.6; *R v Archdeacon of Chester* (1834) 1 A&E 342.
|
||||
.. [#fn17] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶15.9.
|
||||
.. [#fn8] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.7.
|
||||
.. [#fn9] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶¶14.8–9; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶8.13.
|
||||
.. [#fn10] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶8.15.
|
||||
.. [#fn11] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶11.7.
|
||||
|
||||
.. _renton1:
|
||||
.. [#fn20] Renton NE. *Guide for meetings and organisations*. 8th ed. Vol. 1, ‘Guide for voluntary associations’. Sydney: Thomson; 2005b. ¶11.27
|
||||
.. [#fn23] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.78; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.4
|
||||
.. [#fn24] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.4; *R v Owens* (1850) 28 LJQB 316; *Fanagan v Kernan* (1881) 8 LR Ir 44; *National Australia Bank Ltd v Market Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq)* (2001) 161 FLR 1
|
||||
.. [#fn25] :ref:`Renton 2005b <renton1>`, ¶11.3
|
||||
.. [#fn26] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.4
|
||||
.. [#fn27] :ref:`Renton 2005b <renton1>`, ¶11.8; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.4; *National Australia Bank Ltd v Market Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq)* (2001) 161 FLR 1
|
||||
.. [#fn29] :ref:`Renton 2005b <renton1>`, ¶11.4
|
||||
.. [#fn30] :ref:`Renton 2005b <renton1>`, ¶11.14
|
||||
.. [#fn28] :ref:`Renton 2005b <renton1>`, ¶11.10
|
||||
.. [#fn31] :ref:`Renton 2005b <renton1>`, ¶11.15
|
||||
.. [#fn34] :ref:`Renton 2005b <renton1>`, ¶11.73
|
||||
.. [#fn39] More specifically, STV satisfies the *Droop proportionality criterion*: If there are *V* votes and *S* seats, let the *Droop quota* be *V*/(*S*\ +1). If *k* Droop quotas worth of votes prefer one group of candidates over the others, that group must win at least *k* seats. Woodall DR. ‘Properties of preferential election rules’. *Voting Matters*. 1994 Dec; (3): 8–15. http://www.votingmatters.org.uk/ISSUE3/P5.HTM
|
||||
.. [#fn21] Hill ID, Wichmann BA, Woodall DR. ‘Algorithm 123: single transferable vote by Meek's method’. *The Computer Journal*. 1987 Jun; **30**: 277–281. https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.NSF/Files/meekm/%24file/meekm.pdf
|
||||
.. [#fn22] *Proportional Representation Society of Australia*. Canberra: Proportional Representation Society of Australia; 2020 [cited 2021 Feb 11]. ‘Meek system of single transferable vote (STV) counting’. https://www.prsa.org.au/meek_stv.htm
|
||||
.. [#fn20] Renton NE. *Guide for meetings and organisations*. 8th ed. Vol. 1, ‘Guide for voluntary associations’. Sydney: Thomson; 2005b. ¶11.27.
|
||||
.. [#fn23] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.78; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.4.
|
||||
.. [#fn24] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.4; *R v Owens* (1850) 28 LJQB 316; *Fanagan v Kernan* (1881) 8 LR Ir 44; *National Australia Bank Ltd v Market Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq)* (2001) 161 FLR 1.
|
||||
.. [#fn25] :ref:`Renton 2005b <renton1>`, ¶11.3.
|
||||
.. [#fn26] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.4.
|
||||
.. [#fn27] :ref:`Renton 2005b <renton1>`, ¶11.8; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.4; *National Australia Bank Ltd v Market Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq)* (2001) 161 FLR 1.
|
||||
.. [#fn29] :ref:`Renton 2005b <renton1>`, ¶11.4.
|
||||
.. [#fn30] :ref:`Renton 2005b <renton1>`, ¶11.14.
|
||||
.. [#fn28] :ref:`Renton 2005b <renton1>`, ¶11.10.
|
||||
.. [#fn31] :ref:`Renton 2005b <renton1>`, ¶11.15.
|
||||
.. [#fn34] :ref:`Renton 2005b <renton1>`, ¶11.73.
|
||||
.. [#fn39] More specifically, STV satisfies the *Droop proportionality criterion*: If there are *V* votes and *S* seats, let the *Droop quota* be *V*/(*S*\ +1). If *k* Droop quotas worth of votes prefer one group of candidates over the others, that group must win at least *k* seats: Woodall DR. ‘Properties of preferential election rules’. *Voting Matters*. 1994 Dec; (3): 8–15. http://www.votingmatters.org.uk/ISSUE3/P5.HTM.
|
||||
.. [#fn21] Hill ID, Wichmann BA, Woodall DR. ‘Algorithm 123: single transferable vote by Meek's method’. *The Computer Journal*. 1987 Jun; **30**: 277–281. https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.NSF/Files/meekm/%24file/meekm.pdf.
|
||||
.. [#fn22] *Proportional Representation Society of Australia*. Canberra: Proportional Representation Society of Australia; 2020 [cited 2021 Feb 11]. ‘Meek system of single transferable vote (STV) counting’. https://www.prsa.org.au/meek_stv.htm.
|
||||
.. [#fn32] More technically, we say that first past the post fails the *Condorcet loser criterion*.
|
||||
.. [#fn33] Cumulative voting can conditionally provide proportionality *if* the minority allocates their votes optimally, whereas this is cleanly and automatically handled in STV.
|
||||
.. [#fn35] :ref:`Renton 2005b <renton1>`, ¶¶11.60–63; :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 61, which confusingly refers to it as the ‘preferential vote’ system.
|
||||
.. [#fn36] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, pp. 58–59, referred to in a stepwise process, using show-of-hands, as the ‘exhaustive vote’
|
||||
.. [#fn37] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, pp. 58–59, described as a variant of the ‘exhaustive vote’
|
||||
.. [#fn38] Farrell DM, McAllister I. ‘1902 and the origins of preferential electoral systems in Australia’. *Australian Journal of Politics and History*. 2005; **51**\ (2): 155–167. doi: `10.1111/j.1467-8497.2005.00368.x <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2005.00368.x>`_
|
||||
.. [#fn36] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, pp. 58–59, referred to in a stepwise process, using show-of-hands, as the ‘exhaustive vote’.
|
||||
.. [#fn37] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, pp. 58–59, described as a variant of the ‘exhaustive vote’.
|
||||
.. [#fn38] Farrell DM, McAllister I. ‘1902 and the origins of preferential electoral systems in Australia’. *Australian Journal of Politics and History*. 2005; **51**\ (2): 155–167. doi: `10.1111/j.1467-8497.2005.00368.x <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2005.00368.x>`_.
|
||||
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user