Download Word

House of Representatives                                Ch 15                                                 p 541

Anticipation of business

Standing order 100(f) provides that questions must not anticipate discussion on an order of the day or other matter. A clear distinction can be made between this rule and standing order 98(c), which permits questions to Ministers on ‘proceedings pending in the House’. The principle established by rulings from the Chair is that questions seeking to elicit information about proceedings pending in the House are permissible provided they do not anticipate the discussion itself or invite a Minister to do so. ¹ For example, in 1976 Speaker Snedden disallowed a question because it invited anticipation of the second reading speech and the arguments and principles upon which the legislation was based. However, he later permitted a question asking whether certain people would be disadvantaged under legislation then before the House. The Speaker ruled, in response to a point of order alleging inconsistency in the two rulings, that the second question was in order as it was simply seeking information about the legislation. ² Consistent with this principle questions have been permitted in respect of the impact of budget proposals, even though relevant bills may be listed as orders of the day. Questions have been permitted where a notice of intention to present a bill has been listed on the Notice Paper, the view being taken that this was different from an order of the day, where consideration of a measure was in fact before the House. ³ The listing on the Notice Paper of orders of the day for the consideration of legislation on a matter has not been held to prevent Ministers referring to government policy in the area, ⁴ but a question may not refer to the detail of a bill before the House. ⁵ The listing of a matter on the Daily Program does not have the same technical significance as a listing on the Notice Paper. ⁶ Speaker McLeay observed, in response to a point of order, that a too literal interpretation of the rule would mean that opposition Members would be very constrained in the questions they asked during Question Time. ⁷

While the cardinal rule is to avoid the anticipation of discussion of orders of the day, other matters could also cause the rule to be invoked—for example, the Speaker has terminated the answer to a question covering similar ground to a private Member’s motion listed for debate immediately after Question Time. ⁸ In practice the Speaker pays attention to the principle reflected in standing order 77 and considers the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the House within a reasonable time—for example, questions have been permitted relating to private Members’ orders of the day, in view of the fact that they are not usually listed by the Selection Committee for further discussion. ⁹ The rule does not prevent questions about matters scheduled for discussion as matters of public importance. ¹⁰

In early 2005 the application of the anticipation rule was reviewed by the Procedure Committee. The House adopted the committee’s recommendation that standing order 100(f) be suspended, as a trial, for the remainder of the 41st Parliament. ¹¹

H.R. Deb. (26.6.30) 3317.

H.R. Deb. (25.3.76) 1005.

H.R. Deb. (23.5.96) 1275, 1276.

H.R. Deb. (31.3.99) 4859, 4863-5; H.R. Deb. (29.6.99) 7677.

H.R. Deb. (2.12.98) 1144.

H.R. Deb. (9.12.2004) 81-2.

H.R. Deb. (6.11.91) 2423-4, 2429-30.

E.g. H.R. Deb. (1.3.2004) 25404-5.

E.g. H.R. Deb. (2.3.2004) 25525-6.

E.g. H.R. Deb. (9.3.2004) 26274-6.

Standing Committee on Procedure, The anticipation rule , PP 82 (2005). Sessional orders adopted 17.3.2005. The committee also recommended changes to S.O. 77, see Ch. on ‘Control and conduct of debate’.