RunasSudo
/
PointsOfOrder
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Activity

Edition 0.4.1 

Expand to include New Zealand
Add references to TSC, Wainberg and Pitchforth
Add consideration en bloc
Add description of "dilatory motions"
Discuss improper behaviour by Chair
Tweak details on some procedural motions; reconcile some disagreements on certain procedural motions
Add reference to optional/compulsory preferential voting
Minor edits
This commit is contained in:
RunasSudo 2021-03-20 16:32:00 +11:00
parent b898b8aa6f
commit 6098e2fcc7
Signed by: RunasSudo
GPG Key ID: 7234E476BF21C61A
12 changed files with 249 additions and 105 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

BIN
_static/cover.jpg
View File

Binary file not shown.
Side by Side Swipe Overlay

Before

Width:  |  Height:  |  Size: 80 KiB

After

Width:  |  Height:  |  Size: 79 KiB

261
altering-flow.rst
View File

@ -12,10 +12,13 @@ At times, it may come to be that the general procedure described in the precedin
A procedural motion is a form of subsidiary motion which relates to the procedure of the meeting itself.
Classifications of procedural motions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.. index:: motion; formal, formal motion
‘Formal motions’
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
****************
The term *formal motion* is sometimes encountered in this context – the meaning differs from source to source:
@ -27,7 +30,7 @@ The term *formal motion* is sometimes encountered in this context – the meanin
..
* According to :ref:`Lang (2015) <horsley>`,\ [#fn8]_ ‘formal motion’ means a motion which has gained a widely accepted ‘form’ (wording), purpose, effect and usage.
* According to :ref:`Lang (2015) <horsley>`,\ [#fn8]_ ‘formal motion’ means one of a limited range of motions which have gained a widely accepted ‘form’ (wording), purpose, effect and usage.
..
@ -39,6 +42,15 @@ The term *formal motion* is sometimes encountered in this context – the meanin
Because of this ambiguity, the author recommends the term ‘formal motion’ should not be used, and the intended meaning should be described more specifically.
.. index:: motion; dilatory, dilatory motion
‘Dilatory motions’
******************
Another term sometimes encountered is *dilatory motion*. :ref:`Lang (2015) <horsley>` defines a ‘dilatory motion’ as one which refers to a motion designed to ‘delay, shelve or frustrate a motion, or to obstruct or prevent the meeting from making a decision about it’.\ [#fn100]_ The term carries no judgement as to propriety, and simply encompasses motions described in this chapter under :ref:`‘Curtailing debate’ <curtailing-debate>`, :ref:`‘Avoiding consideration’ <avoiding-consideration>` and :ref:`‘Postponement’ <postponement>`.
In contrast, in North America, *Robert's Rules* defines a ‘dilatory motion’ as one which ‘seeks to obstruct or thwart the will of the assembly’,\ [#fn101]_ and authorities there provide that such motions should be refused by the Chair or ruled out of order.\ [#fn102]_
Moving procedural motions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
@ -58,6 +70,8 @@ The Chair then formally proposes the question on the procedural motion, by sayin
Unless otherwise noted, a procedural motion may not be amended, and the mover of a procedural motion generally has no right of reply.\ [#fn43]_ Once the debate is concluded (or immediately, if the procedural motion is not debatable), the Chair will put the procedural motion to a vote, and the meeting will proceed accordingly.
.. _curtailing-debate:
Curtailing debate
-----------------
@ -85,7 +99,7 @@ Closure
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Debatable?** | No\ [#fn15]_ |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Requires | No\ [#fn44]_ |
| **Requires | Authorities vary: Yes\ [#fn104]_ or No\ [#fn44]_ |
| seconder?** | |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Chair's | Yes\ [#fn15]_ |
@ -116,22 +130,24 @@ Gag
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Form** | ‘*That the speaker be no longer heard*’ |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Debatable?** | Authorities vary: Yes\ [#fn28]_ or No\ [#fn29]_ |
| **Debatable?** | Authorities vary: Yes\ [#fn28]_ or No\ [#fn29]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn115]_ |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Requires | Authorities vary: Yes\ [#fn28]_ or No\ [#fn29]_ |
| **Requires | Authorities vary: Yes\ [#fn28]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn115]_ or No\ [#fn29]_ |
| seconder?** | |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Chair's | Yes\ [#fn28]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn29]_ |
| **Chair's | Yes\ [#fn28]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn29]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn115]_ |
| discretion | |
| to accept?** | |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Unlike most other procedural motions, the gag may be moved while another member is speaking.\ [#fn28]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn30]_
Unlike most other procedural motions, the gag may be moved while another member is speaking.\ [#fn28]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn115]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn30]_
If carried, the effect is that the speaker must immediately end their current speech.
If the speaker is entitled to multiple speeches (for example, at a smaller meeting, or the mover who has a later right of reply), the motion applies only to the current speech.
Authorities vary on whether the gag may be debated. The author recommends the body's standing orders provide the gag is not debatable – it makes little sense for a motion to curtail debate to itself be debatable.
Guillotine
^^^^^^^^^^
@ -180,6 +196,8 @@ Kangaroo
The *kangaroo closure* authorises the Chair to select which amendments are worth considering, and exclude or ‘hop over’ (hence the name) other amendments even if they may otherwise be in order. Like the guillotine closure, the kangaroo closure is sometimes used in Parliament but rare outside of it.\ [#fn50]_
.. _avoiding-consideration:
Avoiding consideration
----------------------
@ -192,7 +210,7 @@ Objection to consideration
:ref:`Magner (2012) <joske>` suggests that, once a motion is moved (and, if applicable, seconded), but before debate commences, a member may rise and say ‘*I object to the consideration of the question*’.\ [#fn51]_ The effect of the objection is to require the Chair to immediately put without debate the question ‘*That the question be now considered*’. If two thirds of members voting on that question vote against the consideration, the matter is dropped.
This mechanism is not attested to in any other Australian or UK authority consulted, and appears to be a North American import from *Robert's Rules*.\ [#fn52]_
This mechanism is not attested to in any other Australian or UK authority consulted, and appears to be a North American import from *Robert's Rules*.\ [#fn52]_ Indeed, the other main North American authority, *The Standard Code*, rejects this procedure in favour of immediately moving to :mref:`lay on the table <lay-on-the-table>`.\ [#fn88]_
.. index:: next business, motion; next business, That; the meeting proceed to the next business, That; the motion (or amendment) be withdrawn
@ -210,17 +228,18 @@ Next business
| **Form** | ‘*That the meeting proceed to the next business*’ or ‘*That the motion (or |
| | “amendment”) be withdrawn*’\ [#fn19]_ |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Debatable?** | No\ [#fn19]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn20]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn45]_ |
| **Debatable?** | No\ [#fn19]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn20]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn45]_:superscript:`,`\ |
| | [#fn109]_ |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Requires | Authorities vary: Yes\ [#fn45]_ or No\ [#fn19]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn20]_ |
| seconder?** | |
| **Requires | Authorities vary: Yes\ [#fn45]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn109]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn112]_ |
| seconder?** | or No\ [#fn19]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn20]_ |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Chair's | Authorities vary: Yes\ [#fn19]_ or No\ [#fn20]_ |
| **Chair's | Authorities vary: Yes\ [#fn19]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn112]_ or No\ [#fn20]_ |
| discretion | |
| to accept?** | |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If carried, the effect of next business is that the motion to which it relates is immediately dismissed without a further vote. If there is a subsidiary motion before the meeting, next business applies to the subsidiary motion only.\ [#fn19]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn20]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn45]_
If carried, the effect of next business is that the motion to which it relates is immediately dismissed without a further vote. If there is a subsidiary motion before the meeting, next business applies to the subsidiary motion only.\ [#fn19]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn20]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn45]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn109]_
.. index:: previous question, motion; previous question, That; the question be not now put
@ -238,19 +257,20 @@ Previous question
| **Form** | ‘*That the question be not now put*’ |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Debatable?** | Yes, and debate may be taken on the substantive motion – see below\ |
| | [#fn17]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn18]_ |
| | [#fn17]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn18]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn53]_:superscript:`,`\ |
| | [#fn111]_ |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Requires | Yes\ [#fn17]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn18]_ |
| seconder?** | |
| **Requires | Yes\ [#fn17]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn18]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn53]_:superscript:`,`\ |
| seconder?** | [#fn111]_ |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Chair's | Authorities vary: Yes\ [#fn45]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn17]_ or No\ [#fn18]_ |
| discretion | |
| **Chair's | Authorities vary: Yes\ [#fn45]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn17]_:superscript:`,`\ |
| discretion | [#fn53]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn111]_ or No\ [#fn18]_ |
| to accept?** | |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The previous question may be moved only to a substantive motion, not to an amendment.\ [#fn45]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn17]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn18]_ Unlike other procedural motions, the debate on the previous question is not confined only to the procedural motion itself, but extends also to the substantive motion to which it relates.
The previous question may be moved only to a substantive motion, not to an amendment.\ [#fn45]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn17]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn18]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn53]_ Unlike other procedural motions, the debate on the previous question is not confined only to the procedural motion itself, but extends also to the substantive motion to which it relates.
