Altering the flow

Procedural motions, generally

1At times, it may come to be that the general procedure described in the preceding chapters is temporarily unsuited towards the discussion before a meeting. In this case, members may wish to move a procedural motion.

2A procedural motion is a form of motion which relates to the procedure of the meeting itself.

Classifications of procedural motions

‘Formal motions’

3The term formal motion is sometimes encountered in this context – the meaning differs from source to source:

• According to Renton (2005),[1] ‘formal motion’ means a motion moved as a ‘formality’ – not because it expresses some novel substantive proposal for discussion, but to accomplish a well-accepted ‘formal’ outcome. This includes procedural motions, as well as motions such as ‘That the minutes be confirmed’.

• Some believe ‘formal motion’ refers to specific procedural motions designed to ‘dispose of the business before the chair’, either temporarily or permanently.[2]

• According to Lang (2015),[3] ‘formal motion’ means one of a limited range of motions which have gained a widely accepted ‘form’ (wording), purpose, effect and usage.

• Some believe that ‘formal motion’ has exactly the same meaning as ‘procedural motion’, i.e. motions that affect the ‘form’ of the meeting.[4]

• According to Puregger (1998)[5] and Rigg (1920),[6] ‘formal motion’ means a motion which is put and determined without debate or amendment. This is also the meaning in the Senate, which has a mechanism allowing motions of all kinds to be ‘taken as formal’.[7]

4Because of this ambiguity, the author recommends the term ‘formal motion’ should not be used, and the intended meaning should be described more specifically.

‘Dilatory motions’

5Another term sometimes encountered is dilatory motion. Lang (2015) 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’.[8] The term carries no judgement as to propriety, and simply encompasses motions described in this chapter under ‘Curtailing debate’, ‘Avoiding consideration’ and ‘Postponement’.

6In contrast, in North America, Robert's Rules defines a ‘dilatory motion’ as one which ‘seeks to obstruct or thwart the will of the assembly’,[9] and authorities there provide that such motions should be refused by the Chair or ruled out of order.[10]

Moving procedural motions

7A member may move a procedural motion in the same way as described in ‘Moving a motion’, by obtaining the call and saying ‘I move’, followed by the words of the motion.

8The forms of various different procedural motions, along with their effects and specific rules relating to each, are presented in this chapter. The forms provided are illustrative only, and minor differences in wording with the same effect should be accepted.

9Some procedural motions are accepted at the discretion of the Chair, and the Chair may decline to accept such a procedural motion even if validly moved.[11]

10Not all procedural motions are open to debate, but if the motion is, the mover of the procedural motion may then speak in favour. If necessary, a seconder should then be sought, and if the procedural motion is debatable, they may then speak on the procedural motion.

11As with an amendment, since the mover and seconder will need to obtain the call, a member (at a large meeting) who has already spoken in the debate, or moved or seconded a previous amendment or procedural motion, may not move or second a procedural motion.[12]

12There is substantial disagreement on which procedural motions are debatable, which require a seconder, and which are accepted only at the Chair's discretion – described in detail in the sections on each procedural motion. To avoid contention, the author recommends that the body's standing orders should make specific provision for these matters.

13The Chair then formally proposes the question on the procedural motion, by saying ‘The question is that’ followed by the rest of the procedural motion. If the procedural motion is debatable, it is then opened to debate. As with an amendment, this is a separate question, so members may speak on the procedural motion even if they have already spoken in a debate to which the procedural motion relates. The debate must be confined only to the appropriateness of the procedural motion.

14Unless otherwise noted, a procedural motion may not be amended, and the mover of a procedural motion generally has no right of reply.[13] 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

15Procedural motions in this section have the effect of limiting debate, generally with the view to bringing forward a decision on the question.

Closure

Form	‘That the question be now put’
Debatable?	No: Lang (2015), Magner (2012), Puregger (1998), Renton (2005)[14]
Requires seconder?	Yes: Magner (2012), Pitchforth (2010)[15] No: Lang (2015), Renton (2005)[16]
Chair's discretion to accept?	Yes: Curry et al. (1975),[17] Lang (2015), Magner (2012), Puregger (1998), Renton (2005)[14]

16Unlike most other procedural motions, the closure may be moved while another member is speaking.[14]

17If carried,[18] the effect of the closure motion is to end the debate immediately. No other discussion, aside from the mover in reply (if applicable) is permitted, nor are any further amendments. If there is a subsidiary motion (e.g. an amendment or another procedural motion) before the meeting, the closure applies to the subsidiary motion only.[14]

18In North America, closure is also referred to as cloture, or ordering the previous question.[19] However, this is very different to what is called the previous question in Australian and Commonwealth meeting procedure.

