Save Search
    Prev   Next   Return to results listPrint ListEmail Document Link

Title

Ch14 Control and conduct of debate / RULES GOVERNING CONTENT OF SPEECHES / Anticipation

Database

House Practice

Date

01-05-2005

Source

House of Reps

Parl No.

41

Chapter

Control and conduct of debate

Chapter No.

Chapter 14

Page

496

Section No.

 

System Id

procedural/practcer/chapter14.24.doc


Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Ch14 Control and conduct of debate / RULES GOVERNING CONTENT OF SPEECHES / Anticipation



Download WordDownload Word

House of Representatives                                Ch 14                                                 p 496

 

Control and conduct of debate / RULES GOVERNING CONTENT OF SPEECHES

 

Anticipation

The so-called anticipation rule involves two standing orders—one applying generally and one applying specifically to questions:

  • A Member may not anticipate the discussion of a subject which appears on the Notice Paper. In determining whether a discussion is out of order the Speaker must consider the probability of the anticipated matter being brought before the House within a reasonable time. (S.O. 77);

  • Questions must not anticipate discussion on an order of the day or other matter (S.O. 100(f)).

    • The intention behind the rule is to protec t matters which are on the agenda for deliberative consideration and decision by the House from being pre-empted by unscheduled debate. The Speaker’s ‘reasonable time’ discretion is to prevent the rule being used mischievously to block debate on a matter.

    The words ‘a subject which appears on the Notice Paper’ are taken as applying only to the business section of the Notice Paper and not to matters listed elsewhere—for example, under questions in writing or as subjects of committee inquiry.

    A notice of motion has been held to prevent its subject matter being discussed by means of an amendment to a motion or by means of a matter of public importance. A notice of motion has been withdrawn prior to discussion of a matter of public importance on the same subject. 1 The rule has been applied to a personal explanation, 2 a motion of censure or no confidence, 3 the adjournment debate 4 and grievance debate. 5 During the course of a grievance debate the Chair has prevented a Member from debating a certain matter because it related to the subject of a notice of motion appearing on the Notice Paper in the Member’s name. On the basis that the notice had only been given three weeks previously, the Chair was not in a position at that stage to determine whether or not the matter would be brought before the House within a reasonable time. 6

    There has been a tendency in recent years for rulings concerning anticipation to be more relaxed. After a long period of sittings the Notice Paper may contain notices and orders of the day on many aspects of government responsibility, with the result that an overly strict application of the rule could rule out a large proportion of subjects raised in debate, Members’ statements or questions without notice, or topics proposed for discussion as matters of public importance. In a statement relating to matters of public importance Speaker Child, who had at the previous sitting accepted a matter which dealt with a subject covered in legislation listed for debate as an order of the day, indicated that, in her view, the discretion available to the Speaker should be used in a very wide sense. 7

    In general, the approach taken by the Chair has been that it is not in order while debating a question before the House to go into detailed discussion of other business on the Notice Paper. However, incidental reference is permissible. 8 Where the topic of a matter of public importance has been very similar to the subject matter of a bill due for imminent debate, the discussion has been permitted, subject to the proviso that the debate on the bill should not be canvassed, 9 or that the bill not be referred to in detail. 10

    The application of the anticipation rule was reviewed by the Procedure Committee in early 2005. The House adopted the committee’s recommendation that, as a trial for the remainder of the 41st Parliament, standing order 77 be amended to read as follows:

    During a debate, a Member may not anticipate the discussion of a subject listed on the Notice Paper and expected to be debated on the same or next sitting day. In determining whether a discussion is out of order the Speaker should not prevent incidental reference to a subject. 11

    The House also adopted the recommendation that standing order 100(f), applying to the asking of questions, be suspended for same period. The effect of standing order 100(f) is discussed in the Chapter on ‘Questions’.



    VP 1962-63/483; NP 85 (16.5.63) 1467.



    H.R. Deb. (16.10.13) 2178.



    H.R. Deb. (28.4.14) 369-71; H.R. Deb. (29.4.14) 432-3.



    H.R. Deb. (22.3.35) 305.



    H.R. Deb. (23.1.02) 9159.



    H.R. Deb. (29.4.76) 1752-7.



    VP 1985-87/975, 977; H.R. Deb. (26.5.86) 3919.



    H.R. Deb. (22.10.08) 1455-6.



    H.R. Deb. (5.5.92) 2358. The MPI was on the control of entry for permanent settlement and the bill, the first order of the day on the Notice Paper, was the Migration Amendment Bill 1992.



    H.R. Deb. (10.3.98) 845. The MPI was on aged care and the bill was the Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998—debate on the bill did not resume until two weeks later.



    Standing Committee on Procedure, The anticipation rule , PP 82 (2005). Sessional orders adopted 17.3.2005.