Motions - Same question not to be put (2001 precedent for S.O.164 of 1994)
1. Point of order taken that a Member gave notice of a motion for urgent consideration which is a negative of a motion given notice of earlier that day. The Speaker ruled that the Member had only given notice of the urgent motion and the House would decide whether the motion would be debated. Later the Speaker stated that if the House decided to debate the motion and he ruled in favour of the point of order, the motion given earlier that day would not be able to proceed. The House resolved to debate the motion for urgent consideration. Member again raised his point of order but was ruled against by the Speaker. The Speaker stated that " A Member may move a motion that is the negative of another motion but may not move an amendment that is the negative of another amendment."
8/11/01, 18283, 18297, 18299
| Related Orders, Precedents and Rulings |
|---|
| Standing Order 164 of 1994 (Repealed) | 164. The Speaker and the Chairman may disallow any motion or amendment which is the same in substance as any question already determined in the affirmative or in the negative in the same session. Nothing in this standing order shall preclude the operation of section 5B of the Constitution Act 1902. |
| 2005 Precedent | When the order of the day for a bill that had come from the Legislative Council was called on the Speaker advised the House that the bill was substantially the same as a bill that had been previously introduced to the House and defeated at its second reading during the same session. Accordingly the Speaker directed the order of the day to be discharged from the business paper. A point of order was raised that the Speaker was denying the House the right to debate a bill that had been passed by the Legislative Council which was dismissed by the Speaker. A member of the Opposition then questioned whether there had been a precedent to reject bills in this manner. The Speaker argued that the question was not one of precedent but of upholding the standing orders noting that, even if there was no precedent, the House cannot contravene standing order 164. PD 20/10/2005, pp 19033-4 |
| 2004 Precedent | 1. During the consideration of urgent motions, a point of order was raised that the motion being proposed by a member was essentially the same as a motion debated the previous sitting week. The member proposing the motion noted that the motion was substantially different to the previous one moved, noting that the debate on the previous motion had been terminated due to time constraints. The Speaker noted that although he agreed with the member who had proposed the motion that it was different to the previous motion moved it was immaterial to the matter to be determined in the point of order. The Speaker went on to note that the previous motion had lapsed so no determination was made by the House in relation to it and as such the member was at liberty to move the motion proposed. The Speaker also added that the member could even propose the previous motion if he so wished. Another point of order was raised that under the standing orders a member may only speak once to a question unless they are the member in charge of the order of the day when the order is read. The Speaker advised the member who raised the point of order that he should study the standing orders and noted that he should be aware that the standing orders referred to relate to a member speaking only once during the same debate. PD 25/02/2004, pp 6585 - 6586 |
| 2003 Precedent | 1. The Speaker directed that the order of the day for the second reading of a bill from the Legislative Council be removed from the buiness paper in accordance with standing order 164 as the second reading of an identical bill had already been dealt with earlier in the session. PD 30/10/2003, 4496 |
| 2002 Precedent | 1. Point of order raised during the announcement of matters of public importance that the matter had already been previously debated and that it was prohibited under Standing Order 164. The Speaker advised that it is correct that the House cannot debate a motion which is the same in substance as any question already determined by the House but that a matter of public importance is not a motion and as no vote is taken Standing Order 164 does not apply. PD 13/11/02, 6678 |
| 2001 Precedent | 1. Point of order taken that a Member gave notice of a motion for urgent consideration which is a negative of a motion given notice of earlier that day. The Speaker ruled that the Member had only given notice of the urgent motion and the House would decide whether the motion would be debated. Later the Speaker stated that if the House decided to debate the motion and he ruled in favour of the point of order, the motion given earlier that day would not be able to proceed. The House resolved to debate the motion for urgent consideration. Member again raised his point of order but was ruled against by the Speaker. The Speaker stated that " A Member may move a motion that is the negative of another motion but may not move an amendment that is the negative of another amendment."
8/11/01, 18283, 18297, 18299 |
| 1994 Precedent | 1. 1. Amendment ruled out of order as the text of the amendment was contained within the broader scope of an amendment previously dealt with in the same session. The Leader of the Opposition then sought leave to suspend standing orders to enable debate on a dissent from this ruling. Leave not granted. PD 27/10/94, 4876, 4878
VP 27/10/94, 462 |
| 1991 Precedent | 1. Suspension of standing orders agreed allowing the re-moving of a privilege motion; member who raised the matter (not having spoken previously) moved motion again and spoke to it, question put and passed. VP 12/9/91, 147 |
« Return to Precedents index