Gag

Form	‘That the speaker be no longer heard’
Debatable?	Yes: Lang (2015)[20] No: Pitchforth (2010),[21] Renton (2005)[22]
Requires seconder?	Yes: Lang (2015)[20], Pitchforth (2010)[21] No: Renton (2005)[22]
Chair's discretion to accept?	Yes: Lang (2015)[20], Pitchforth (2010),[21] Renton (2005)[22]

19Unlike most other procedural motions, the gag may be moved while another member is speaking.[20]^,[21]^,[23]

20If carried, the effect is that the speaker must immediately end their current speech.

21If 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.

22Authorities 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

Form	‘That the speaker be heard for (or “the debate be limited to”) a further [length of time] only’
Debatable?	No: Renton (2005)[24]
Requires seconder?	No: Renton (2005)[24]
Chair's discretion to accept?	Yes: Renton (2005)[24]

23The guillotine closure is a closure or gag that applies after a specified amount of time. In effect, it provides a time limit for the speaker or the debate. The guillotine closure is sometimes used in Parliament but rare in ordinary organisations.[25]

Kangaroo

Form	‘That the Chair have the power to select which amendments be put to the meeting in this debate’[26]
Debatable?	Not described by any authority consulted
Requires seconder?
Chair's discretion to accept?

24The 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.[27]

Avoiding consideration

25Procedural motions in this section may appear similar to those in the previous section, but whereas those in the previous section seek to bring forward voting on the original question, motions in this section seek to avoid voting on the original question entirely.[28]

26Of course, if there is any disagreement, there will then need to be a vote on whether to avoid voting on the original question, which would seem to somewhat defeat the point, but the distinction may be important for some meeting participants.

Next business

Form	‘That the meeting proceed to the next business’ or ‘That the motion (or “amendment”) be withdrawn’[29]
Debatable?	No: Curry et al. (1975),[30] Lang (2015),[31] Magner (2012),[32] Renton (2005),[29] Puregger (1998)[33]
Requires seconder?	Yes: Curry et al. (1975),[30] Magner (2012),[32] Pitchforth (2010),[34] Puregger (1998)[33] No: Renton (2005),[29] Lang (2015)[31]
Chair's discretion to accept?	Yes: Pitchforth (2010),[34] Renton (2005)[29] No: Curry et al. (1975),[30] Lang (2015)[31]

27If 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.[29]^,[31]^,[32]^,[33]

Previous question

Form	‘That the question be not now put’
Debatable?	Yes, and debate may be taken on the substantive motion – see below: Curry et al. (1975),[30] Lang (2015),[35] Magner (2012),[36] Pitchforth (2010),[37] Renton (2005)[38]
Requires seconder?	Yes: Curry et al. (1975),[30] Lang (2015),[35] Magner (2012),[36] Pitchforth (2010),[37] Renton (2005)[38]
Chair's discretion to accept?	Yes: Lang (2015),[35] Magner (2012),[36] Pitchforth (2010),[37] Puregger (1998)[33] No: Curry et al. (1975),[30] Renton (2005)[38]

28The previous question may be moved only to a substantive motion, not to an amendment.[30]^,[33]^,[35]^,[36]^,[38] 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.

29If carried,[18] the effect of the previous question is the same as next business (as the substantive motion is ‘not now put’). If lost, the effect is the same as closure (as the substantive motion is ‘now put’).[30]^,[33]^,[35]^,[36]^,[38]

30This imply that, once the previous question is moved and accepted, no further amendments may be moved. To avoid this, Renton (2005), which is of the opinion that the Chair has no discretion to decline the motion, alternatively suggests that further amendments may be moved, and the previous question is to be treated as a foreshadowed motion until all amendments are dealt with.[38]

31Note 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 closure.[19]

32In practice, the previous question is now primarily used to ‘confuse the meeting’.[38] Indeed, the UK House of Lords removed this procedure in favour of next business in 1998.[39] Accordingly, the author recommends that a body's standing orders should provide that it is not in order to move the previous question.