If carried, the effect of the previous question is the same as :ref:`next business <next-business>` (as the substantive motion is ‘not now put’). If lost, the effect is the same as :ref:`closure <closure>` (as the substantive motion is ‘now put’).\ [#fn45]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn17]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn18]_
If carried, the effect of the previous question is the same as :ref:`next business <next-business>` (as the substantive motion is ‘not now put’). If lost, the effect is the same as :ref:`closure <closure>` (as the substantive motion is ‘now put’).\ [#fn45]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn17]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn18]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn53]_
:ref:`Magner (2012) <joske>` suggests that two thirds of members voting on the question must vote in favour for the previous question to be carried, but this is not supported by any other Australian authorities.\ [#fn53]_
@ -258,7 +278,7 @@ This would have the implication that, once the previous question is moved and ac
Note that this motion, the previous question as it exists in Australia and the Commonwealth, is *very* different to what is referred to as the *previous question* in North American meeting procedure (e.g. *Robert's Rules*). In North America, *previous question* refers to :ref:`closure <closure>`.\ [#fn4]_
In practice, the previous question is now primarily used to ‘confuse the meeting’.\ [#fn18]_ Therefore, the author recommends that a body's standing orders should provide that it is not in order to move the previous question.
In practice, the previous question is now primarily used to ‘confuse the meeting’.\ [#fn18]_ Indeed, the UK House of Lords removed this procedure in favour of :ref:`next business <next-business>` in 1998.\ [#fn89]_ Accordingly, the author recommends that a body's standing orders should provide that it is not in order to move the previous question.
Renewing consideration
----------------------
@ -292,11 +312,13 @@ Reconsideration of question
| to accept?** | |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
:ref:`Magner (2012) <joske>` permits a motion to reconsider to be moved to correct a hasty, ill-advised or erroneous decision – either the agreeing to or negativing of an earlier question. The motion must be moved at the same meeting that the original vote was made, and must be moved by a member who voted with the prevailing side (but may be seconded by anyone).\ [#fn60]_
:ref:`Magner (2012) <joske>` permits a motion to reconsider to be moved to correct a hasty, ill-advised or erroneous decision – either the agreeing to or negativing of an earlier question. The motion must be moved at the same meeting that the original vote was made.\ [#fn60]_
If carried, the effect is to set aside the result of the earlier vote, and to bring back the earlier question immediately to be voted on again.\ [#fn60]_
This procedure appears to be drawn from *Robert's Rules*,\ [#fn61]_ and is not attested to by any other Australian authority consulted. :ref:`Lang (2015) <horsley>` suggests that reconsideration of this form is permitted only if the rules provide.\ [#fn62]_ The author feels this procedure can be helpful, and recommends that bodies consider including provision in their standing orders permitting it.
This procedure is of North American origin,\ [#fn61]_ and is not attested to by any other Australian authority consulted. :ref:`Lang (2015) <horsley>` suggests that reconsideration of this form is permitted only if the rules provide.\ [#fn62]_ The author feels this procedure can be helpful, and recommends that bodies consider including provision in their standing orders permitting it.
:ref:`Magner (2012) <joske>`,\ [#fn60]_ ostensibly drawing on *Robert's Rules*,\ [#fn61]_ provides that the motion must be moved by a member who voted with the prevailing side (but may be seconded by anyone). Conversely, :ref:`Sturgis (2001) <tsc>` provides, and the author recommends, that the motion may be moved by anyone, on the basis that to provide otherwise would encourage gamesmanship (a member would be encouraged to initially vote insincerely to allow them to later move reconsideration), and that it is rarely possible to confirm how a member previously voted.\ [#fn90]_
.. index:: rescission, motion; rescission, That; [previous resolution] be rescinded
@ -311,7 +333,7 @@ Rescission of resolution
:width: 100%
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Form** | ‘*That [previous resolution] be rescinded*’ |
| **Form** | ‘*That [previous resolution] be rescinded (or “repealed” or “revoked”)*’ |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Debatable?** | Yes\ [#fn57]_ |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
@ -323,7 +345,7 @@ Rescission of resolution
| to accept?** | |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
A motion to rescind an earlier resolution may be moved as a substantive motion when no other business is before the meeting.
A motion to rescind (or ‘repeal’ or ‘revoke’) an earlier resolution may be moved as a substantive motion when no other business is before the meeting.
If carried, the effect is to nullify the effect of the earlier resolution, subject to the provisos below.
@ -335,6 +357,8 @@ Because of the wide range of positions on these various issues, the author recom
Rescission is not possible if the previous resolution has already been fully acted upon. Any action performed pursuant to a previous resolution remains valid even if the resolution is later rescinded.\ [#fn57]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn56]_
.. _postponement:
Postponement
------------
@ -355,19 +379,21 @@ Lay on the table
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Form** | ‘*That the matter be laid on the table*’ or ‘*That the matter lie on the table*’ |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Debatable?** | No\ [#fn21]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn22]_ |
| **Debatable?** | No\ [#fn21]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn22]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn105]_ |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Requires | No\ [#fn21]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn22]_ |
| seconder?** | |
| **Requires | Authorities vary: Yes\ [#fn105]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn114]_ or No\ |
| seconder?** | [#fn21]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn22]_ |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Chair's | Authorities vary: Yes\ [#fn21]_ or No\ [#fn22]_ |
| discretion | |
| **Chair's | Authorities vary: Yes\ [#fn21]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn114]_ or No\ |
| discretion | [#fn22]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn105]_ |
| to accept?** | |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The motion to lay on the table may be applied to a substantive motion or amendment, or to another matter, such as a report or letter presented.\ [#fn22]_
The motion to lay on the table may be applied to a substantive motion or amendment, or to another matter, such as a report or letter presented.\ [#fn22]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn105]_
If carried, the effect of the motion is to temporarily defer consideration of the current matter until the body resolves, at the same or a later meeting, to :ref:`‘take it from the table’ <take-from-table>`. The motion applies to all pending matters, so if an amendment is before the meeting, the motion to lay on the table applies to both the amendment and its principal motion.\ [#fn21]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn22]_
If carried, the effect of the motion is to temporarily defer consideration of the current matter until the body resolves, at the same or a later meeting, to :ref:`‘take it from the table’ <take-from-table>`. The motion applies to all pending matters, so if an amendment is before the meeting, the motion to lay on the table applies to both the amendment and its principal motion.\ [#fn21]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn22]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn105]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn114]_
In North America, *Robert's Rules* provides that the motion to lay on the table should only be used ‘when *something else* of immediate urgency has arisen’.\ [#fn96]_ In contrast, Australian procedure,\ [#fn22]_ and other North American authorities,\ [#fn97]_ are more permissive and permit the motion to be used, for example, to wait for more information before making a decision.
.. index:: take from the table, motion; take from the table, That; the matter be taken from the table, table; motion to take from
@ -384,19 +410,19 @@ Take from the table
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Form** | ‘*That [matter previously laid on the table] be taken from the table*’ |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Debatable?** | No\ [#fn21]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn22]_ |
| **Debatable?** | No\ [#fn21]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn22]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn106]_ |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Requires | Authorities vary: Yes\ [#fn22]_ or No\ [#fn21]_ |
| **Requires | Authorities vary: Yes\ [#fn22]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn106]_ or No\ [#fn21]_ |
| seconder?** | |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Chair's | Authorities vary: Yes\ [#fn21]_ or No\ [#fn22]_ |
| **Chair's | Authorities vary: Yes\ [#fn21]_ or No\ [#fn22]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn106]_ |
| discretion | |
| to accept?** | |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The motion to take from the table, like a substantive motion, may only be moved when no other business is before the meeting.\ [#fn21]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn22]_ Therefore, it may be moved and seconded by any member even if they previously spoke on the tabled matter.
If carried, the effect of the motion is to resume consideration of the matter previously tabled at the point at which it was interrupted. It is a continuation of the same discussion, so (in large meetings) those who spoke before the matter was tabled may not speak again (except the mover in reply).\ [#fn21]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn22]_
If carried, the effect of the motion is to resume consideration of the matter previously tabled at the point at which it was interrupted. It is a continuation of the same discussion, so (in large meetings) those who spoke before the matter was tabled may not speak again (except the mover in reply).\ [#fn21]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn22]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn114]_
It is a common practice that the member who moved that the matter lie on the table be afforded the first opportunity to speak in the resumed debate.\ [#fn22]_
@ -414,27 +440,28 @@ Adjournment of debate
| **Form** | ‘*That the debate be (or “stand”) adjourned*’ or ‘*That the debate be (or “stand”) |
| | adjourned to [time]*’ |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Debatable?** | Yes\ [#fn23]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn24]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn46]_ |
