RunasSudo/PointsOfOrder
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Activity

Edition 0.4

Browse Source 
Add section on miscellanea
- Interpretation
- Gender-neutral language
- Plain English
Minor edits
More references
This commit is contained in:
RunasSudo 2021-03-16 20:25:08 +11:00
parent 6da5a88f1f
commit d763484cf5
Signed by: RunasSudo
GPG Key ID: 7234E476BF21C61A
10 changed files with 187 additions and 29 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

5
STYLE.txt
View File

@ -60,8 +60,9 @@ 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.
author–date style of referencing, as in ‘Smith 2020, pp. 1–4’. Use ‘op. cit.’
if and only if referring to the entire source. 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).

13
altering-flow.rst
View File

@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ The term *formal motion* is sometimes encountered in this context – the meanin
..
* According to :ref:`Puregger (1998) <puregger>`,\ [#fn42]_ ‘formal motion’ means a motion which is put and determined without debate or amendment. This is also the meaning in the Senate, which has a mechanism allowing motions of all kinds to be ‘taken as formal’.\ [#fn2]_
* According to :ref:`Puregger (1998) <puregger>`\ [#fn42]_ and :ref:`Rigg (1920) <rigg>`,\ [#fn85]_ ‘formal motion’ means a motion which is put and determined without debate or amendment. This is also the meaning in the Senate, which has a mechanism allowing motions of all kinds to be ‘taken as formal’.\ [#fn2]_
Because of this ambiguity, the author recommends the term ‘formal motion’ should not be used, and the intended meaning should be described more specifically.
@ -867,8 +867,8 @@ Suspension of rules
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Form** | ‘*That so much of the standing orders (or “rules”) be suspended as would prevent |
| | [desired object]*’ or ‘*That the standing orders (or “rules”) be so far suspended as |
| | to allow [desired object]*’ |
| | [desired object]*’\ [#fn86]_ or ‘*That the standing orders (or “rules”) be so far |
| | suspended as to enable [desired object]*’\ [#fn87]_ |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Debatable?** | Yes\ [#fn81]_ |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
@ -1025,6 +1025,7 @@ Recall from :mref:`‘Chair’ <chair>` that a Chair is a requirement for a vali
.. [#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.
.. [#fn85] :ref:`Rigg 1920 <rigg>`, p. 64.
.. [#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.
@ -1038,7 +1039,7 @@ Recall from :mref:`‘Chair’ <chair>` that a Chair is a requirement for a vali
.. [#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.
.. [#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. *Standing Orders of the House of Commons: public business 2019*. London: UK Parliament; 2019 Nov 5. 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.
@ -1098,11 +1099,13 @@ Recall from :mref:`‘Chair’ <chair>` that a Chair is a requirement for a vali
.. [#fn41] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.6.
.. [#fn10] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 56.
.. [#fn11] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 18.
.. [#fn86] This is the wording used in the Australian Parliament: :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, p. 336.
.. [#fn87] This wording has been attested to in New Zealand and a number of state Parliaments. See e.g. *Minutes of the proceedings of the Legislative Council*. Sydney: Legislative Council (NSW); 1895 Sep 4. No. 6, p. 22. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/hp/housepaper/3568/Min-18950904-Cor.pdf; *Parliamentary debates (Hansard)*. Brisbane: Legislative Assembly (Qld); 1866 Jul 20. p. 568. https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/hansard/1866/1866_07_20_A.pdf; *Hansard*. Adelaide: Legislative Council (SA); 2005 Dec 1. p. 3453. http://hansardpublic.parliament.sa.gov.au/_layouts/15/Hansard/DownloadHansardFile.ashx?t=historicpdf&d=HANSARD-4-1090; *New Zealand Hansard precedent manual*. Wellington (NZ): House of Representatives; 2004. p. 325. https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/downloadhansard/pdf/aphea/NewZealand/NZPrecedentManual.pdf.
.. [#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.
.. [#fn6] ‘Definition of adjourn’. *Lexico*. Oxford: 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.

