| Related Orders, Precedents and Rulings |
|---|
| 2011 Precedent | 1. The Acting Speaker advised members that it is the usual custom and practice that members keep their notices of motions brief. PD 25/8/2011, 4774 2. Following a point of order that a notice of motion was too long and that the member was debating the motion rather than giving a notice, the Assistant Speaker reminded the member that private members' statements was a better way to cover the issue raised and that notices of motion must not be a mini speech and should not contain the content of the debate that may ensue. PD 14/9/2011, 5701 3. The Assistant Speaker advised members to make their notices of motions pertinent and shorter so that they are not private members' statements. PD 13/10/2011, 6257 |
| 2010 Precedent | 1. Following a point of order regarding the length of a notice of motions for general business (general notice) the Speaker asked the Clerks to amend the notice of motion to ensure that it conformed to the standing orders. PD 11/5/2010, 22337 |
| 2009 Cons. Ruling | SPEAKER TORBAY: "A trend has developed for Members to give notices of motions that are lengthy, contain argument, unbecoming expressions, and which at times are given in the spirit of mockery. I remind Members that such notices are out of order. In accordance with Standing Order 137 the Clerks are able to amend such notice under my authority to ensure they conform to the Standing Orders. However, if Members persist in giving notices that are out of order I will rule them to be out of order and not published in the Business Paper. I remind Members that a notice of motion should be a self-contained proposal and be drafted in such a way that the House is able to express a decision when the motion is moved. Members should avail themselves of the advice of the Clerks if they are unsure whether a notice is in an acceptable form prior to giving it."
Torbay, PD 23/09/2009, p 18003 |
| 2009 Precedent | 1. The Speaker gave the following ruling in relation to the form and content of notices of motions: "A trend has developed for members to give notices of motions that are lengthy, contain argument, unbecoming expressions, and which at times are given in the spirit of mockery. I remind members that such notices are out of order. In accordance with standing order 137 the Clerks are able to amend such notices under my authority to ensure they conform to the standing orders. However, if members persist in giving notices that are out of order I will rule them to be out of order and not to be published in the Business Paper. I remind members that a notice of motion should be a self-contained proposal and be drafted in such a way that the House is able to express a decision when the motion is moved. Members should avail themselves of the advice of the Clerks if they are unsure whether a notice is in an acceptable form prior to giving it."
VP 23/9/2009, 1598 2. A member, noting the Speaker's ruling about the form and content of notice of motions the previous day, took a point of order in relation to the length of a notice of motion just given. In accordance with his ruling the Speaker ruled the notice of motion out of order and asked the member to resubmit it in order. PD 24/9/2009, 18139 3. During the giving of notices of motions for general business a member drew the Assistant Speaker's attention to the length of the notice of motion just given. The Assistant Speaker informed the member that he had been advised that notices of motions are subject to an editorial process prior to publication. PD 11/11/2009, 19336 |
| 2008 Precedent | 1. The Speaker reminded members about the length of notices of motions following a point of order that the notice of motion for a motion to be accorded priority was too long. PD 17/6/2008, 8523 |
| S.O. 146 of 1994 (Repealed) | 146. A notice containing argument, unbecoming expressions or otherwise not conforming with the practice of the House may: (1) Be ordered not to be printed by the Speaker or
(2) The House may order it expunged from the Business Paper. |
| 2005 Precedent | 1. During the giving of notices of motion a point of order was raised that the member who had given a notice of motion had delivered a speech rather than giving a notice of a motion. The Speaker agreed and ruled the notice of motion out of order. PD 07/04/2005, p 15299 2. During the giving of notices of motions the Speaker drew the attention of a member to the length of his notice of motion and advised that he would consult the Clerks and then discuss with the member putting the notice into an acceptable form. PD 05/05/2005, p 15786 3. During the giving of notices of motions the Speaker drew the attention of all members to the length of notices of motions noting that a number of notices of motions given that day by members verged on being out of order. The Speaker noted that he would confer with the Clerks in relation to that. PD 21/06/2005, p 17074 4. During the giving