| **Debatable?** | Yes\ [#fn23]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn24]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn46]_:superscript:`,`\ |
| | [#fn107]_ |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Requires | Yes\ [#fn23]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn24]_ |
| seconder?** | |
| **Requires | Authorities vary: Yes\ [#fn23]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn24]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn113]_ |
| seconder?** | or No\ [#fn107]_ |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Chair's | No\ [#fn23]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn24]_ |
| discretion | |
| **Chair's | Authorities vary: Yes\ [#fn113]_ or No\ [#fn23]_:superscript:`,`\ |
| discretion | [#fn24]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn107]_ |
| to accept?** | |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The motion for adjournment of debate is debatable, and may be amended as to the time to which the debate is adjourned.\ [#fn23]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn24]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn46]_
The motion for adjournment of debate is debatable, and may be amended as to the time to which the debate is adjourned.\ [#fn23]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn24]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn46]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn113]_
If carried, the effect is to temporarily defer (*adjourn*) consideration of the current matter until the specified time. If no time is specified, a further motion may be moved fixing the time to adjourn the debate to;\ [#fn23]_ otherwise, the matter is deferred until the next regular meeting of the body.\ [#fn23]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn24]_
If carried, the effect is to temporarily postpone (*adjourn*) consideration of the current matter until the specified time. If no time is specified, a further motion may be moved fixing the time to adjourn the debate to;\ [#fn23]_ otherwise, the matter is postponed until the next regular meeting of the body.\ [#fn23]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn24]_
.. index:: adjournment; of debate (sine die), motion; adjourn debate (sine die), That; the debate be adjourned sine die
If the motion includes the words ‘*sine die*’ (without specified day), consideration of the matter is deferred indefinitely, until listed on a future agenda by the Chair, Secretary or notice of motion.\ [#fn24]_ In this respect, the effect would be similar to the motion to :ref:`lay on the table <lay-on-the-table>`.
If the motion includes the words ‘*sine die*’ (without specified day), consideration of the matter is postponed indefinitely, until listed on a future agenda by the Chair, Secretary or notice of motion.\ [#fn24]_ In this respect, the effect would be similar to the motion to :ref:`lay on the table <lay-on-the-table>`.
The motion applies to all pending matters, so if an amendment or other subsidiary motion is before the meeting, the motion to lay on the table applies to both the subsidiary motion and its principal motion.\ [#fn23]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn24]_
The motion applies to all pending matters, so if an amendment or other subsidiary motion is before the meeting, the motion to adjourn the debate applies to both the subsidiary motion and its principal motion.\ [#fn23]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn24]_
It is a common practice that the member who moved that the debate be adjourned be afforded the first opportunity to speak in the resumed debate.\ [#fn24]_
It is a common practice that the member who moved that the debate be adjourned be afforded the first opportunity to speak in the resumed debate.\ [#fn24]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn113]_
.. Resumption of adjourned debate
@ -453,12 +480,12 @@ Reference motion
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Form** | ‘*That the matter be referred to a committee*’ |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Debatable?** | Yes\ [#fn91]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn92]_ |
| **Debatable?** | Yes\ [#fn92]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn108]_ |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Requires | Yes\ [#fn91]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn92]_ |
| **Requires | Yes\ [#fn92]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn108]_ |
| seconder?** | |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Chair's | No\ [#fn91]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn92]_ |
| **Chair's | No\ [#fn92]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn108]_ |
| discretion | |
| to accept?** | |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
@ -469,11 +496,11 @@ Consideration of an item of business may also be deferred by referring that item
The text of the motion may specify in greater detail what is desired of the committee, for example, to refer the matter to a committee ‘for action’ or ‘for investigation and report’. The motion may also specify to which existing committee the matter should be referred, or, for a new committee (a *special* or *select* committee), the names of the committee members or how such a committee is to be appointed.
The motion is debatable, and may be amended as to the details of the committee and the terms of the reference.\ [#fn91]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn92]_
The motion is debatable, and may be amended as to the details of the committee and the terms of the reference.\ [#fn92]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn108]_
If carried, the effect is to dispose of the item of business until the committee reports back. If not specified in the reference motion, further motions should be moved to determine which committee to refer to, and so on.\ [#fn91]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn92]_
If carried, the effect is to dispose of the item of business until the committee reports back. If not specified in the reference motion, further motions should be moved to determine which committee to refer to, and so on.\ [#fn92]_
If moved as a subsidiary motion, the reference applies to all pending matters, so if an amendment is before the meeting, the reference motion applies to both the amendment and its principal motion.\ [#fn91]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn92]_
If moved as a subsidiary motion, the reference applies to all pending matters, so if an amendment is before the meeting, the reference motion applies to both the amendment and its principal motion.\ [#fn92]_
Refer back
**********
@ -486,16 +513,18 @@ Refer back
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Form** | ‘*That the matter be referred back to the committee*’ |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Debatable?** | Yes\ [#fn91]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn92]_ |
| **Debatable?** | Yes\ [#fn92]_ |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Requires | Yes\ [#fn91]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn92]_ |
| **Requires | Yes\ [#fn92]_ |
| seconder?** | |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Chair's | Authorities vary: Yes\ [#fn93]_ or No\ [#fn91]_ |
| **Chair's | No\ [#fn91]_ |
| discretion | |
| to accept?** | |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
.. comment Lang (2015) says ‘a Chair may exercise discretion in accepting it, regardless of whether the mover has already spoken on the main question’, but I think this is supposed to mean the discretion applies to waive the fact that the mover may have already spoken, not a general discretion to accept or reject the motion. This seems consistent with Lang's position on the reference motion itself.
Once a committee reports back on a matter referred to it, a further reference motion may be moved to refer the matter back to the committee, with or without further directions, as an alternative to rejecting the report. This may be done if the meeting believes the terms of the report are undesirable, or if further consideration is otherwise required by the committee.\ [#fn91]_
.. index:: adjournment; of meeting, motion; adjourn meeting, That; the meeting be adjourned to [time]
@ -514,23 +543,23 @@ Adjournment of meeting
| **Form** | ‘*That the meeting be (or “stand”) adjourned*’ or ‘*That the meeting be (or “stand”) |
| | adjourned to [time, or time and place]*’ |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Debatable?** | Yes\ [#fn25]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn26]_ |
| **Debatable?** | Authorities vary: Yes\ [#fn25]_ or No\ [#fn110]_ |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Requires | Yes\ [#fn25]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn26]_ |
| **Requires | Yes\ [#fn25]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn110]_ |
| seconder?** | |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Chair's | No\ [#fn25]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn26]_ |
| **Chair's | No\ [#fn25]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn110]_ |
| discretion | |
| to accept?** | |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The motion to adjourn the meeting is designed to temporarily suspend (*adjourn*) all proceedings of the meeting, with the intention that they be resumed at some later time, or another place, or both.
If carried, the effect of the motion is to suspend the meeting immediately until the specified time and/or place. No further business is possible, and so therefore any details of the adjournment should be finalised before the motion is put.\ [#fn25]_
If carried, the effect of the motion is to suspend the meeting immediately until the specified time and/or place. No further business is possible, and so therefore any details of the adjournment should be finalised before the motion is put,\ [#fn26]_ or at least before the Chair declares the meeting adjourned.\ [#fn110]_
The motion may prescribe the time and place specifically, or may prescribe, for example, that the meeting is to be adjourned ‘*to a time and place to be fixed by the Chair*’.\ [#fn64]_
If no time is prescribed, the meeting is to be adjourned to the time of the next regular meeting of the body.\ [#fn25]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn26]_
If no time is prescribed, the meeting is to be adjourned to the time of the next regular meeting of the body.\ [#fn25]_
If the motion includes the words ‘*sine die*’ (without specified day), see instead :msubref:`AdjournMeetingSD <adjourn-meeting-sine-die>`.
@ -551,7 +580,7 @@ Form of debate
Procedural motions in this section deal with the form in which a matter is debated.
.. index:: seriatim, motion; consider seriatim
.. index:: seriatim, motion; consider seriatim, That; the motion be considered seriatim
.. _consideration-seriatim:
@ -576,7 +605,7 @@ Consideration *seriatim*
| to accept?** | |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If a motion is long and divided into many parts (an :ref:`omnibus motion <omnibus-motion>`), a procedural motion may be moved to consider the motion *seriatim* (point by point).\ [#fn69]_
If a motion is long and divided into many parts (an :ref:`omnibus motion <omnibus-motion>`), a procedural motion may be moved to consider the motion *seriatim* (paragraph by paragraph).\ [#fn69]_