2
conf.py
View File

@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ copyright = '2021 Lee Yingtong Li'
author = 'Lee Yingtong Li'
# The full version, including alpha/beta/rc tags
release = '0.3.1'
release = '0.4'
version = release

2
epub-copyright.xhtml
View File

@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
</head><body>
<p>Edition 0.1 first published 2018<br/>
Edition 0.2 first published 2021<br/>
Edition 0.3.1 first published 2021</p>
Edition 0.4 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>

1
index.rst
View File

@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ Points of Order
order-of-business.rst
altering-flow.rst
voting.rst
miscellanea.rst
.. TODO
committees.rst

20
meetings.rst
View File

@ -126,23 +126,29 @@ The following :ref:`authorities on meeting procedure <authorities>` are cited wi
* Robert HM III, Honemann DH, Balch TJ, Seabold DE, Gerber S. *Robert's rules of order newly revised*. 12th ed. New York: PublicAffairs; 2020.
The following older authorities are also cited, primarily for historical context:
.. _palgrave:
* Palgrave RFD. *The chairman's handbook*. 12th edition revised. London: Sampson Low, Marston & Company; 1896. https://archive.org/details/cu31924031476066.
.. _rigg:
* Rigg J. *How to conduct a meeting: standing orders and rules of debate*. London: George Allen & Unwin; 1920 [reprinted 1922]. https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.74714.
The following authorities, on parliamentary meeting procedure specifically, are also cited:
.. _horp:
* Elder DR, Fowler PE, editors. *House of Representatives practice*. 7th ed. Canberra: Department of the House of Representatives; 2018. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice7
* Elder DR, Fowler PE, editors. *House of Representatives practice*. 7th ed. Canberra: Department of the House of Representatives; 2018. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice7.
.. _odgers:
* Evans H. *Odgers' Australian Senate practice*. 14th ed. Rosemary L, editor. Canberra: Department of the Senate; 2016. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Odgers_Australian_Senate_Practice
* Evans H. *Odgers' Australian Senate practice*. 14th ed. Rosemary L, editor. Canberra: Department of the Senate; 2016. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Odgers_Australian_Senate_Practice.
.. _may:
* Natzler D, Hutton M, editors. *Erskine May's treatise on the law, privileges, proceedings and usage of Parliament*. 25th ed. London: LexisNexis; 2019. https://erskinemay.parliament.uk
.. _horp6:
* Wright BC, Fowler PE, editors. *House of Representatives practice*. 6th ed. Canberra: Department of the House of Representatives; 2012. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice6
* Natzler D, Hutton M, editors. *Erskine May's treatise on the law, privileges, proceedings and usage of Parliament*. 25th ed. London: LexisNexis; 2019. https://erskinemay.parliament.uk.
.. rubric:: Footnotes