of notices of motions the Speaker drew the attention of the Leader of The Nationals to the length of his notice of motion noting that he would consult with the Clerk and make a determination at a later time as to whether it was in order. PD 23/06/2005, p 17485 5. During the giving of notices of motions the Speaker ruled a notice of motion out of order noting that he had warned members that a notice of motion should not take the form of a speech. PD 21/09/2005, p 18070 6. During the giving of notices of motions the Speaker drew the attention of members to the length of their notices. PD 11/10/2005, p 18312; PD 20/10/2005, p 19052 7. During the giving of notices of motions the Speaker reminded members that notices of motions should not be in the form of speeches. He noted that he would consult with the Clerks in relation to whether the motion of a member was admissible and possibly consult the member about shortening the motion. PD 09/11/2005, p 19345 |
| 2005 Precedent | 1. During the giving of notices of motion a point of order was raised that the member who had given a notice of motion had delivered a speech rather than giving a notice of a motion. The Speaker agreed and ruled the notice of motion out of order. PD 07/04/2005, p 15299 2. Following the tabling of committee reports in the routine of business the Leader of the House, by leave, made a personal explanation in relation to a notice of motion given by the shadow Minister for Police in respect of the Australian flag. The Leader of the House noted that the notice of motion should be struck out because the Minister asked a question on notice about that very issue. The Speaker noted that he would seek advice on the matter and give a ruling at a later stage. The notice was subsequently amended before appearing on the notice paper. PD 07/04/2005, pp 15302 - 15303 3. During the giving of notices of motions the Speaker reminded a member that notices of motions should call upon the House to note or resolve something and not debate points. The Speaker noted he would ask the Clerks to examine the notice of motion in consultation with the member. PD 05/05/2005, p 15786 4. During the giving of notices of motions the Speaker advised a member that in accordance with previous rulings he had given he would consult the Clerks to ascertain whether the notice of motion was in order. PD 05/05/2005, p 15786 |
| 2004 Precedent | 1. During the giving of notices of motions, the Speaker drew two matters to the attention of members. First, he noted that a number of the motions for which notice was given had been lengthy and asked members to check with the Clerks to ensure that their notices were in order prior to presenting them to the House. The Speaker also warned members about the use of unparliamentary or derogatory language contained in notices of motions. A point of order was raised by a member who had been singled out by the Speaker about which part of his motion was unparliamentary. The Speaker did not address the point of order but advised the member that if he challenged his ruling he would rule the member's motion out of order and ask him to reword it. PD 19/02/2004, pp 6332 - 6333 2. During the giving of notices of motions, a point of order was raised that a member's notice of motion should be redrafted as it was abusive. The Speaker ruled that in accordance with normal procedures he would review the matter in consultation with the Clerks and make an announcement to the House. The Speaker then referred to another notice of motion given and reminded members of previous rulings he had given in relation to the length of notices of motions. PD 22/06/2004, p 9812 3. During the giving of notices of motions, the Speaker indicated his concern about the length of some notices of motion noting he was considering consulting with the clerks as to whether they were in order. He also reminded members about the use of derogatory remarks in notices of motion noting that he would also discuss that with the Clerks. PD 24/06/2004, p 10178 4. During the giving of notices of motion the Speaker noted that the use of inflamatory and argumentative language in notices of motions is dealt with in the standing orders and asked the Clerk to examine the terminology used by the Leader of the Opposition in his notice of motion in order for him to make a determination as to whether it was in order. The Speaker did not advise the House of his determination and |
| 2003 Precedent | 1. The Speaker ruled that a notice of motion was too long and suggested that the member review the motion with a view to rewording it. PD 22/05/2003, 1046 2. The Speaker ruled that a notice of motion was almost out of order because of its length and asked the Clerk to consult with the member at a later time about shortening the motion. PD 13/11/2003, 4976 |