If carried, the Chair will then put the first part of the motion to debate, for example, ‘*That the first paragraph be agreed to*’. Debate is restricted to that part, and amendments may be moved only to that part. The question will then be put, e.g. ‘*That the first paragraph be agreed to*’ (or ‘*That the first paragraph, as amended, be agreed to*’).\ [#fn70]_
@ -586,7 +615,35 @@ Once all paragraphs are adopted or rejected, the meeting then considers the prea
By this point, the text of the motion has been finalised, and the final question is put for debate and then to a vote, ‘*That the motion be agreed to*’. If the question is agreed to, the motion is finally carried. If the question is negatived, the motion is lost.
.. index:: committee; of the whole
.. index:: en bloc, motion; consider en bloc, debate; cognate, That; [motions] be debated en bloc
Consideration *en bloc*
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.. tabularcolumns:: |Y|Z|
.. table::
:width: 100%
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Form** | ‘*That [motions] be debated (or “debated and voted on”) en bloc (or “together” or |
| | “concurrently”)*’ |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Debatable?** | Not described by any authority consulted |
+----------------+ +
| **Requires | |
| seconder?** | |
+----------------+ +
| **Chair's | |
| discretion | |
| to accept?** | |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Usually, only one motion is considered by a meeting at any one time. However, it may sometimes be desired to debate, or even vote on, multiple motions at the same time, known as consideration *en bloc*.\ [#fn98]_ In the Australian House of Representatives, this is known as *cognate debate* (when bills are debated together), or *consideration together* (when both debated and voted on together).\ [#fn99]_
This procedure was not described by any Australian authorities consulted, but can sometimes be seen at meetings. Typically, the intention to consider business *en bloc* will be noted in the agenda, and permission to do so obtained by :ref:`leave <leave>`.
.. index:: committee; of the whole, That; the meeting resolve itself into a committee of the whole
.. _cotw:
@ -625,7 +682,7 @@ In North America, *Robert's Rules* provides that the distinction between the mee
The committee of the whole was abandoned by the Australian House of Representatives in 1994,\ [#fn74]_ and (although still used in the Senate) is considered obscure and rarely seen in meetings of ordinary organisations. The following motion should be preferred.
.. index:: motion; debate as if in committee, committee; debate as if in
.. index:: motion; debate as if in committee, committee; debate as if in, That; the matter be debated as if in committee
.. _committee-debate:
@ -665,6 +722,8 @@ If only one or a few members wish to speak, :ref:`leave <leave>` of the meeting
The more formal method of allowing general discussion is described in the next section.
.. index:: That; grievances be noted
.. _grievance-debate:
Grievance debate
@ -691,7 +750,7 @@ Grievance debate
This section describes the motion ‘*That the Chair do leave the chair*’ when used as a substantive motion when no other business is before the meeting. See also :mref:`‘Vacate the chair’ <vacate-chair>`.
The motion ‘*That the Chair do leave the chair*’ is nominally one on adversely reviewing the performance of the Chair.\ [#fn79]_ However, it is customarily used as a motion on which debate may be taken on all subjects, and therefore as a vehicle for general discussion. It is known, in this sense, as a *grievance debate*, hence the alternative form.\ [#fn78]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn80]_
The motion ‘*That the Chair do leave the chair*’ is nominally one on adversely reviewing the performance of the Chair.\ [#fn79]_ However, it is customarily used as a motion on which debate may be taken on all subjects, and therefore as a vehicle for general discussion. It is known, in this sense, as a *grievance debate*, hence the alternative form.\ [#fn80]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn117]_
If the motion ‘*That the Chair do leave the chair*’ were to be carried, the effect would be as described in :ref:`‘Vacate the chair’ <vacate-chair>`; namely, to terminate the meeting. Therefore, this form of motion is typically withdrawn by leave when the desired discussion has been completed.\ [#fn78]_
@ -747,9 +806,9 @@ Dissent from Chair's ruling
| **Form** | ‘*That the ruling of the Chair (or “your ruling”) be dissented from (or “disagreed |
| | with”)*’ |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Debatable?** | No\ [#fn36]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn37]_ |
| **Debatable?** | No\ [#fn36]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn37]_ – but see below |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Requires | No\ [#fn36]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn37]_ |
| **Requires | Authorities vary: Yes\ [#fn116]_ or No\ [#fn36]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn37]_ |
| seconder?** | |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Chair's | Authorities vary: see below |
@ -759,13 +818,13 @@ Dissent from Chair's ruling
In order to maintain confidence in the proceedings and permit disputes to be determined quickly, the ruling of a Chair on a point of order or other matter should be accepted. However, it is open to a meeting to move a motion of *dissent* if it disagrees.\ [#fn33]_ The motion should be moved immediately once the disputed ruling is made.\ [#fn36]_
The motion is not debatable, but some authorities provide that the mover may briefly explain the reasons for the disagreement, and the Chair may briefly outline the reasons for the ruling.\ [#fn39]_
The motion is not debatable, but some authorities provide that the mover may briefly explain the reasons for the disagreement, and the Chair may briefly outline the reasons for the ruling.\ [#fn116]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn39]_
Authorities vary on whether a Chair has discretion in accepting a motion of dissent,\ [#fn38]_ and positions of Australian courts have been inconsistent. :ref:`Lang (2015) <horsley>` reconciles the conflict by suggesting that, in the absence of specific rules, the Chair has discretion in accepting a motion of dissent if the meeting is permitted to replace the Chair, but not otherwise.\ [#fn34]_
Traditionally, the question is put in the form ‘*That the Chair's ruling be upheld*’, under the presumption that the Chair has the support of the meeting (so a ‘No’ vote is required for dissent). Alternatively, the question may be put in the same form that the motion was moved.\ [#fn36]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn37]_
If the dissent is successful, the effect of the motion is to express the meeting's dissatisfaction with the Chair's ruling, but, unless the rules otherwise provide, it does not obligate the Chair to change the ruling per se. The Chair should decide immediately whether or not to change the ruling.\ [#fn36]_
If the dissent is successful, the effect of the motion is to express the meeting's dissatisfaction with the Chair's ruling, but, unless the rules otherwise provide, it does not obligate the Chair to change the ruling per se. The Chair should decide immediately whether or not to change the ruling.\ [#fn36]_ If, on the other hand, the meeting's vote is binding, the process is more commonly referred to as *appeal* rather than *dissent*.\ [#fn103]_
.. index:: want of confidence, motion; want of confidence, Chair; want of confidence in, confidence; want of, That; the Chair do not have the confidence of this meeting
@ -955,7 +1014,7 @@ Adjournment of meeting *sine die*
| to accept?** | |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The word *adjourn* comes from the Old French *a jorn (nomé)*, meaning ‘to an (appointed) day’.\ [#fn6]_ It would make sense, then, for the term *adjourn* to be reserved for postponement to a specified time. However, a motion adjourning the meeting ‘*sine die*’ (without specified day) is commonly used to close the meeting, with no intention of reopening it.\ [#fn25]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn26]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn7]_
The word *adjourn* comes from the Old French *a jorn (nomé)*, meaning ‘to an (appointed) day’.\ [#fn6]_ It would make sense, then, for the term *adjourn* to be reserved for postponement to a specified time. However, a motion adjourning the meeting ‘*sine die*’ (without specified day) is commonly used to close the meeting, with no intention of reopening it.\ [#fn25]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn7]_
Confusingly, this is sometimes the intention even if the words ‘*sine die*’ are omitted.\ [#fn25]_
@ -1023,50 +1082,69 @@ Recall from :mref:`‘Chair’ <chair>` that a Chair is a requirement for a vali
.. [#fn1] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.2.
.. [#fn12] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.2, citing ‘Some authorities’; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, pp. 39–40.
.. [#fn8] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.3.
.. [#fn3] Price DJ. *Procedural motion or formal motion? Which term to use*. 2009 May 3 [cited 2021 Jan 30]. https://davidprice.com/meeting-mastery-posts/procedural-motion-or-formal-motion-which-term-to-use/.
.. [#fn3] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶9.05; Price DJ. *Procedural motion or formal motion? Which term to use*. 2009 May 3 [cited 2021 Jan 30]. https://davidprice.com/meeting-mastery-posts/procedural-motion-or-formal-motion-which-term-to-use/.
.. [#fn42] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 61.
.. [#fn85] :ref:`Rigg 1920 <rigg>`, p. 64.
.. [#fn2] :ref:`Evans 2016 <odgers>`, p. 234.
.. [#fn100] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.4.
.. [#fn101] :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, §39.
.. [#fn102] :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, §39; :ref:`Sturgis 2001 <tsc>`, p. 41.
.. [#fn14] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.7; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.9.
.. [#fn13] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.7; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 61.
.. [#fn43] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.7; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 61. :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶¶6.17–25 disagrees, providing that the reference motion and meeting adjournment (but not debate adjournment) give a right of reply.
.. [#fn15] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.17; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.8; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 58.
.. [#fn15] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.17; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.8; :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶9.50; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 58.
.. [#fn104] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶9.50; :ref:`Pitchforth 2010 <pitchforth>`, ¶3-230.
.. [#fn44] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.17; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.8.
.. [#fn54] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶9.50.
.. [#fn4] :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, §16.
.. [#fn4] :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, §16; :ref:`Sturgis 2001 <tsc>`, p. 65.
.. [#fn28] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.17.
.. [#fn29] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.25.
