Parliamentary Procedure

Speaker's Ruling

The SPEAKER (14:09): Yesterday, the member for West Torrens raised a point of order referring to a government notice of motion appearing on the Notice Paper concerning the examination of the Auditor-General's Report and an answer provided to the house by the Minister for Energy and Mining that canvassed the Auditor-General's Report into the health budget performance in the last financial year. The point of order raised by the member for West Torrens is that the minister's answer anticipated debate on a matter appearing on the Notice Paper and was therefore out of order.

The anticipation rule restricts matters that are on the Notice Paper for deliberation and decision from being pre-empted by an unscheduled debate on the same matter. The rule is codified in House of Assembly standing order 184. However, it is fair to say that this principle of parliamentary practice and the relevant standing order have been inconsistently applied over many years, particularly during question time. This has resulted in some confusion for members over time as to its appropriate action. So I have done the research, and I quote Blackmore, Practice of the House of Assembly, 1885, page 324, as to how the anticipation rule applies:

It is not competent to discuss the details of a Bill to be considered; nor to anticipate Motions of which Notice has been given; nor to discuss votes passed or votes standing for consideration; nor to reply to anything said in a debate on a vote that has been passed.

Standing order 184 is the most obvious instance of the rule being applied to the proceedings of the house. It relates to motions, seeking to anticipate any matter already on the Notice Paper. While it can be argued that standing order 184 does not apply to questions, the practice of the house has been to apply the anticipation rule during question time.

In applying the rule to question time, questions that may be regarded as an attempt to anticipate debate because they relate to matters that are relevant to the intent, are within the scope or are part of the contents of motions or bills already on the Notice Paper have been ruled out of order in the past. They should be ruled out of order on the basis that they invite an answer that would, if provided, be a breach of the rule of anticipation.

In the point of order that was raised by the member for West Torrens yesterday, while the question was in order and I allowed it, the issue concerned the answer provided by the minister. I acknowledge that the minister, in answering the orderly question, was referring to an Auditor-General's report, albeit not the Auditor-General's annual report. However, based on the well-established and accepted practice of the house, the minister could have been restricted from referring to the report of the Auditor-General to avoid anticipating debate on the notice of motion appearing on the Notice Paper. I see no reason why the established practice of the house should change from allowing the anticipation rule to apply to question time.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens is called to order.

Mr Duluk: You are the father of the house, Tom.

The SPEAKER: The member for Waite is also called to order.