| Related Orders, Precedents and Rulings |
|---|
| Standing Order 109 | Motions Accorded Priority 109. The procedure for consideration of motions accorded priority shall be as follows: Prior to Question Time the Speaker shall ask if there are any written notices of motions to be accorded priority over the other business of the House. No more than two notices shall be accepted at any one sitting of the House. The notices shall be set down for consideration later in the sitting in accordance with the routine of business. The Members giving the notices shall each be permitted to make statements of up to 5 minutes as to why their notice should be accorded priority. At the conclusion of the 5 minute statements the Speaker shall put the question on the first notice “That the motion of the Member for ... be accorded priority”. If this motion is carried the Member may proceed. If the motion is not carried the question “That the motion of the Member for ... be accorded priority” is then put on the next motion. When the motion for priority is determined and the motion is moved, the following time limits shall apply: Mover - 7 minutes
Member next speaking - 7 minutes
Other Members (limited to two) - 5 minutes
Reply - 5 minutes
Total - 29 minutes
6. The motion will lapse at the time for interruption unless a division is in progress whereupon that division and any other division(s) to determine the matter shall be completed. amended 3 July 2009 |
| 2013 Precedent | 1. The Speaker advised all members that they should not interject in the three minutes available to make an argument why a motion should be accorded priority. PD 19/3/2013, 18816 2. During both members' speeches arguing why their motion should be accorded priority, the Speaker reminded members that there should be no interjections during the three minute address. PD 26/3/2013, 19394 & 19395 |
| Notes for the Chair | Motions Accorded Priority (SO 109) The Speaker calls for notices of motions to be accorded priority prior to Question Time. When called upon, the Member reads the notice aloud and then hands up a written and signed copy to the Clerk. The oral version of the notice of motion must be the same as the written version. Up to two notices may be given. After the placing or disposal of business on Tuesday and Wednesday Members are called on to argue why their motion should be accorded priority over the other business of the House. Members have up to three minutes each to argue why their motion should be accorded priority. If only one notice is given the Member must still argue why the motion should be accorded priority. When arguing for priority a Member should focus on why their motion should have priority. While Members can make passing mention of substantive matters in relation to the motion, principally they should seek to establish why the motion should be given priority over other business, not the other motion sought to be accorded priority. No points of order regarding the scope or substance of the notice will be entertained during the three minute statement arguing priority. After the arguments have been given why the motions should be accorded priority, the Speaker will put the question "That the motion of the Member for … be accorded priority" in the order in which the notices were received. If the first notice is accorded priority there is no vote taken on the second notice. However, if the question on the first notice is negatived, a question must be put on the second as the House may be of the opinion that neither notice should proceed. Amendments can be moved to a motion accorded priority and the closure and other procedural motions such as "That the Member be not further heard" may be moved. No quorum call is permitted during the period set aside for the motion accorded priority, including the establishment of and debate on a motion accorded priority. If the debate on the motion accorded priority is int |
| 2012 Cons. Ruling | Considered Statement relating to the sessional order amending standing order 109 concerning debate on motions accorded priority: "Under standing and sessional orders, two members have the opportunity to make a statement outlining why their motion should be accorded priority. The sessional order adopted yesterday provides, in paragraph (4)(a) that: '...no points of order regarding the scope or substance of the notice will be entertained during the 3 minutes provided for the statement'
Over recent years Speakers have allowed members to make some reference to the substance or subject matter of their notice when establishing priority. Indeed, it is my view that in order to establish priority a member must refer to the substance of the motion. The new sessional order reflects a desire to prevent the raising of spurious and time-wasting points of order which allege that a member is debating the substance of their motion rather than establishing priority. The time for statements is limited and best utilised by orderly debate on the question to be determined. Members need to note that the new sessional order does not give a member free rein to comprehensively debate their motion in the course of their three-minute statement. While brief reference to the substance of a motion will be permitted, the Chair will draw a member back if the content of his or her statement exceeds the scope necessary to determine priority of one motion over another. Points of order will also be entertained if debate strays into attacks on other members, offensive words or other such overt, serious disorder."
Hancock, PD 15/02/2012, p 8295 |
| 2012 Precedent | 1. The Speaker made a statement on the sessional order amending standing order 109, which concerns debate on motions accorded priority: "Under standing and sessional orders, two members have the opportunity to make a statement outlining why their motion should be accorded priority. The sessional order adopted yesterday provides, in paragraph (4)(a), that: '...no points of order regarding the scope or substance of the notice will be entertained during the 3 minutes provided for the statement.'