.. [#fn115] :ref:`Pitchforth 2010 <pitchforth>`, ¶3-265.
.. [#fn30] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.7.
.. [#fn47] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.25.
.. [#fn48] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.25; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 61; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.9.
.. [#fn49] None of the authorities consulted provided wording for the kangaroo closure. This wording is based loosely on Standing Order 32 of the UK Parliament. *Standing Orders of the House of Commons: public business 2019*. London: UK Parliament; 2019 Nov 5. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201919/cmstords/341/body.html#_idTextAnchor169.
.. [#fn48] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.25; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 61; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.9; :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, p. 393.
.. [#fn49] None of the authorities consulted provided wording for the kangaroo closure. This wording is based loosely on Standing Order 32 of the UK Parliament. *Standing Orders of the House of Commons: public business 2019*. London: UK Parliament; 2019 Nov 5 [cited 2021 Feb 26]. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201919/cmstords/341/body.html#_idTextAnchor169.
.. [#fn50] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.10; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 61.
.. [#fn51] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶9.15.
.. [#fn52] :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, §26.
.. [#fn88] :ref:`Sturgis 2001 <tsc>`, p. 233.
.. [#fn19] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.19.
.. [#fn20] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.12.
.. [#fn45] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 59.
.. [#fn109] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶9.40.
.. [#fn112] :ref:`Pitchforth 2010 <pitchforth>`, ¶3-250.
.. [#fn17] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.11.
.. [#fn18] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.18.
.. [#fn53] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶9.45.
.. [#fn111] :ref:`Pitchforth 2010 <pitchforth>`, ¶3-245.
.. [#fn89] Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. *Modernisation of the House of Commons: fourth report*. London: UK Parliament; 1998 [cited 2021 Mar 20]. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmmodern/600iv/md0405.htm.
.. [#fn60] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶9.70.
.. [#fn61] :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, §37.
.. [#fn62] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶11.21, referring to this as ‘recommittal’ and applying it only at the discretion of the chair when some members voted erroneously in confusion or misunderstanding.
.. [#fn90] :ref:`Sturgis 2001 <tsc>`, p. 40.
.. [#fn57] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶11.18. ‘A rescission motion that is accepted should be dealt with according to the normal procedure for motions’.
.. [#fn55] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶11.15.
.. [#fn56] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.39.
.. [#fn58] :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶35:2.
.. [#fn59] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶9.65.
.. [#fn21] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.24.
.. [#fn21] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.24, App. 7.
.. [#fn22] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.13.
.. [#fn105] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶9.25.
.. [#fn114] :ref:`Pitchforth 2010 <pitchforth>`, ¶3-260.
.. [#fn96] :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, §17 (emphasis added).
.. [#fn97] :ref:`Sturgis 2001 <tsc>`, p. 69.
.. [#fn106] :ref:`Manger 2012 <joske>`, ¶9.60.
.. [#fn23] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.22.
.. [#fn24] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶13.17.
.. [#fn46] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 60.
.. [#fn107] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶9.20.
.. [#fn113] :ref:`Pitchforth 2010 <pitchforth>`, ¶3-225.
.. [#fn92] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.21; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.19.
.. [#fn108] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶9.30.
.. [#fn91] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.21.
.. [#fn92] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.19.
.. [#fn93] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.20.
.. [#fn25] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.23.
.. [#fn26] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶13.18.
.. [#fn25] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.23; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶13.18.
.. [#fn110] :ref:`Manger 2012 <joske>`, ¶11.15.
.. [#fn26] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.23.
.. [#fn64] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶13.5; *Myer Queenstown Garden Plaza Pty Ltd v Port Adelaide City Corp* (1975) 11 SASR 504.
.. [#fn65] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶13.5; *Stoughton v Reynolds* (1736) Fortes Rep 168.
.. [#fn66] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶13.5; *Salisbury Gold Mining Co v Hathorn* [1897] AC 268.
@ -1074,6 +1152,8 @@ Recall from :mref:`‘Chair’ <chair>` that a Chair is a requirement for a vali
.. [#fn68] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶13.14; *Scadding v Lorant* (1851) 3 HLC 418; *Jackson v Hamlyn* [1953] Ch 577; Wills v Murray (1850) 4 Exch 843; *R v Grimshaw* (1847) 10 QB 747.
.. [#fn69] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.36.
.. [#fn70] The procedure described in this section is based on the clause-by-clause *consideration in detail* procedure of the House of Representatives: :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, pp. 377–379.
.. [#fn98] Local Government Association of South Australia. *Council meeting procedures handbook*. 2nd edition. Adelaide: Local Government Association of South Australia; 2015 [cited 2021 Mar 2]. pp. 15–16. https://www.loxtonwaikerie.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0032/351959/Meeting-Procedures-Handbook-2013.pdf.
.. [#fn99] :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, pp. 388–390.
.. [#fn71] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.95.
.. [#fn72] :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶52:7.
.. [#fn73] :ref:`Evans 2016 <odgers>`, p. 424.
@ -1082,17 +1162,20 @@ Recall from :mref:`‘Chair’ <chair>` that a Chair is a requirement for a vali
.. [#fn77] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶7.25; *NRMA v Parker* (1986) 11 ACLR 1; *Stanham v National Trust of Australia* (1989) 7 ACLC 628.
.. [#fn95] cf. :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, pp. 500–502.
.. [#fn94] :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, pp. 498–500.
.. [#fn78] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶12.55.
.. [#fn78] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶12.55; :ref:`Pitchforth 2010 <pitchforth>`, ¶3-285.
.. [#fn80] :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, pp. 586–587.
.. [#fn79] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶6.80. See also :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, p. 586–587, which discusses the historical background.
.. [#fn117] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶12.55.
.. [#fn32] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶6.26.
.. [#fn31] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶12.18.
.. [#fn36] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.6.
.. [#fn37] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶7.11.
.. [#fn116] :ref:`Pitchforth 2010 <pitchforth>`, ¶3-270.
.. [#fn33] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.5.
.. [#fn39] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.6. Contrast :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶7.11, which regards this as ‘undesirable’.
.. [#fn38] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶7.11, suggests dissent is always permitted, but cites ‘Some authorities’ taking the contrary view. :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶6.70, suggests dissent (which it calls an ‘appeal’) is never permitted (except on ruling a motion out of order) unless the rules specifically allow.
.. [#fn34] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.5; citing *Wandsworth & Putney Gaslight & Coke Co v Wright* (1870) 22 LT 404; *Wishart v Henneberry* (1962) 3 FLR 171.
.. [#fn103] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶6.70.
.. [#fn5] The phrasing ‘do not’ (as opposed to ‘does not’) preserves the subjunctive mood traditionally used in motions: :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶12.71. However, ‘does not’ is common wording, even traditionally, in a motion of want of confidence.
.. [#fn35] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶12.76.
.. [#fn40] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶6.85.
@ -1100,7 +1183,21 @@ Recall from :mref:`‘Chair’ <chair>` that a Chair is a requirement for a vali
.. [#fn10] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 56.
.. [#fn11] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 18.
.. [#fn86] This is the wording used in the Australian Parliament: :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, p. 336.
.. [#fn87] This wording has been attested to in New Zealand and a number of state Parliaments. See e.g. *Minutes of the proceedings of the Legislative Council*. Sydney: Legislative Council (NSW); 1895 Sep 4. No. 6, p. 22. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/hp/housepaper/3568/Min-18950904-Cor.pdf; *Parliamentary debates (Hansard)*. Brisbane: Legislative Assembly (Qld); 1866 Jul 20. p. 568. https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/hansard/1866/1866_07_20_A.pdf; *Hansard*. Adelaide: Legislative Council (SA); 2005 Dec 1. p. 3453. http://hansardpublic.parliament.sa.gov.au/_layouts/15/Hansard/DownloadHansardFile.ashx?t=historicpdf&d=HANSARD-4-1090; *New Zealand Hansard precedent manual*. Wellington (NZ): House of Representatives; 2004. p. 325. https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/downloadhansard/pdf/aphea/NewZealand/NZPrecedentManual.pdf.
.. [#fn87] This wording has been attested to in New Zealand and a number of state Parliaments. See e.g.:
* *Minutes of the proceedings of the Legislative Council*. Sydney: Legislative Council (NSW); 1895 Sep 4. No. 6, p. 22. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/hp/housepaper/3568/Min-18950904-Cor.pdf
..
* *Parliamentary debates (Hansard)*. Brisbane: Legislative Assembly (Qld); 1866 Jul 20. p. 568. https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/hansard/1866/1866_07_20_A.pdf
..
* *Hansard*. Adelaide: Legislative Council (SA); 2005 Dec 1. p. 3453. http://hansardpublic.parliament.sa.gov.au/_layouts/15/Hansard/DownloadHansardFile.ashx?t=historicpdf&d=HANSARD-4-1090
..
* *New Zealand Hansard precedent manual*. Wellington (NZ): House of Representatives; 2004. p. 325. https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/downloadhansard/pdf/aphea/NewZealand/NZPrecedentManual.pdf.
.. [#fn81] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶10.12.
.. [#fn82] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 37.
.. [#fn83] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶10.11.