| 2003 Precedent | 1.The Chair ruled that a notice of motion that had been given, whilst worthy of debate, needed to be re-worded as it contained a certain amount of debate. The member later rose on a matter of privilege that his privileges had been abused by the Speaker inferring that the motion was inaccurate. The Speaker advised the member that he had not meant to imply that the notice of motion given was inaccurate but asked the member to re-phrase the motion as it was longwinded and in his view contained matters of debate. PD 02/12/2003, 5577 & 5589 |
| 2002 Precedent | 1. During the giving of notices in the routine of business, the Speaker noted that he had recently drawn members' attention to the length of notices of motions and that a notice just given would not be incorporated in its original form in the notice paper but that the pertinent points would be included in the final draft. PD 31/10/02, 6358 |
| 2002 Cons. Ruling | Mr SPEAKER: Before calling for notices of motions, I remind Members of the purpose and function of this parliamentary procedure. When members give notices of motions, they are informing the House that they intend to propose that the House do something or order something to be done, or they are expressing an opinion in regard to some matter. A motion must, therefore, be phrased in such a way that, if agreed to, it will purport to express the judgment or will of the House. A notice of motion should be termed so as to give a precise proposition for determination by the House. Recently notices have become inordinately and unnecessarily long. The Chair emphasises that the giving of a notice of motion is not intended as an opportunity to make a long argument or convey the substance of a proposition. Nor, as Erskine May points out at page 336 of the twenty-second edition of Parliamentary Practice, should notices of motions be "tendered in a spirit of mockery or designed merely to give annoyance." The House will be aware that I have advised the Clerks to scrutinise all notices to ensure that the form and content of any motion that is to come before the House is in order and does not offend any standing order of the House. Under my authority the Clerks will eliminate unnecessary statements or arguments from notices prior to their publication in the business paper. I also remind members that a clearly legible, signed notice of any motion must be handed up in writing to the Clerk at the table at the time that it is given. I have said this before when insisting on a typed notice. However, if the notice is legible I will accept it beacuse I acknowledge that there are occasions on which members wish to expedite motions. PD 27/2/02, 59-60 |
| 2001 Precedent | 1. The Speaker informed a Member that he would rule the Member's notice of motion out of order because it was too lengthy. The Speaker indicated that he would hand the notice to the Clerks and the Member should liaise with them in relation to the form of the motion. He would then make a decision as to whether the revised motion was in order. PD 6/9/01, 16507 4. Notice of motion ruled out of order as too lengthy. The Speaker referred it to the Clerks at the Table. PD 24/10/01, 17883 |
| 2001 Precedent | 1. During Private Members' Statements, a member made allegations about another Member. The next day, that Member gave a notice of motion calling for an apology. Another Member raised a point of order that the notice of motion contained argumentative statements and should have been raised by way of a personal explanation. The Speaker agreed that the point of order had substance but allowed the notice of motion. PD 24/10/01, 17921
PD 25/10/01, 18033
VP 25/10/01, 1570 |
| 2001 Precedent | 1. The Speaker ruled that notice of motion was a little outside of the scope of notices generally given by Members and advised that it would be accepted when some of the statements were removed. PD 6/3/01, 12224 2. Notice of motion ruled out of order as being frivolous and not worthy of debate in the House. PD 26/6/01, 15351 3. Notice of motion ruled out of order as not being within the ambit of standing orders. The Speaker asked the Clerks to give it further consideration. PD 19/9/01, 16839 |
| 2000 Precedent | 1. The Speaker ruled that a notice of motion was too long, and asked the Member to edit the notice. PD 09/08/00, 8022 2. Upon a point of order being taken about the length and the argument contained in the notice, The Speaker ruled that the notice of motion was out of order, and asked the Member to edit the notice and he would accept the edited version before the conclusion of Question Time. PD 12/10/00, 9210 3. The Speaker asked a Member to edit her notice of motion as it was too lengthy, and required another Member to remove imputations from his notice. PD 14/11/00, 9804 4. The Speaker asked a Member to edit her notice of motion as it was too long. PD 29/11/00, 11180 |