Postponement

33Procedural motions in this section seek to postpone consideration of a question until some later time.

Lay on the table

Form	‘That the matter be laid on the table’ or ‘That the matter lie on the table’
Debatable?	No: Lang (2015),[40] Magner (2012),[41] Renton (2005)[42]
Requires seconder?	Yes: Magner (2012),[41] Pitchforth (2010)[43] No: Lang (2015),[40] Renton (2005)[42]
Chair's discretion to accept?	Yes: Pitchforth (2010),[43] Renton (2005)[42] No: Lang (2015),[40] Magner (2012)[41]

34The 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.[40]^,[41]

35If 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 ‘take it from the 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.[40]^,[41]^,[42]^,[43]

36In 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’.[44] In contrast, Australian procedure,[40] and other North American authorities,[45] are more permissive and permit the motion to be used, for example, to wait for more information before making a decision.

Take from the table

Form	‘That [matter previously laid on the table] be taken from the table’
Debatable?	No: Lang (2015),[40] Manger (2012),[46] Renton (2005)[42]
Requires seconder?	Yes: Lang (2015),[40] Manger (2012)[46] No: Renton (2005)[42]
Chair's discretion to accept?	Yes: Renton (2005)[42] No: Lang (2015),[40] Manger (2012)[46]

37The motion to take from the table, like a substantive motion, may only be moved when no other business is before the meeting.[40]^,[42] Therefore, it may be moved and seconded by any member even if they previously spoke on the tabled matter.

38If 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).[40]^,[42]^,[43]

39It 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.[40]

Adjournment of debate

Form	‘That the debate be (or “stand”) adjourned’ or ‘That the debate be (or “stand”) adjourned to [time]’
Debatable?	Yes: Lang (2015),[47] Magner (2012),[48] Puregger (1998),[49] Renton (2005)[50]
Requires seconder?	Yes: Lang (2015),[47] Pitchforth (2010),[51] Renton (2005)[50] No: Magner (2012)[48]
Chair's discretion to accept?	Yes: Pitchforth (2010)[51] No: Lang (2015),[47] Magner (2012)[48] Renton (2005)[50]

40The motion for adjournment of debate is debatable, and may be amended as to the time to which the debate is adjourned.[47]^,[49]^,[50]^,[51]

41If 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;[50] otherwise, the matter is postponed until the next regular meeting of the body.[47]^,[50]

42If 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.[47] In this respect, the effect would be similar to the motion to lay on the table.

43The 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.[47]^,[50]

44It 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.[52]

Reference motion

Form	‘That the matter be referred to a committee’
Debatable?	Yes: Lang (2015), Magner (2012), Renton (2005)[53],[54]
Requires seconder?	Yes: Lang (2015), Magner (2012), Renton (2005)[53],[54]
Chair's discretion to accept?	No: Lang (2015), Magner (2012), Renton (2005)[53],[54]

45Consideration of an item of business may also be deferred by referring that item to a committee by a reference motion. A reference motion may be applied as a subsidiary motion to a substantive motion or amendment, or to another matter, such as a report or letter presented. A reference motion may also be moved as a substantive motion, to refer a matter that is not currently before the meeting.

46The 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.

47The motion is debatable, and may be amended as to the details of the committee and the terms of the reference.[53]^,[54]

48If 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.[53]

49If 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.[53]

Refer back

Form	‘That the matter be referred back to the committee’
Debatable?	Yes: Lang (2015), Renton (2005)[53]
Requires seconder?	Yes: Lang (2015), Renton (2005)[53]
Chair's discretion to accept?	No: Renton (2005)[55]

50Once 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.[55]

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: Lang (2015), Magner (1994), Renton (2005)[56],[57] No: Manger (2012)[58]
Requires seconder?	Yes: Lang (2015), Manger (2012), Renton (2005)[56],[58]
Chair's discretion to accept?	No: Lang (2015), Manger (2012), Renton (2005)[56],[58]

51The 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.

