Save Search
    Prev (10)   Next (12)   Return to results listPrint ListEmail Document Link

Title

Ch9 Motions / AMENDMENTS TO MOTIONS / Form and content of amendment / Alternative propositions

Database

House Practice

Date

01-05-2005

Source

House of Reps

Parl No.

41

Chapter

Motions

Chapter No.

Chapter 09

Page

306

Section No.

 

System Id

procedural/practcer/chapter09.43.doc


Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Ch9 Motions / AMENDMENTS TO MOTIONS / Form and content of amendment / Alternative propositions



Download WordDownload Word

House of Representatives                                Ch 9                                                 p 306

 

Motions / AMENDMENTS TO MOTIONS / Form and content of amendment

 

Alternative propositions

Amendments may be moved, however, which evade an expression of opinion on the main question by entirely altering its meaning and object. This is effected by moving the omission of all or most of the words of the question after the word ‘That’ and substituting an alternative proposition which must, however, be relevant to the subject of the question. The question then traditionally proposed is ‘That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question’. What this does in effect is to place two alternative propositions before the House (the motion and the amendment) between which it must make a preliminary choice. If the question is negatived, this vote does not by itself express a decision against the motion, but only a preference for taking a decision upon the alternative proposition contained in the amendment. A question is then proposed ‘That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted’ which, if agreed to, means that the original motion may be regarded as having been negatived by implication. This depends both upon the fact that the amendment has been agreed to and upon the fact that its terms are such as to imply disagreement with the motion. A final question ‘That the motion, as amended, be agreed to’ is then proposed. Where a motion has been moved by an opposition Member and a government Member moves an amendment in the form of an alternative proposition the question has been put in the terms ‘That the amendment be agreed to’, and if this question is agreed to, the further question ‘That the motion, as amended, be agreed to’ has been put. 1

This practice of the House has been supported since 1905 when, on a motion that an Address be presented to the King expressing the hope that a measure of home rule be granted to Ireland, an amendment was moved to omit all words after ‘That’ in order to insert words to the effect that the House declined to petition His Majesty either in favour of or against a change in the parliamentary system which then prevailed in the United Kingdom. Having been asked for a ruling as to whether the amendment was in effect a negative of the motion, the Speaker stated that the amendment was in order as it came between the two extremes of either declaring in favour of the petition (motion) as it stood or negating the proposal altogether. 2

Other relevant rulings have been:

  • In 1949, a want of confidence motion having been moved in the Deputy Speaker (listing four reasons), an amendment was moved to omit all words after ‘That’ with a view to inserting words ‘this House declares its determination to uphold the dignity and authority of the Chair . . .’. The Chair dismissed a point of order that the amendment was a direct negative of the motion and ruled it in order. 3

  • In 1970 an amendment was moved adding words to a motion to take note of a paper (relating to Commonwealth-State discussions on off-shore legislation) which expressed a lack of confidence in the Prime Minister and his Cabinet for their failure to honour a certain commitment made to the States. This was accepted as a want of confidence amendment. To this amendment a further amendment (to omit words with a view to inserting other words) was moved declaring that the House did not believe there had been any failure on the part of the Government to honour any commitments; that the House acknowledged that when the Government decided to change its policy it did not, at that time, inform the States of the change, and the House was of the opinion that this fact had led a Member (a former Cabinet Minister) into believing that an undertaking he had given to the States had been dishonoured. A point of order was taken that the amendment was a direct negative of the proposed amendment. The Speaker ruled that it was not a direct negative and not materially different in form from amendments which had been moved and accepted in previous years. The ruling was upheld by the House when a motion of dissent was negatived. 4

    • Following the latter ruling, as subsequent comment showed, there was some misunderstanding of the practice on which the ruling was based. Speaker Aston made a statement referring to precedents and practice in both the House of Representatives and the House of Commons on which the ruling of the Chair was based—that is, the acceptability of amendments proposing alternative propositions. 5 There have been a number of subsequent precedents. 6 It is now not uncommon for motions critical of or censuring the Government or a Minister to be amended by way of an alternative proposition changing the target of the criticism or censure to the Opposition or Leader of the Opposition— see ‘Censure of a Member or Senator’ and ‘Censure of the Opposition’ at pp. 321 -322.



    E.g. VP 1993-95/1283-5; VP 1998-2001/594-8; but see also VP 1983-84/820-1; VP 1996-98/293-6.



    H.R. Deb. (28.9.05) 2967-8.



    VP 1948-49/381; H.R. Deb. (8.9.49) 119.



    VP 1970-72/153-4; H.R. Deb. (15.5.70) 2304-23.



    VP 1970-72/171; H.R. Deb. (2.6.70) 2712-17.



    E.g. VP 1974-75/879; VP 1977/406; VP 1978-80/1283-4, 1290; VP 1990-92/1352, H.R. Deb. (4.3.92) 708; 

    VP 1990-92/1752-3, H.R. Deb. (8.10.92) 1769.