| 1998 Precedent | 1. The Speaker advised members that he had perused the notice of motion given today by the Member for Ermington which made reference to the Minister for Fair Trading and Minister for Emergency Services. The Speaker said he was of the opinion that the notice did not conform with the practices of the House. He said the practices of the House in such general matters were guided by practice in the House of Commons. In the latest edition of May’s Parliamentary Practice at page 329 it was stated— “he (the Speaker) has also directed that a notice of motion should not be printed, because it was irregular or obviously not a proper subject for debate, being tendered in a spirit of mockery, or being designed merely to give annoyance”. The Speaker further observed that in the 1926-27 session Speaker Dooley adopted the principle that a notice could be ruled out of order if it trifled with the House and that a Chairman’s ruling in 1917 ruled out of order an amendment moved in a spirit of mockery. The Speaker said that each paragraph of the notice of motion of the Member for Ermington failed the test that notices, motions, questions both with and without notice, and amendments should not be tendered in a spirit of mockery and accordingly the notice was incapable of being amended into an appropriate form. The Speaker therefore ruled that the notice would not be published and suggested to all members that they consult with the Clerks as to the content of notices before giving them in the House. VP 08/04/98, 488-9 2. The Speaker informed the House that he had perused the notice of motion given today by the member for Northcott and that in keeping with his ruling of 8 April 1998, he ruled that a substantial part of the notice was out of order on the grounds that it was argumentative, ironical, in a spirit of mockery and unparliamentary. The Speaker ruled that the notice be amended so that it conformed with the requirements of Standing Order 146. VP 29/04/98, 513
PD 29/04/98, 4121 3. Motion relating to internal party matters o |
| 1997 Cons. Ruling | SPEAKER MURRAY : Yesterday I indicated to the House that I would give a considered ruling today on the general trend for notices of motions and notices of motions for urgent consideration to contain argumentative and emotive terms, unnecessary statements of fact, points for debate and verbosity. By way of background, Standing Order 146 empowers the Speaker to amend notices or to order certain notices not to be printed on the business paper. There are ample precedents over the years in the way various speakers have used their power under Standing Order 146. However, an examination of the current business paper reveals many examples of general business general notices of motions taking up to half a page containing argument not necessary for a parliamentary motion. My feelings and the interpretation of Standing Order 146 are best encapsulated in a statement given by Speaker Snedden to the House of Representatives of Australia on 4 May, 1977 as follows: On 30 March . . . I drew the attention of the House to the need to have the recitals of notices examined in order to ensure they were necessary to make the motion meaningful and that they did not amount to a speech or argument in support of the motion. Since that time I have noticed that honourable members are continuing to give notices which are inordinately and unnecessarily long. Honourable members are tending to use this form of the House to narrate a long argument - in effect, a speech anticipating a debate - when they should be putting a concise proposition for determination by the House. I have a discretionary power under the Standing Orders and practices of the House to direct that a notice be not received in an inappropriate form or that its terms be corrected before it is placed on the notice paper. If honourable members continue to misuse that form of the House, I shall have to intervene to have the honourable member concerned reform his notice or alternatively to have the Clerks eliminate the argument and unnecessary statements of fact. That ruling is co |
| 1997 Precedent | 1. The Leader of the House took a point of order concerning the notice of motion given arguing that it should be ruled out of order due to its length and argumentative nature. The Speaker reserved his ruling on the point of order, stating that he would make a considered ruling regarding the length and content of notices of motions at the next sitting day. VP 14/05/97, 876; PD 14/5/97, 8594 Next sitting day, The Speaker informed the House that from this day the Chair would rule out of order notices that did not put a concise proposition upon which the House may vote. He reminded members that they should avail themselves of the advice of the Clerk in drafting motions. The Speaker also stated that he intended to place the matter before the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee at its next meeting. (see Speaker's rulings) VP 15/05/97, 892; PD 15/05/97, 8729 |