146
miscellanea.rst Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,146 @@
Miscellanea
===========
Interpretation and drafting of resolutions
------------------------------------------
.. index:: motion; interpretation
Interpretation
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The interpretation of formal documents is a complex area, and many hefty legal textbooks have been written on the topic.\ [#fn1]_ Just as with the law of meetings, we do not seek to present a comprehensive treatment of all aspects of the law of interpretation, but a brief summary of some key points.
Courts recognise that formal documents, such as resolutions, are to be interpreted according ‘to the common sense principles by which any serious utterance would be interpreted in ordinary life’.\ [#fn2]_
The correct meaning of a resolution is ‘the meaning which [it] would convey to a reasonable person’. This is distinct to whatever may be the dictionary definition of its words, as it may in fact be possible for the reasonable person to conclude the wrong words were used.\ [#fn2]_
There are a number of principles and *canons* of constructions which aid courts in determining meaning. These canons are not strict rules to be applied uncritically, but are mere guides.\ [#fn4]_ Some examples commonly applicable to the interpretation of resolutions are:
* Words should be given their plain, ordinary meaning, unless this would be absurd, inconsistent or repugnant.\ [#fn3]_
..
* A part of the resolution should not be interpreted in isolation, but read as part of the resolution as a whole.\ [#fn5]_
.. index:: presumption against surplusage
* Where possible, a resolution should be constructed to give effect to all parts, and not to render any part inoperative or surplus (the *presumption against surplusage*).\ [#fn6]_
.. index:: generalia specialibus non derogant
* When there are both general provisions and more specific provisions, the specific provisions overrule the general provisions on matters which fall into the scope of the specific provisions (*generalia specialibus non derogant*).\ [#fn7]_
.. index:: expressio unius est exclusio alterius
* When certain things are explicitly mentioned, it is assumed that other things of the same category which were not explicitly mentioned were deliberately omitted (*expressio unius est exclusio alterius*).\ [#fn8]_
.. index:: ejusdem generis
* When specific words are followed by general words, the general words are confined to things of the same kind as those specified (*ejusdem generis*).\ [#fn9]_ For example, in the phrase ‘X, Y or any other Z’, the term Z would be limited to items of the same ‘genus’ as X and Y.
..
* When a plural subject is followed by a plural predicate, the plurals may be *distributively construed*.\ [#fn10]_ For example, the phrase ‘the committee members' views’ would probably mean ‘each view held by any committee member’, rather than ‘only the views held in common by all committee members’.
Some rules of interpretation have also been expressly introduced by statute. For example, section 181(1) of the |ConveyancingAct|_ provides that:
In all … instruments (whether relating to property or not) … unless the contrary intention appears—
\(a) The masculine includes the feminine and vice versa.
\(b) The singular includes the plural and vice versa.
\(c) *Person* includes a corporation.
\(d) *Month* means calendar month.
.. |ConveyancingAct| replace:: *Conveyancing Act 1919* (NSW)
.. _ConveyancingAct: https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1919-006#sec.181
Similar legislation exists in other states and territories.\ [#fn11]_
Applying, or determining when not to apply, these rules, principles and canons is a rather more complicated topic than we have outlined here, and we reserve those details for legal textbooks such as :ref:`Lewison et al. (2012) <lewison>`.
