| Related Orders, Precedents and Rulings |
|---|
| Notes for the Chair | SPEAKER’S RULING, DISSENT (SO 95)
All Members 10 minutes
(The Speaker may call on the Member to reply
if debate exceeds 30 minutes) |
| S.O. 107 of 1994 (Repealed) | 107. The procedure for dissenting from a ruling or decision of the Speaker is as follows: (1) The Member must give notice of a motion at the time for notices stating the grounds of the dissent. (2) The notice must be given within 3 clear sitting days after the sitting day at which the ruling was given. (3) The motion shall take precedence of all other business on the day appointed. (4) The Speaker shall be entitled to put the question on any such motion after debate has exceeded 30 minutes. (5) The notice lapses if not moved or postponed on the appointed day. (6) Any Member and the mover in reply shall each be entitled to speak up to 10 minutes. |
| 2006 Precedent | Dissent moved That this House: (1) notes: (a) the Speaker's decision on 7 September 2006 to disallow a question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and
(b) the Speaker's refusal on 19 September 2006 to disallow a question to the Deputy Premier. (2) dissents from Mr Speaker's ruling of 19 September 2006 on the grounds of inconsistency and bias. Question negatived. PD 20/09/2006, pp 2003-2011
NB: The notice of motion for the dissent was given during general business, general notices rather than the time for notices for business with precedence. As such the dissent motion was not considered to have precedence. However, standing and sessional orders were suspended to bring the debate on. |
| 2001 Precedent | 1. During the course of a personal explanation about allegations made during Private Member's Statements, a Member took a point of order under S.O. 79, that the House had already agreed that the Private Members' Statement be noted, therefore the Member could not speak about the matter unless he moved a recission of that motion. When the Speaker ruled that there was no point of order, the Member gave notice of a dissent from that ruling. Later, the notice of dissent was ruled out of order as it was not in the correct form. PD 24/10/01, 17921
PD 25/10/01, 18033, 18036 |
| 2000 Precedent | 1. Member moved, pursuant to notice, dissent from Speaker’s ruling given on 6 June 2000 when he ruled that there were no points of order involved when certain Members sought to have certain answers by Ministers declared Ministerial Statements and that there were no points of order involved when the Member for Hawkesbury sought to have an answer given by the Minister for Transport ruled out of order as it anticipated debate on a motion before the House and listed for consideration immediately after Question Time. Motion negatived, on division. VP 20/06/00, 606 |
| 1997 Precedent | 1. Motion moved and agreed to, That Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended to allow the consideration forthwith of the Motion of Dissent from the Speaker’s Ruling, notice of which was given this day. Dissent moved (on notice) from the Speaker's ruling where he upheld points of order taken against a member while speaking to the matter of priority for consideration of an urgent motion pursuant to Standing Order 120. Motion lost on division after debate. VP 22/04/97, 811-812 2. Moved, pursuant to notice, That this House dissents from the ruling of the Speaker given on Tuesday 6 May 1997 in which he first ruled a question without notice to the Minister for Gaming and Racing was in order and then ruled the Premier was at liberty to answer that question. VP 15/05/97, 897
Question negatived
VP 20/05/97, 904 3. Member moved, pursuant to notice, That this House dissents from the ruling of The Speaker given on Wednesday 14 May 1997 in the Urgency Debate in which he ruled that it was out of order to read out the motion being presented by the Member for Miranda as urgent, when the previous day The Speaker ruled it in order for the Leader of the National Party to read out his urgency motion. Question negatived
VP 29/05/97, 980 4. Member moved, That this House dissents from the ruling of the Speaker on 17 September 1997 when he ruled the statement of the Premier in reply to a question from the Member for Badgerys Creek was not a ministerial statement. Motion negatived on division. VP 18/09/97, 65 5. Mr Hartcher moved, pursuant to notice, That this House dissents from the decision of The Speaker given on Tuesday 14 October 1997 when he upheld points of order taken against the Leader of the Opposition while speaking to establish priority for consideration of an urgent motion pursuant to Standing Order 120. Negatived on division
VP 13/11/97, 242 & 243 6. Mr Hartcher moved, pursuant to notice, That this House dissents from the ruling of The Speaker given on Wednesday 15 October 1997 when he permitted the Minister for Fair Tr |
| 1996 Precedent | 1. Motion moved, pursuant to notice, of dissent against ruling of Deputy Speaker on 16/5/96 (when upholding a point of order against the member for the Hills that members should not refer to newspaper articles unless they can verify the accuracy of the statement made) on the ground that it is not part of the standing orders that members should personally be able to verify the accuracy of all newspaper articles they quote from. Interrupted for private members’ statements VP 22/5/96, 164. Resumed, negatived on division VP 23/5/96, 177-178. 2. Standing Order amended to state that notice must be given within 3 clear days after the sitting day at which the ruling was given. VP 25/9/96, 430, PD 25/9/96, 4579. |