| 1996 Precedent | 1. Motion out of order as “vague, non-specific and unparliamentary” (reference to “other members of the Opposition”). PD 18/4/96, 258 2. Speaker made ruling that notice of motion given earlier in the day was out of order as containing argumentative material and a non-existent circumstance. VP 24/4/96, 72 3. Point of order taken that notice of motion was both lengthy and argumentative. Speaker reserved ruling. PD 28/5/96, 1581. 4. Speaker later made considered ruling that no case existed and that personal explanation was appropriate mechanism and directed the notices to be struck from the business paper. VP 22/10/96, 492/493. |
| 1994 Precedent | 1. Point of order taken that notice of motion was excessively long, included matters of debate and determinations and contained more than one matter for debate. Another member noted that the Notice Paper already contained notices that were as long and that the point of order should have been taken at an earlier stage. Member taking the point of order replied that the Speaker had previously ruled that objections should be raised at the time a question or notice was given. Any motions already on the notice paper would be entitled to remain if a point of order was not taken at the time. The Speaker agreed, saying that, as the motion had remained on the paper unchallenged for some time, it was beyond the point of challenge. The Speaker then addressed the current point of order, ruling that the number of issues raised in the motion of which notice had that day been given, did not necessarily relate to the terms of reference for a select committee. Before the motion was confirmed to be printed, it would be examined and checked against precedent. If then deemed to be in acceptable form, it would be printed in the business paper the next day. PD 8/3/94, 304 |
| 1994 Precedent | 1. Point of order taken that notice of motion concerned the administration of political parties and was not one that the Parliament should consider. The Speaker replied that the Chair would consider the elements of the notice and, if it were not within the forms of the House, the notice would be struck out. PD 21/9/94, 3446 |
| 1993 Precedent | 1. Member raised as a matter of privilege that a Minister had failed to correctly and fully answer a question upon notice. The Speaker ruled that this was not a matter of privilege, whereby the member gave a notice of motion on the same matter. Point of order taken that the notice was argumentative and long. The Speaker stated that he hesitated to give a ruling until he had had the opportunity to consider the text of the notice of motion and the comments made by the Minister moving the point of order. He undertook to consider the matter and make a decision later in the day. A similar notice was then given by another member concerning the failure of another Minister to correctly and fully answer a question upon notice. Point of order taken that the two notices of motion should be ruled out of order because they had not been lodged in accordance with procedures for questions on notice. The Speaker accepted only one of the notices because one member failed to lodge a written copy. The next day the Speaker advised the House that he had also ruled that notice of motion out of order under Standing Order which said that 'An answer shall be relevant to the Question and in answering any such Question a member shall not debate the matter to which the same refers'. Therefore the Chair could direct only to the relevance of the answer. He cited rulings by Speaker Kelly, that Ministers may give information that has been sought, and may answer as they see fit. Accordingly all answers given would be open to subjective assessment as to whether they were right, wrong, complete or abbreviated answers. Every member could complain about the answers they receive. Thus the device of giving notice of a motion, such as the type given by the member, could be used by every member who was not happy about an answer; could be open to abuse and could go on ad infinitum. Further such notices by their very nature contain argument. He informed the House that in future he would rule out of order similarly worded notices and further noted that th |
| 1993 Cons. Ruling | SPEAKER ROZZOLI informed the House of the reasons for ruling out of order the notice of motion given by the honourable member for Newcastle on the 31 March 1993. The notice of motion was as follows: "That this House notes the failure of the Minister for Natural Resources to correctly and fully answer Question No. 528 (paper No. 5 of 4 March 1993) standing in the name of the member for Newcastle and calls upon the minister to fully answer all aspects of the question asked by the due date of lodgement 18 May 1993." The Speaker having stated Standing Order No. 78: "An answer shall be relevant to the question and in answering any such question a member shall not debate the matter to which the same refers" ruled that the Chair could direct only to the relevance of an answer. This ruling was supported by rulings of Speaker Kelly that Ministers may give information that has been sought, and may