Gender-neutral language
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
For some time now, society has recognised a need to write gender-neutral documents in a gender-neutral way. The historical practice of simply using only male nouns and pronouns, and extending them to include all genders, has now been unacceptable for a considerable time.
In this book, we have adopted gender-neutral nouns, such as ‘Chair’ rather than ‘Chairman’, and we encourage this practice.
Historically, there have been 2 primary approaches to gender-neutral pronouns: either using ‘he or she’ (‘he/she’, ‘(s)he’, etc.), or omitting pronouns entirely and repeating the noun wherever necessary. Neither of these approaches seems entirely satisfactory,\ [#fn19]_ so we have adopted the use of the singular ‘they’.
The use of the singular ‘they’ to refer to an unknown or arbitrary person is grammatically correct, has been attested to since 1375, and was used by Shakespeare himself.\ [#fn20]_ Grammatical objections to the use of the singular ‘they’ should be rejected in the strongest terms.\ [#fn21]_
Plain English
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The practice of the procedure at meetings is liable to produce in observers of the same a certain ambience of formality and proximity to the law, in the presence whereof a person (or persons) who hitherto might not have been legally trained is (are) wont to engage in one (1) or more courses of conduct, which conduct includes (but is not limited to) conduct which is inexplicable, verbose and occasionally wholly semantically incorrect, the aforedescribed undertaking ostensibly being made to emulate the *je ne sais quoi* of lawyers.\ [#fn13]_
In other words, people sometimes, with good but misguided intentions, introduce ‘legalese’ into meeting procedure, in an attempt to sound ‘more correct’. Ironically, the legal field itself has been moving away from ‘legalese’ towards using plainer English since the 20th century.\ [#fn14]_
Perhaps the most widespread example of inexplicable ‘legalese’ is when a number is written out in words, then followed in figures with brackets; for example, ‘one (1)’. One wonders what kind of disdain the drafter must have for their readers' intelligence if the meaning of the number ‘1’ needs clarifying.\ [#fn15]_ Most style manuals now provide that numbers over 10 or 100 should be written in figures – in this book, we have gone even further and expressed almost all numbers exclusively in figures.
Another common example of redundant legalese is the expression ‘includes, but is not limited to’ or ‘includes without limitation’: surely the word ‘includes’ inherently indicates the list is not exhaustive.
The traditional style of legal drafting prefers to avoid the possessive apostrophe, writing, for example, ‘the rules of the association’. It would be plainer English to simply write ‘the association's rules’.\ [#fn16]_
The legalese expression ‘not less than X’ is not as vehemently targeted by authorities on plain English, but :ref:`Cutts (2013) <cutts>` recommends,\ [#fn12]_ and the author agrees, considering the even simpler ‘at least X’ or ‘X or more’. The same goes for ‘not more than X’ (‘at most X’ or ‘X or less/fewer’).
Other legalese words to consider avoiding include:
* ‘shall’ (consider ‘must’ or ‘will’)
* pronomial adverbs like ‘hereby’,\ [#fn18]_ ‘thereafter’, ‘wherein’, etc.
* ‘notwithstanding’ (consider ‘despite’ or ‘in spite of’)
* ‘where’ (when, in plain English, we would write ‘if’ or ‘when’)
* and many others!
For more information on plain English writing, see the Office of Parliamentary Counsel's *Plain English Manual*.\ [#fn17]_
.. rubric:: Footnotes
.. _lewison:
.. [#fn1] See e.g. Lewison K, Hughes D. *The interpretation of contracts in Australia*. Sydney: Thomson Reuters; 2012.
