A curious motion

I noted that the Senate select Committee on the NBN reported and the Senate agreed to amend its terms of reference again. In my earlier post I questioned how the committee was meant to report given that the Senate motion hadn't amended the reporting date.

I was advised that the committee website has been updated with the new date - so everything was sweet. But I was still confused as to how this occurred.

The current explanation is simple. Senator Fisher moved the changed terms of reference by moving that recommendation 12 of the committee be agreed to. My problem is that I have been reading from the summary of recommendations which says;

Recommendation 12
9.18 That the Senate agree to extend the Select Committee on the National
Broadband Network, under the following revised terms of reference:
a) That the resolution of the Senate of 25 June 2008, as amended, appointing the
Select Committee on the National Broadband Network, be further amended:
(2A) The Committee is to examine the findings of the National Broadband
Network Implementation Study, the Government’s response to the
Implementation Study and any subsequent implications of that report for the
National Broadband Network policy.

However where the recommendation actually appears in section 9.18 it reads;

Recommendation 12
9.18 That the Senate agree to extend the Select Committee on the National
Broadband Network, under the following revised terms of reference:
a) That the resolution of the Senate of 25 June 2008, as amended,
appointing the Select Committee on the National Broadband Network, be
further amended:
• to omit "25 November 2009", and substitute "30 April 2010"; and
• to add the following paragraph to the committee’s terms of
reference:
(2A) The Committee is to examine the findings of the National
Broadband Network Implementation Study, the Government’s response to
the Implementation Study and any subsequent implications of that report
for the National Broadband Network policy.

In other words the recomendation in the body of the report provided the extension of time. I doubt there would be no legal problem in this case with taking the later version, as the first version results in an ineffective amendment.

But what would the position be if there was something in the wording of the summary that was diametrically opposed (like the version of the King James bible that forgot the "not" in "though shalt not kill")?