| 1995 Precedent | 1. Motion (by leave) to suspend standing orders to permit notice of motion of dissent given this day to proceed forthwith. Motion moved (dissent based on ruling by Speaker that question asked by member for Hurstville relating to the standards of debate was within the standing orders) and negatived. Speaker ruled on a point of order that the notice would not have been moved within the required 3 sitting days after the ruling except that leave had been given to suspend standing orders to bring the motion on forthwith. VP 1/6/95, 109-111; PD 1/6/95, 593-597 2. Motion (on notice) of dissent from Speaker’s ruling on 15/11/95 "...when he accepted the words ‘You’re a liar’ after giving a previous ruling that such words were not acceptable and, if used, would result in the immediate suspension of the offending member." Negatived on division. VP 22/11/95, 420-421; PD 22/11/95, 3711-3717 3. Leader of the House makes distinction between a decision of the Chair and a ruling, during debate on motion of dissent from Speaker’s ruling. PD 22/11/95, 3715 4. Motion (on notice) of dissent from Speaker’s ruling on 15/11/95 in relation to a point of order taken by the Leader of the Opposition in which he alleged that the Premier had lied. Negatived on the casting vote of the Speaker. VP 22/11/95, 421; PD 22/11/95, 3717-3720 5. Motion (on notice) of dissent from Speaker’s ruling on 15/11/95 in which he ruled that a member must confine himself to the reasons for urgency (in arguing that the member’s motion for urgent consideration should proceed) and not enter into debate on the substantive motion. Negatived on division. VP 22/11/95, 422-423; PD 22/11/95, 3720-3726 6. Motion (on notice) of dissent from Speaker’s ruling on 15/11/95 against a member’s point of order in relation to the anticipation rule. Negatived on division. VP 22/11/95, 423-424; PD 22/11/95, 3726-3730 |
| 1994 Precedent | The Leader of the Opposition denied leave to suspend standing orders to enable debate on a dissent from the Speaker's ruling that his amendment was out of order. PD 27/10/94, 4878 |
| 1993 Precedent | 1. Notice of motion given, that this House dissent from the ruling of the Speaker on 2nd March, 1993, that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's point of order had no substance and he failed to uphold such point of order. Point of order taken that the notice of a motion was out of order because it did not refer to the reference the Speaker made to the points that were made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, or to the question that was raised at that time. The Speaker agreed and stated that if the member wished to rephrase his notice of motion, he would still have an opportunity to move it tomorrow or within the next three days. PD 2/3/93, 162 2. Point of order upheld that a question without notice commencing 'In relation to the answer given to the question asked by the honourable member for Ashfield' was a supplementary question. The member for Ashfield gave notice later that day of dissent with the Speaker's ruling. PD 8/5/92, 4092-3
PD 24/6/92, 4110-1
VP 24/6/92, 362-4 |
| 1940 Cons. Ruling | During question time, Speaker asked whether he had seen a statement in the morning's press. The Speaker asked another member whether he had stated to the press that..."I was overlooked every time I sought the call from the Speaker". The Member replying that he did, the Speaker made a considered statement deprecating the member for using the press to criticise the Chair: "I would point out to Members that there are two courses to pursue when an hon. Member has a difference with the Chair or thinks that he is not receiving fair treatment from the Chair. One is provided by the Standing Order that allows an hon. Member to move a motion in this House with a view to correcting any action by the Chair. The other course is the mean, despicable and cowardly method of going to the press and making a statement to it, as it is well known that the Speaker cannot enter into a controversy through the channels of the press."
The Speaker then addressed the Members claims and concluded by saying that: "The statement by the hon. Member and the innuendo it contains is completely and absolutely without foundation, and I suggest to the hon Member that he should have adopted the more straightforward and manly course, if he was suffering some disappointment, of either coming to me or moving a motion against the Chair. His action in going to the press is most unseemly and most unparliamentary. It would not occur in any British Parliament and would be adopted only by an irresponsible member.....I wish I were on the floor of the House so that I could say to the House what I actually think, but putting it mildly I will only say now that the hon. Member's action is undignified, unparliamentary and reprehensible in the last degree."
The Member attempted to make a personal explanation, claiming that the Speaker had left a record for the Acting Speaker of who was to be called in his absence, and his name did not appear on that record. The Speaker ordered the Member to resume his seat, stating that he could allow untruths to be told about the C |