.. [#fn2] :ref:`Lewison et al. 2012 <lewison>`, pp. 10–11, 17–18; *Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society* [1998] 1 WLR 896; *Maggbury Pty Ltd v Hafele Australia Pty Ltd* (2001) 210 CLR 181; *Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas* (2004) 218 CLR 471; *Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd* (2004) 219 CLR 165.
.. [#fn4] :ref:`Lewison et al. 2012 <lewison>`, p. 281.
.. [#fn3] :ref:`Lewison et al. 2012 <lewison>`, pp. 161, 164.
.. [#fn5] :ref:`Lewison et al. 2012 <lewison>`, p. 283.
.. [#fn6] :ref:`Lewison et al. 2012 <lewison>`, p. 291.
.. [#fn7] :ref:`Lewison et al. 2012 <lewison>`, p. 297.
.. [#fn8] :ref:`Lewison et al. 2012 <lewison>`, p. 298.
.. [#fn9] :ref:`Lewison et al. 2012 <lewison>`, p. 325.
.. [#fn10] :ref:`Lewison et al. 2012 <lewison>`, p. 334.
.. [#fn11] :ref:`Lewison et al. 2012 <lewison>`, p. 213; |PropertyVic|_ s. 61; |PropertyQld|_ s. 48; |PropertyWA|_ s. 8; |ConveyancingTas|_ s. 64; |PropertyNT|_ s. 50.
.. [#fn19] The second approach eliminates a useful feature of the English language, and frequently makes sentences seem repetitive, while the first seems verbose and uninclusive of people who use pronouns other than ‘he’ or ‘she’.
.. [#fn20] Baron D. ‘A brief history of singular “they”’. *Oxford English Dictionary*. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2018 [cited 2021 Feb 27]. https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/; ‘Using “they” and “them” in the singular’. *Lexico*. Oxford: Oxford University Press; c2021 [cited 2021 Feb 27]. https://www.lexico.com/grammar/using-they-and-them-in-the-singular.
.. [#fn21] We acknowledge there is some controversy surrounding the singular ‘they’ when used with a view of erasing a person's specific pronouns, particularly in the case of transgender people. We emphasise that, when referring to a particular person, that person's specific pronouns should identified and used.
.. [#fn13] The author hopes it was clear this paragraph is satire! The author acknowledges he is not the writer of the world's plainest English, but he hopes it is not this bad!
.. _plain-english-manual:
.. [#fn14] *Plain English manual*. Canberra: Office of Parliamentary Counsel; 2016. https://www.opc.gov.au/publications/plain-english-manual. p. 5.
.. [#fn15] And what happens if the words and figures disagree? The traditional wisdom is that the words will prevail: :ref:`Lewison et al. 2012 <lewison>`, p. 440; *Saunderson v Piper* (1839) 132 ER 1163; somewhat paradoxical, given one would generally think that the figures should be more attention-grabbing to the casual eye.
.. [#fn16] :subref:`PEM <plain-english-manual>`, p. 20.
.. _cutts:
.. [#fn12] Cutts M. *Oxford guide to plain English*. 4th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013. p. 30.
.. [#fn18] What is ‘hereby’ even supposed to mean? A motion ‘*That Charlie be appointed Secretary*’ means exactly what it means. To clarify that Charlie is ‘*hereby* appointed’ says nothing more than ‘This motion does what it does’.
.. [#fn17] :subref:`PEM <plain-english-manual>`, *op. cit.*
.. |PropertyVic| replace:: *Property Law Act 1958* (Vic)
.. _PropertyVic: https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/property-law-act-1958/138
.. |PropertyQld| replace:: *Property Law Act 1974* (Qld)
.. _PropertyQld: https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1974-076
.. |PropertyWA| replace:: *Property Law Act 1969* (WA)
.. _PropertyWA: https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_756_homepage.html
.. |ConveyancingTas| replace:: *Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1884* (Tas)
.. _ConveyancingTas: https://www.legislation.tas.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1884-019
.. |PropertyNT| replace:: *Law of Property Act 2000* (NT)
.. _PropertyNT: https://legislation.nt.gov.au/en/Legislation/LAW-OF-PROPERTY-ACT-2000
.. |PEM| replace:: *Plain English manual*