2
conf.py
View File

@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ copyright = '2021 Lee Yingtong Li'
author = 'Lee Yingtong Li'
# The full version, including alpha/beta/rc tags
release = '0.4'
release = '0.4.1'
version = release

2
epub-copyright.xhtml
View File

@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
</head><body>
<p>Edition 0.1 first published 2018<br/>
Edition 0.2 first published 2021<br/>
Edition 0.4 first published 2021</p>
Edition 0.4.1 first published 2021</p>
<p><a href="https://yingtongli.me/pointsoforder">https://yingtongli.me/pointsoforder</a></p>
<p>Copyright © 2021 Lee Yingtong Li. You may use this book, at your option, under either of the following licences:
<ul><li>the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence</a></li>

14
holding-meetings.rst
View File

@ -188,6 +188,17 @@ The Chair, when discharging these duties, should be regarded as a servant of the
To this end, the Chair should avoid participating in debate (except in occasional circumstances, such as to offer factual information, or keep the discussion on topic), and should avoid moving or seconding motions (unless the subject is completely uncontentious).
Failure to discharge duties
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If the Chair fails to discharge their duties correctly, it is open to members to raise a :mref:`point of order <point-of-order>`, move :mref:`dissent <dissent>` or, if absolutely necessary, move to :ref:`replace the chair <no-confidence>`.
One would hope that the situation would never become so severe as to require even further escalation, but it could be that the Chair improperly refuses to accept these recourses. Courts have held that, without authority from the rules, the Chair ‘cannot refuse to put motions which are in order under those rules’.\ [#fn41]_
There does not appear to be any Australian authority on what can be done (other than commence legal action) if the Chair does refuse, but North American authorities provide that if the Chair ignores a point of order or appeal (dissent) made by a member, the member may themselves put the question to the meeting.\ [#fn42]_
If it comes to be that the Chair improperly purports to adjourn the meeting and leave, despite a clearly indicated intention by members to dissent and continue the meeting, the purported adjournment will be invalid, and the meeting may elect a new Chair and continue.\ [#fn40]_
.. rubric:: Footnotes
.. [#fn1] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶1.22. ‘A valid meeting needs to comply with all relevant requirements’, ‘proper notice needs to be given of the meeting, a quorum must be present, and a Chair … should preside’.
@ -227,6 +238,9 @@ To this end, the Chair should avoid participating in debate (except in occasiona
.. [#fn33] The distinction is necessary, for example, in the motion :subref:`LeaveChair <vacate-chair>`.
.. [#fn35] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶6.10.
.. [#fn38] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.10.
.. [#fn41] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.5; *Wishart v Henneberry* (1962) 3 FLR 171.
.. [#fn42] :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶62:8–9.
.. [#fn40] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶¶6.85, 11.20; *Shaw v Thompson* (1876) 3 Ch D 233; *Wishart v Henneberry* (1962) 3 FLR 171; *Catesby v Burnett* [1916] 2 Ch 325; *National Dwellings Society v Sykes* [1894] 3 Ch 159.
.. |CompAct| replace:: *Companies Act 1981* (Cth)
.. _CompAct: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004A02466

2
index.rst
View File

@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ Points of Order
.. raw:: html
<h2 style="margin-top: 0;">Meeting procedure in Australia and the UK</h2>
<h2 style="margin-top: 0;">Meeting procedure in Australia, New Zealand and the UK</h2>
.. toctree::
:maxdepth: 3

2
introduction.rst
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ Introduction
What is this book about?
------------------------
This book is about meeting procedure in Australia, with rough applicability to countries with similar procedures – such as the UK, from where Australian meeting procedure originates, and other Commonwealth countries.
This book is about meeting procedure in Australia, with rough applicability to countries with similar procedures – such as the UK, from where Australian meeting procedure originates, New Zealand, and other Commonwealth countries.
This book takes a descriptive, rather than prescriptive, approach to meeting procedure. We review a wide range of :ref:`authorities on meeting procedure <authorities>`, from both Australia and abroad, and from various different contexts. We combine this with the author's personal experience, presenting a comprehensive *description* of the range of meeting procedures in use, to give this book the widest possible applicability.