Over recent years Speakers have allowed members to make some reference to the substance or subject matter of their notice when establishing priority. Indeed, it is my view that in order to establish priority a member must refer to the substance of the motion. The new sessional order reflects a desire to prevent the raising of spurious and time-wasting points of order that allege that a member is debating the substance of their motion rather than establishing priority. The time for statements is limited and best utilised by orderly debate on the question to be determined. Members should note that the new sessional order does not give a member free rein to comprehensively debate their motion in the course of their three-minute statement. While brief reference to the substance of a motion will be permitted, the Chair will draw a member back to giving reasons as to why that motion should be accorded priority if the content of his or her statement exceeds the scope necessary to determine priority of one motion over another. Points of order will also be entertained if debate strays into attacks on other members, offensive words or other such overt, serious disorder."
PD 15/2/2012, 8295; VP 15/2/2012, 532 2. A Member, by leave, was permitted to speak on why his motion should be accorded priority after the three minutes had expired. PD 22/2/2012, 8731 3. During the consideration of motions to be accorded priority the Deputy Speaker reminded members that a point of order may be taken during the debate on the motion accorded priority |
| 2011 Precedent | 1. Point of order upheld that the member was debating the substance of their motion rather than establishing why it should have priority. PD 30/05/2011, 1415 2. Following a point of order that the member should be arguing why the motion deserve priority, the Speaker noted that it is sometimes necessary for members to deal with the substance of the motion when trying to establish priority. PD 21/06/2011, 2999 3. Following a point of order that the member was debating the substance of their motion rather than establishing priority, the Speaker noted that the member may refer to the motion in the course of establishing why it should be accorded priority. PD 3/08/2011, 3550; PD 18/10/2011, 6571 4. Following a point of order that the member was going into the substance of their motion, the Speaker noted that the member could refer to the substance of the motion briefly but that they have to convince the House of the priority of the motion. PD 10/8/2011, 4140-1; PD 18/10/2011, 6572 5. Notice of a motion to be accorded priority withdrawn by the Leader of the Opposition. PD 23/8/2011, 4429 6. Following a point of order that the member was not attempting to establish the priority of their motion, the Speaker reminded the member that the aim of their contribution is to establish priority for their motion. PD 13/9/2011, 5527 7. Following a point of order that a member was not arguing why their motion should take priority, the Speaker directed the member to outline why their motion should be accorded priority. PD 13/9/2011, 5528; PD 18/10/2011, 6572; PD 8/11/2011, 7043; PD 10/11/2011, 7363 8. Following a point of order that the member was not arguing why their motion should have priority over the other motion, The Speaker did not uphold the point of order noting that the standing orders state that a member should argue priority over other business of the House, not between one motion and another. PD 10/11/2011, 7365 |
| 2010 Precedent | 1. Leave of the House was obtained to permit: (1) Two additional Government members and two additional Opposition members to speak to the motion accorded priority; and
(2) The conclusion of consideration of the motion accorded priority prior to the commencement of government business. VP 9/3/2010, 1874 2. During the consideration of motions accorded priority a point of order was taken in relation to the wording of a motion for which priority was sought, on the grounds that it was "...grossly out of order". A member spoke to the point of order, suggesting that the Speaker had extended great latitude in relation to the wording of priority motions in the past. The Speaker stated that he would seek the advice of the Clerk and then rule on the matter at a later time. Later in the day the Speaker advised the House that, after consultation with the Clerk, the member submitted an amended motion that was in order. PD 1/6/2010, 23403, 23418 3. Leave of the House was obtained to permit an additional member (an Independent member) to speak to a motion accorded priority. At the conclusion of the member's speech another member sought, and was not granted leave to speak to the motion. PD 9/6/2010, 24106; VP 9/6/2010, 2144 4. During the consideration of motions accorded priority a point of order was taken that the member speaking was both using unparliamentary language and debating his substantive motion rather than establishing why his motion should be given priority. The Deputy Speaker stated that the member must establish why his motion should be accorded priority and that all members should conduct themselves in accordance with community expectations. PD 23/6/2010, 24666 |
| 2008 Precedent | 1. During consideration of motions accorded priority, a point of order was taken that the Leader of the Opposition was debating substantive matters that should only be debated if his motion was accorded priority. The Speaker reminded the Leader of the Opposition that he must give reasons why his motion should receive priority rather than debating the substance of the motion. PD 1/4/2008, 6177 2. During the consideration of motions to be accorded priority a point of order was taken that the member was not arguing why their motion should be given priority but was debating the motion. The Speaker noted that members were given a certain amount of flexibility in arguing why their motion should be given priority. PD 18/6/2008, 8752 3. During the consideration of motions to be accorded priority a point of order was raised that the Leader of the Opposition was debating the substance of his motion rather than establishing why it should be accorded priority. The Speaker noted that he allows a certain amount of latitude during priority debates. PD 24/6/2008, 9141 4. During consideration of motions to be accorded priority the Deputy Speaker ordered a member to confine his remarks to the substance of the motion of which notice had been given and for which he seeks priority. PD 25/6/2008, 9352; PD 25/6/2008, 9354 |
