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

Title

Ch16 Non-government business / MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE / Criteria for determining a matter in order / Subject that can only be debated upon a substantive motion

Database

House Practice

Date

01-05-2005

Source

House of Reps

Parl No.

41

Chapter

Non-government business

Chapter No.

Chapter 16

Page

581

Section No.

 

System Id

procedural/practcer/chapter16.34.doc


Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Ch16 Non-government business / MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE / Criteria for determining a matter in order / Subject that can only be debated upon a substantive motion



Download WordDownload Word

House of Representatives                                Ch 16                                                 p 581

 

Non-government business / MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE / Criteria for determining a matter in order

 

Subject that can only be debated upon a substantive motion

A matter of public importance is similar to a motion or question seeking information in that words critical of the character or conduct of a person whose actions can only be challenged by means of a substantive motion, should not be included in the matter proposed. 1 A formal adjournment motion has been ruled out of order as it reflected on the conduct of the Speaker which could only be questioned by means of a substantive motion. 2 In 1972 the Speaker ruled privately that a matter of public importance should not be the vehicle for the use of words critical of the conduct of a Member of the House. 3 It was ruled privately in 1955 that the committal to prison of Messrs Fitzpatrick and Browne, after being found guilty of a breach of privilege, could not be discussed as an urgency matter.

In 1922 the Speaker allowed a formal adjournment motion criticising the judgment and award of a judge in the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. He ruled that discussion must be confined to the award and such matters as did not involve criticism and reflection on the judge. In giving reasons for his ruling the Speaker saw the matter as one of some doubt which ‘must depend largely on the tone and scope of the discussion’. He had regard to the fact that the Member was debarred from moving a substantive motion because precedence had been given to government business, and he did not feel justified in ruling the motion out of order ‘provided it is clearly understood that, under cover of this motion, no attack or personal reflection can be made upon the Judge or the Court, nor can the conduct of the Judge be debated’. 4



S.O.s 89, 100(c); and see Ch. on ‘Control and conduct of debate’.



VP 1944-45/58.



On 7 April 1971 a matter accusing a Minister of ‘provocative behaviour’ was altered. The matter discussed on 21 March 1972 had been altered at the Speaker’s suggestion as it originally contained expressions critical of the conduct of a Member.



H.R. Deb. (20.9.22) 2443-4.