22
meetings.rst
View File

@ -102,6 +102,8 @@ Authorities on meeting procedure
The following :ref:`authorities on meeting procedure <authorities>` are cited within this book:
.. rubric:: Authorities on Australian/NZ/UK meeting procedure
.. _citrine:
* Citrine W. *The ABC of chairmanship*. 4th ed. Citrine N, Cannell M, editors. London: Fabian Society; 1982 [reprinted 2016].
@ -114,6 +116,10 @@ The following :ref:`authorities on meeting procedure <authorities>` are cited wi
* Magner ES. *Joske's law and procedure at meetings in Australia*. 11th ed. Sydney: Thomson Reuters; 2012.
.. _pitchforth:
* Pitchforth R. *Meetings: practice and procedure in New Zealand*. 4th ed. Auckland: CCH New Zealand; 2010.
.. _puregger:
* Puregger M. *The Australian guide to chairing meetings*. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press; 1998 [reprinted 2005].
@ -122,11 +128,23 @@ The following :ref:`authorities on meeting procedure <authorities>` are cited wi
* Renton NE. *Guide for meetings and organisations*. 8th ed. Vol. 2, ‘Guide for meetings’. Sydney: Thomson; 2005.\ [#fn4]_
.. rubric:: Authorities on North American meeting procedure
.. comment * Kerr MK, King HW. *Procedures for meetings and organizations*. Ontario: Carswell Legal; 1984.
.. _ronr:
* Robert HM III, Honemann DH, Balch TJ, Seabold DE, Gerber S. *Robert's rules of order newly revised*. 12th ed. New York: PublicAffairs; 2020.
The following older authorities are also cited, primarily for historical context:
.. _tsc:
* Sturgis A. *The standard code of parliamentary procedure*. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2001.
.. _wainberg:
* Wainberg JM, Wainberg MI. *Wainberg's society meetings including rules of order*. 2nd ed. Toronto: CCH Canadian; 2001.
.. rubric:: Older authorities, primarily for historical context
.. _palgrave:
@ -136,7 +154,7 @@ The following older authorities are also cited, primarily for historical context
* Rigg J. *How to conduct a meeting: standing orders and rules of debate*. London: George Allen & Unwin; 1920 [reprinted 1922]. https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.74714.
The following authorities, on parliamentary meeting procedure specifically, are also cited:
.. rubric:: Authorities on parliamentary meeting procedure
.. _horp:

4
miscellanea.rst
View File

@ -69,9 +69,9 @@ For some time now, society has recognised a need to write gender-neutral documen
In this book, we have adopted gender-neutral nouns, such as ‘Chair’ rather than ‘Chairman’, and we encourage this practice.
Historically, there have been 2 primary approaches to gender-neutral pronouns: either using ‘he or she’ (‘he/she’, ‘(s)he’, etc.), or omitting pronouns entirely and repeating the noun wherever necessary. Neither of these approaches seems entirely satisfactory,\ [#fn19]_ so we have adopted the use of the singular ‘they’.
Historically, there have been 2 primary approaches to gender-neutral pronouns: either using ‘he or she’ (‘he/she’, ‘(s)he’, etc.), or omitting pronouns entirely and repeating the noun wherever necessary. Neither of these approaches seems entirely satisfactory,\ [#fn19]_ so we have adopted the use of the *singular ‘they’*.
The use of the singular ‘they’ to refer to an unknown or arbitrary person is grammatically correct, has been attested to since 1375, and was used by Shakespeare himself.\ [#fn20]_ Grammatical objections to the use of the singular ‘they’ should be rejected in the strongest terms.\ [#fn21]_
The use of the singular ‘they’ to refer to an unknown or arbitrary person is grammatically correct, has been attested to since 1375, and was used by Shakespeare himself.\ [#fn20]_ Revisionist grammatical objections to the use of the singular ‘they’ should be rejected in the strongest terms.\ [#fn21]_
Plain English
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

8
preamble.tex.txt
View File

@ -69,7 +69,7 @@
\begingroup\footnotesize
Edition 0.1 first published 2018 \\
Edition 0.2 first published 2021 \\
Edition 0.4 first published 2021
Edition 0.4.1 first published 2021
\vspace{1cm}
@ -97,13 +97,15 @@
\endgroup
}
% Fix list spacing in tables
% Fix list spacing in tables and footnotes
\usepackage{enumitem}
\def\table@fixitemize{\setlist[itemize]{leftmargin=2.5ex,before=\vspace*{-1.7em},after=\vspace*{-1.3em}}}
\let\orig@sphinxattablestart\sphinxattablestart
\def\sphinxattablestart{\orig@sphinxattablestart\table@fixitemize}
\let\orig@sphinxatlongtablestart\sphinxatlongtablestart
\def\sphinxatlongtablestart{\orig@sphinxatlongtablestart\table@fixitemize}
\let\orig@sphinxAtStartFootnote\sphinxAtStartFootnote
\def\sphinxAtStartFootnote{\orig@sphinxAtStartFootnote\setlist[itemize]{leftmargin=7.5ex,before={},after=\vspace*{-0.7em}}}
% Override Sphinx title page
\usepackage[iso]{isodate}
@ -123,7 +125,7 @@
\begin{flushright}%
\sphinxlogo
\py@HeaderFamily
{\Huge Points of Order \\\vspace{0.2cm}\normalfont\sffamily\LARGE Meeting procedure in Australia and the UK\vspace{0.5cm} \par} % ADD SUBHEADING
{\Huge Points of Order \\\vspace{0.2cm}\normalfont\sffamily\LARGE Meeting procedure in Australia,\\New Zealand and the UK\vspace{0.5cm} \par} % ADD SUBHEADING
{\itshape\LARGE \py@release\releaseinfo \par}
\vfill
{\LARGE