| 2007 Cons. Ruling | SPEAKER TORBAY: It has been brought to my attention that on Thursday 15 November 2007 there was some confusion as to what is the correct procedure at 4.15 p.m. on Thursdays when business is interrupted for the giving of general notices and private members' statements. Standing Order 108 clearly provides that on Thursday business before the House is interrupted at 4.15 p.m. unless a division is in progress or proceedings under the guillotine are in progress. Where a division has been called for prior to 4.15 p.m. but is concluded after 4.15 p.m., the business before the House, if it is a motion accorded priority or a matter of public importance, will lapse. That will occur regardless of whether the question has been proposed on the substantive motion before the House. As noted on page 126 of the Legislative Assembly's New South Wales Practice, Procedure and Privilege, if the debate on a motion accorded priority is interrupted pursuant to standing or sessional orders, such as at 4.15 p.m. on Thursdays for the giving of general business, general business notices and private members' statements, the motion lapses. If a division has occurred on an amendment to the motion and the division concludes after 4.15 p.m. there is no provision for the House to then express a view on the original motion. The question being put on the original motion is not consequential upon the amendment being disposed of; it is a different proceeding. That is the approach that was taken by the Deputy-Speaker on 8 November 2007. The question on the original motion can only be put after 4.15 p.m. with the concurrence of the House or by suspending Standing Order 108. The Deputy-Speaker sought the concurrence of the House on Thursday 8 November 2007 to put the question on the original motion and concurrence was not given. Accordingly, the motion lapsed. I acknowledge that from time to time the House has put the question on the original motion after 4.15 p.m. on Thursdays, but in order to ensure that the standing order is applied correctly the pr |
| 2007 Precedent | 1. During consideration of motions accorded priority, a point of order was taken that a member was debating the substance of her motion rather than reasons why the motion should be accorded priority. The Speaker explained that he would extend some latitude to members during consideration of motions accorded priority, but reminded the member to speak more directly to the question. The member continued speaking and another point of order was taken by the same member on the same grounds. The point of order was not upheld and the member concluded her speech. PD 5/6/2007, 739-740 2. During consideration of motions to be accorded priority the Leader of the House took a point of order that the Leader of The Nationals was debating the detail of his motion rather than showing why his motion should be accorded priority, and also misrepresenting events that took place earlier in the House on that day. The Speaker directed the Leader of The Nationals to confine his comments to establishing why his motion should be accorded priority and the Leader of The Nationals continued speaking. Another point of order was raised that the Leader of The Nationals had strayed from the Speaker's earlier ruling. The point of order was upheld and the Speaker again directed the Leader of The Nationals to confine his contribution to establishing priority. PD 28/6/2007, 2156 |
| 551 Sessional Order | Motions Accorded Priority
(adopted 14 February 2012) That, during the current session, unless otherwise ordered, standing order 109 shall read as follows: 109. The procedure for consideration of motions accorded priority shall be as follows: (1) Prior to Question Time on Tuesday and Wednesday, the Speaker shall ask if there are any written notices of motions to be accorded priority over the other business of the House. (2) No more than two notices shall be accepted at any one sitting of the House. (3) The notices shall be set down for consideration later in the sitting in accordance with the routine of business. (4) (a) The Members giving the notices shall each be permitted to make statements of up to 3 minutes as to why their notice should be accorded priority. No points of order regarding the scope or substance of the notice, or a quorum call will be entertained during the 3 minutes provided for the statement. (b) At the conclusion of the 3 minute statements the Speaker shall put the question on the first notice "That the motion of the Member for ... be accorded priority". (c) If the motion to accord priority is carried the Member may proceed to move their motion. (d) If the first motion to accord priority is not carried, the Speaker will then put the question on the second motion "That the motion of the Member for ... be accorded priority". (5) When the motion for priority is determined and the motion is moved, the following time limits shall apply: Mover - 5 minutes
Member next speaking - 5 minutes
Other Members
(limited to two) - 3 minutes
Reply - 3 minutes
Total - 19 minutes
(6) No quorum call will be permitted during the time set aside for a Motion Accorded Priority. (7) The motion will lapse at the time for interruption unless a division is in progress whereupon that division and any other division(s) to determine the matter shall be completed. |