answer as they see fit. (see PD 6/12/78, 1413; PD 16/8/78 , 188). All answers given would be open to subjective assessment as to whether they were right, wrong, complete or an abbreviated answer, and as a consequence, every member could complain about many aspects of answers they receive. The Speaker stated that the device of placing a notice, such as the type of the Honourable Member for Newcastle, could be used by every Member dissatisfied with an answer, be open to abuse and could go on ad infinitum and further that such notices contained argument. The Speaker thus ruled out of order the member's notice of motion. The Speaker also noted that there were numerous alternative procedures by which honourable members could express their dissatisfaction with Ministers replies in conformity with the Standing Orders and Rules of this House and as such the rights of honourable members were in no way impaired by the ruling. VP 1/4/93, 135 |
| 1992 Precedent | 1. Member raised point of order stating that in the past the Speaker's predecessor had ruled on a number of occasions that notices of motions to establish parliamentary committees should not be too long; that if too many points were raised in those motions they could be ruled out of order. He asked that 2 notices be returned to the movers for restructuring and re-presentation to the House. The Speaker replied that his impression was that the notice of motion was in the standard form for select committee notice of motion. The one difference was that it contained a considerable number of matters which ultimately would form the terms of reference of the select committee. Neither the Speaker nor the Clerk were aware of any notices of motions for select committees being ruled out of order on the basis that the terms of reference were too long. There were, however, precedents for notices of motion for general business which posed too many questions or placed too complex a question before the House. In those cases the motions were modified or members given the opportunity to recast them. The Speaker agreed to consider the matter further. PD 17/9/92, 6008 2. The member then raised a further point of order about the length of a notice of motion that had been on the notice paper for some weeks. The Speaker replied that the point of order would have carried more weight had it been lodged earlier. It was not for him to set aside what was obviously the considered judgement of the House over a number of weeks. PD 17/9/92, 6009 |
| 1992 Precedent | 1. Point of order taken that notice of motion anticipated a Government decision. The Speaker advised the member that his motion, being highly speculative, may well infringe the rules of the House on a number of grounds, and may be ruled out of order. He undertook to look at the motion in detail, but warned that is was unlikely to be printed. Member then attempted to give a second notice, which the Speaker ruled out of order on the grounds that a member cannot give two notices consecutively. Another member then gave a notice of motion which the Speaker also ruled contained an element of speculation in that it referred to proposals rather than actions. He undertook to also look at that motion. Another member raised a matter of privilege, asking the Speaker if it was his intention to rule out a motion that involved a proposed action by the Government, whether it be true or not, could he advise the House and provide leave for the Opposition to move dissent. The Speaker ruled that the member's remarks could be construed as intimidatory of the Chair. Any decision made by the Chair would be in accordance with the standing orders and rules of the House. PD 25/11/92, 9896 |
| 1992 Precedent | 1. A notice of motion lapsed, the member for Campbelltown not being present. Point of order taken by the Deputy Premier when a new notice of motion on the same matter was given on the grounds that the matter was sub judice. The member for Ashfield argued that the matter was not sub judice, but a notice of motion before the Parliament. The Speaker stated that the question he had to determine was whether he had any power, under the sub judice rule, to rule the notice of motion out of order. As he understood the application of that rule, he had no power to rule a notice of motion out of order. The sub judice rule applied to debate that ensues after a motion had been moved. While it was correct to state that the matter may come within the sub judice rule, at this point he could not envisage what the court's actions would be. Therefore the application of the rule would have to be decided when debate on the motion took place. He went on to say that in considering the use of the sub judice rule, the Speaker always had to take into account prejudice to litigants. He believed that very little further prejudice would occur by restoring a matter that had lapsed and ruled that the notice of motion was in order. PD 17/9/92, 6006-6008
VP 17/9/92, 476 item 1(8) |