30
transacting-business.rst
View File

@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ Broadly, there are two kinds of motions:
..
* *subsidiary motions* are ones which are dependent on, or relate to, an existing item of business;\ [#fn36]_ for example, to postpone consideration of an existing item
* *subsidiary motions* are ones which are dependent on, or relate to, other business;\ [#fn36]_ for example, to adopt a report,\ [#fn16]_ or to postpone consideration of an existing item
In this chapter, we will focus primarily on substantive motions. In :mdoc:`‘Altering the flow’ <altering-flow>`, we will cover in greater detail other subsidiary motions, including *procedural motions*, which relate to regulating the procedure of the meeting.
@ -40,8 +40,8 @@ By convention, motions also traditionally observe a number of other principles:
* Motions are conventionally worded as one single sentence, although the sentence may be split up into multiple parts for easier reading.\ [#fn5]_ For example:
| That:
| \(a) a finance committee be established; and
| \(b) the committee consist of 5 members appointed by the President; and
| \(a) a finance committee be established, and
| \(b) the committee consist of 5 members appointed by the President, and
| \(c) the Chair of the committee be elected by and from the committee members.
.. index:: motion; omnibus, omnibus motion, motion; composite, composite motion
@ -183,6 +183,8 @@ Note that while it is usual for the Chair not to accept a motion until it is for
Once a motion is accepted by the Chair, it becomes the property of the meeting. It cannot be amended or withdrawn unless the meeting agrees – for example, by :ref:`amendment <amendments>`, :ref:`procedural motion <procedural-motions>` or :ref:`leave <leave>`.\ [#fn74]_
.. index:: debate, motion; debate on
.. _debate:
Debate
@ -237,6 +239,8 @@ Chairs have the power to regulate breaches of decorum. A misbehaving member may
In extreme cases, if a person's behaviour is so obstructive to the proceedings that the meeting cannot be peaceably continued, the Chair may order that person be removed from the meeting and prevented from returning.\ [#fn43]_
.. index:: right of reply, reply; right of, debate; right of reply
.. _right-of-reply:
Right of reply
@ -463,7 +467,7 @@ In this chapter, we have introduced a great many rules of meeting procedure. In
Clearly, it would be untenable to expect the Chair to notice every potential irregularity, and so other members of the meeting are permitted to assist the Chair in drawing attention to potential irregularities by raising *points of order*.
A member who wishes to raise a point of order should stand, or raise their hand, as described at :ref:`‘Obtaining the call’ <obtaining-the-call>`, and announce ‘*Chair, I rise to a point of order*’, ‘*On a point of order*’ or simply ‘*Point of order*’. A point of order should be raised as soon as the perceived irregularity is observed,\ [#fn68]_ and so may interrupt another member while they have the call.
A member who wishes to raise (or ‘take’\ [#fn68]_) a point of order should stand, or raise their hand, as described at :ref:`‘Obtaining the call’ <obtaining-the-call>`, and announce ‘*Chair, I rise to a point of order*’, ‘*On a point of order*’ or simply ‘*Point of order*’. A point of order should be raised as soon as the perceived irregularity is observed,\ [#fn68]_ and so may interrupt another member while they have the call.
The original speaker should then stop speaking and (if standing) resume their seat.\ [#fn66]_
@ -471,7 +475,7 @@ The interrupter should then briefly state the point of order. It is most polite
The point of order may be debated,\ [#fn69]_ but it would be advisable to avoid extended discussion.
The Chair will then make a decision, either upholding the point of order (traditionally by stating ‘*The point is well taken*’) or dismissing the point of order (traditionally by stating ‘*The point is not well taken*’ or ‘*There is no point of order*’). The meeting then continues in accordance with the ruling.
The Chair will then make a decision, either upholding the point of order (e.g. ‘*I accept the point of order*’ or ‘*The point is well taken*’) or dismissing the point of order (e.g. ‘*I do not accept the point of order*’, ‘*The point is not well taken*’ or ‘*There is no point of order*’). The meeting then continues in accordance with the ruling.
If a member disagrees with the Chair's ruling, they may move :msubref:`DissentMotion <dissent>`.
@ -482,17 +486,24 @@ Other points
Some authorities also recognise other types of ‘points’ which may be raised. These include:
.. index:: point; of explanation
* *points of explanation*: raised by a member (including to interrupt another who has the call) whose words have been misrepresented or misinterpreted, to give a brief explanation (compare the :ref:`exceptions to the one-speech-per-debate rule <exceptions-one-speech>` in :mref:`‘Debate’ <debate>`)\ [#fn71]_
..
.. index:: point; of information
* *points of information*: raised by a member to ask something about procedure or the subject under discussion\ [#fn72]_
.. index:: point; of privilege, point; of procedure, point; of parliamentary inquiry
In North America, local authorities additionally refer to *points of privilege* (*personal* and *general*) and *points of procedure* (*parliamentary inquiry*).\ [#fn20]_ In Australia, these would be raised as points of order (or perhaps points of information, as appropriate).
.. rubric:: Footnotes
.. [#fn6] Some authorities reserve the term *substantive motion* only for motions after they have been amended: :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.3; :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 38; :ref:`Lang 2015 <renton>`, ¶10.24; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 38.
.. [#fn1] In North America, *Robert's Rules* calls these *original main motions*: :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶6:2.
.. [#fn36] :ref:`Natzler et al. 2019 <may>`, ¶20.2.
.. [#fn16] Some authorities prefer to classify motions to confirm minutes, adopt reports, etc. as substantive motions, as they are moved when no other motion is pending: :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.3. In North America, *Robert's Rules* would refer to these as *incidental main motions*: :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, §5.
.. [#fn7] Even more traditionally, motions begin with the longer phrase ‘*Be it resolved that*’.
.. [#fn81] However, even in the Australian House of Representatives, the indicative mood is routinely used instead in motions expressing an opinion (rather than ordering an action), for example, ‘That this House *is* of the opinion that …’: :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, p. 297.
.. [#fn5] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.5.
@ -561,9 +572,10 @@ Some authorities also recognise other types of ‘points’ which may be raised.
.. [#fn33] This practice is said to have originated when the UK House of Commons had only one division lobby – the Noes would retire to the division lobby, while the Ayes would remain in the chamber. This would allow government MPs to vote against an opposition amendment without needing to leave the chamber, collecting the votes of anyone too lazy to move. In the Australian House of Representatives, it means that government MPs can vote against an opposition amendment without leaving their seats. It also means that, once the question is negatived, no further amendments may be moved to those words: Wright BC, Fowler PE, editors. *House of Representatives practice*. 6th ed. Canberra: Department of the House of Representatives; 2012. p. 315. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice6.
.. [#fn80] Additionally, in the case of an amendment to omit all words after ‘That’ and substitute others, an amendment on which opinions are exactly evenly divided would result in both questions being tied/negatived, and the motion nonsensically left to stand with only the word ‘That’! Parliamentary Speakers have ruled that, in such a case, the motion is dropped. As preposterous as this sounds, it has in fact occurred, and led to the fall of the Deakin Government in 1908! :ref:`Palgrave 1896 <palgrave>`, p. 67; :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, p. 310.
.. [#fn34] :ref:`Natzler et al. 2019 <may>`, ¶20.35.
.. [#fn68] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.3; :ref:`Renton 2012 <renton>`, ¶7.4.
.. [#fn68] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.3; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶7.4.
.. [#fn66] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.3.
.. [#fn67] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 91; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 54.
.. [#fn69] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.3; :ref:`Renton 2012 <renton>`, ¶7.5.
.. [#fn67] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.1; :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 91; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 54.
.. [#fn69] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.3; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶7.5.
.. [#fn71] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 92; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 54–55.
.. [#fn72] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 92.
.. [#fn20] :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, §§19, 33; :ref:`Sturgis 2001 <tsc>`, pp. 72, 90; :ref:`Wainberg et al. 2001 <wainberg>`, pp. 130–132.

7
voting.rst
View File

@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ The 2 characteristics of a *poll* are that:
* in proportion to varying voting power, or
* on behalf of absent members by proxy, or
* by absent members presenting later where the poll is to be held at a later date\ [#fn7]_
* if the poll is to be held at a later date, by absent members presenting then\ [#fn7]_
At common law, unless the rules provide otherwise, immediately once the Chair declares the result of a show of hands, or before the show of hands is taken, any member may demand that a poll be taken.\ [#fn12]_
@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ Instant runoff (preferential) voting
*Instant runoff voting (IRV)* is a voting system for a single winner. It is also known as *preferential voting* (though there are other preference-based voting systems), *majority-preferential voting*, the *alternative vote (AV)* or, particularly in America, *ranked choice voting (RCV)*. IRV is the method used to elect members of the Australian House of Representatives.
In IRV, a voter places the number ‘1’ next to their most-preferred candidate, a ‘2’ next to their 2nd preference, and so on until they have numbered as many candidates as they wish.
In IRV, a voter places the number ‘1’ next to their most-preferred candidate, a ‘2’ next to their 2nd preference, and so on until they have numbered as many candidates as they wish.\ [#fn40]_
To count the votes, the first-preference votes are counted initially. If any candidate has a majority (>50%) of the votes, they are declared elected. Otherwise, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and each of their votes transferred to its next available preference. The process is repeated until one candidate has a majority.
@ -311,11 +311,12 @@ Again, an in-depth discussion of these systems is beyond the scope of this book.
.. [#fn28] :ref:`Renton 2005b <renton1>`, ¶11.10.
.. [#fn31] :ref:`Renton 2005b <renton1>`, ¶11.15.
.. [#fn34] :ref:`Renton 2005b <renton1>`, ¶11.73.
.. [#fn40] This is known as *optional preferential voting*. In a variation, *compulsory preferential voting*, each voter must number every candidate.
.. [#fn39] More specifically, STV satisfies the *Droop proportionality criterion*: If there are *V* votes and *S* seats, let the *Droop quota* be *V*/(*S*\ +1). If *k* Droop quotas worth of votes prefer one group of candidates over the others, that group must win at least *k* seats: Woodall DR. ‘Properties of preferential election rules’. *Voting Matters*. 1994 Dec; (3): 8–15. http://www.votingmatters.org.uk/ISSUE3/P5.HTM.
.. [#fn21] Hill ID, Wichmann BA, Woodall DR. ‘Algorithm 123: single transferable vote by Meek's method’. *The Computer Journal*. 1987 Jun; **30**: 277–281. https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.NSF/Files/meekm/%24file/meekm.pdf.
.. [#fn22] *Proportional Representation Society of Australia*. Canberra: Proportional Representation Society of Australia; 2020 [cited 2021 Feb 11]. ‘Meek system of single transferable vote (STV) counting’. https://www.prsa.org.au/meek_stv.htm.
.. [#fn32] More technically, we say that first past the post fails the *Condorcet loser criterion*.
.. [#fn33] Cumulative voting can conditionally provide proportionality *if* the minority allocates their votes optimally, whereas this is cleanly and automatically handled in STV.
.. [#fn33] Some of these systems can conditionally provide proportionality *if* the minority allocates their votes optimally, whereas this is cleanly and automatically handled in STV.
.. [#fn35] :ref:`Renton 2005b <renton1>`, ¶¶11.60–63; :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 61, which confusingly refers to it as the ‘preferential vote’ system.
.. [#fn36] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, pp. 58–59, referred to in a stepwise process, using show-of-hands, as the ‘exhaustive vote’.
.. [#fn37] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, pp. 58–59, described as a variant of the ‘exhaustive vote’.