2
preamble.tex.txt
View File

@ -69,7 +69,7 @@
\begingroup\footnotesize
Edition 0.1 first published 2018 \\
Edition 0.2 first published 2021 \\
Edition 0.3.1 first published 2021
Edition 0.4 first published 2021
\vspace{1cm}

23
transacting-business.rst
View File

@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ In this chapter, we will focus primarily on substantive motions. In :mdoc:`‘Al
Traditional form of motions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Traditionally, in English, motions begin with the word ‘That’,\ [#fn7]_ and are worded using the *subjunctive mood*. The subjunctive mood is how the verb is used, for example, in the title of Beyoncé's ‘If I *Were* a Boy’, or the sentence ‘It is important that you *be* here’. Examples of motions using the subjunctive mood are:
Traditionally, in English, motions begin with the word ‘That’,\ [#fn7]_ and are worded using the *subjunctive mood*.\ [#fn81]_ The subjunctive mood is how the verb is used, for example, in the title of Beyoncé's ‘If I *Were* a Boy’, or the sentence ‘It is important that you *be* here’. Examples of motions using the subjunctive mood are:
* ‘That the expenditure be approved’ or ‘That the committee approve the expenditure’ (not ‘That the expenditure *is* approved’ or ‘That the committee *approves* the expenditure’)
@ -343,7 +343,7 @@ In this book, when we say *principal motion*, we mean the motion that the amendm
Form of amendments
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
An amendment can be conceptualised as a type of subsidiary motion of the form ‘*That the motion be amended by …*’ (or equivalent).
An amendment can be conceptualised as a type of subsidiary motion of the form ‘*That the motion be amended by …*’ (or equivalent).\ [#fn82]_
Customarily, a motion may be amended to:\ [#fn19]_
@ -431,7 +431,7 @@ However, for an amendment to omit words, the Chair announces ‘*The question is
For an amendment to omit words and substitute others, the question is put in 2 stages. The Chair first announces ‘*The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question*’. Then, if and only if that question is negatived, the Chair announces ‘*The question is that the words proposed be inserted*’.\ [#fn32]_ In order to vote in favour of the amendment, one must then vote against the first question, and in favour of the second.
In the author's opinion, the traditional method is needlessly confusing. The UK House of Commons rid itself of this procedure in 1967,\ [#fn34]_ and since its adoption by the Australian House of Representatives in 2011, the following simpler form has also become standard.\ [#fn32]_
In the author's opinion, the traditional method is needlessly confusing.\ [#fn80]_ The UK House of Commons rid itself of this procedure in 1967,\ [#fn34]_ and since its adoption by the Australian House of Representatives in 2011, the following simpler form has also become standard.\ [#fn32]_
Simpler form of putting amendments
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
@ -493,12 +493,13 @@ Some authorities also recognise other types of ‘points’ which may be raised.
.. [#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’.
.. [#fn7] Even more traditionally, motions begin with the longer phrase ‘*Be it resolved that*’.
.. [#fn81] However, even in the Australian House of Representatives, the indicative mood is routinely used instead in motions expressing an opinion (rather than ordering an action), for example, ‘That this House *is* of the opinion that …’: :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, p. 297.
.. [#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’.
.. [#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.
.. [#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.
@ -506,8 +507,8 @@ Some authorities also recognise other types of ‘points’ which may be raised.
.. [#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.
.. [#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 <horsley>`, ¶10.12, and :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 40, 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. It appears that this practice was originally defended on the basis that members of the House of Commons typically did not need to actually speak to second a motion (but would do so by, for example, raising their hat): :ref:`Palgrave 1896 <palgrave>`, p. 50.
.. [#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.
@ -541,6 +542,7 @@ Some authorities also recognise other types of ‘points’ which may be raised.
.. [#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.
.. [#fn82] Some authorities regard amendments as a form of procedure distinct to motions: *Council meeting procedures handbook*. 2nd edition. Adelaide: Local Government Association of South Australia; 2015 [cited 2021 Mar 2]. https://www.loxtonwaikerie.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0032/351959/Meeting-Procedures-Handbook-2013.pdf. While this may explain some specifics of amendment procedure, the author believes that, on balance, viewing amendments as a form of subsidiary motion is the more helpful approach.
.. [#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).
@ -548,15 +550,16 @@ Some authorities also recognise other types of ‘points’ which may be raised.
.. [#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.
.. [#fn79] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶5.23, citing ‘Some authorities’; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, pp. 45–46; :ref:`Palgrave 1896 <palgrave>`, p. 59.
.. [#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’.
.. [#fn59] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.22; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 51; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶5.12, citing ‘Some authorities’; :ref:`Palgrave 1896 <palgrave>`, p. 51.
.. [#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.
.. [#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: Wright BC, Fowler PE, editors. *House of Representatives practice*. 6th ed. Canberra: Department of the House of Representatives; 2012. p. 315. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice6.
.. [#fn80] Additionally, in the case of an amendment to omit all words after ‘That’ and substitute others, an amendment on which opinions are exactly evenly divided would result in both questions being tied/negatived, and the motion nonsensically left to stand with only the word ‘That’! Parliamentary Speakers have ruled that, in such a case, the motion is dropped. As preposterous as this sounds, it has in fact occurred, and led to the fall of the Deakin Government in 1908! :ref:`Palgrave 1896 <palgrave>`, p. 67; :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, p. 310.
.. [#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.

2
voting.rst
View File

@ -43,8 +43,6 @@ In Parliament, and in some organisations, voting is performed ‘on the voices
In a voice vote, the Chair directs those in favour of the question to say ‘Aye’, then those against to say ‘No’.\ [#fn3]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn4]_ The Chair then announces the result according to which side they believe had greater numbers.
.. index:: vote; by division, vote; by roll call, division, roll call
Division, roll call, etc.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^