52If 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,[59] or at least before the Chair declares the meeting adjourned.[58]

53The 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’.[60]

54If no time is prescribed, the meeting is to be adjourned to the time of the next regular meeting of the body.[56]^,[57]

55If the motion includes the words ‘sine die’ (without specified day), see instead ‘Adjournment of meeting (sine die)’.

56In general, a meeting has the power to adjourn itself by resolution.[61] However, this may be altered by the rules of the body. For example, the rules of many bodies provide that the Chair ‘may adjourn the meeting with the consent of the meeting’. In this case, the meeting cannot resolve to adjourn unless the Chair agrees.[62]

57Unless the rules otherwise provide, the Chair may not adjourn a meeting without its consent except in limited circumstances.[63]

58The resumption of an adjourned meeting is considered a continuation of the same meeting. Therefore, unless the rules otherwise provide:

• further notice is not required

• the only business which may be transacted is the unfinished business of the original meeting

• any references by rules or conventions to the ‘same meeting’ include both parts of an adjourned meeting[64]

Renewing consideration

59As noted in ‘Unacceptable motions’, meeting procedure usually prohibits a member from renewing a question which has already been decided (the same question rule). Procedural motions in this section seek to override this, renewing a motion which was previously defeated (potentially to now agree to it), or reconsidering a motion which was previously agreed to (potentially to now reverse it).

Reconsideration of question

Form	‘That [previous vote] be reconsidered’
Debatable?	Yes, if the earlier question was: Magner (2012)[65]
Requires seconder?	Yes: Magner (2012)[65]
Chair's discretion to accept?	Yes: Lang (2015)[66] No: Magner (2012)[65]

60Magner (2012) 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.[65]

61If 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.[65]

62This procedure is of North American origin,[67] and is not attested to by any other Australian authority consulted. Lang (2015) suggests that reconsideration of this form is permitted only if the rules provide.[66] The author feels this procedure can be helpful, and recommends that bodies consider including provision in their standing orders permitting it.

63Magner (2012),[65] ostensibly drawing on Robert's Rules,[67] provides that the motion must be moved by a member who voted with the prevailing side (but may be seconded by anyone). Conversely, Sturgis (2001) 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.[68]

Rescission of resolution

Form	‘That [previous resolution] be rescinded (or “repealed” or “revoked”)’
Debatable?	Yes: Lang (2015)[69]
Requires seconder?	Yes: Lang (2015)[69]
Chair's discretion to accept?	No: Lang (2015)[69]

64A 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.

65If carried, the effect is to nullify the effect of the earlier resolution, subject to the provisos below.

66Authorities vary on when a previous resolution may be rescinded. Lang (2015) suggests that, under the same question rule, a resolution cannot be rescinded at the same meeting it was passed. Members supporting the original resolution may have left the meeting once it was carried, and so it would be unfair to them to allow this.[70] Francis et al. (2012) take a similar view.[71] On the other hand, Renton (2005) disagrees, permitting a resolution to be rescinded at the same meeting.[72]

67Authorities also vary on notice requirements and majorities required for rescission. Lang (2015) suggests that notice should be given in writing and attention drawn to this in the notice of the meeting.[69] Magner (2012) (apparently drawing on Robert's Rules[73]) suggests that two thirds of members voting on the rescission must vote in favour for the rescission to carry, unless notice is given in which case a majority is sufficient.[74]

68Because of the wide range of positions on these various issues, the author recommends that the body's standing orders should clearly specify the procedure for rescinding a resolution.

69Rescission 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.[69]^,[72]

Form of debate

70Procedural motions in this section deal with the form in which a matter is debated.

Consideration paragraph by paragraph (seriatim)

Form	‘That the motion be considered paragraph by paragraph (or “seriatim”)’
Debatable?	Yes: Renton (2005)[75]
Requires seconder?	Yes: Renton (2005)[75]
Chair's discretion to accept?	No: Renton (2005)[75]

71If a motion is long and divided into many parts (an omnibus motion), a procedural motion may be moved to consider the motion paragraph by paragraph (seriatim).[75]

72If 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’).[76]

73If the question on the first paragraph is agreed to, the meeting moves to the second paragraph. If the question is negatived, the first paragraph is rejected from the motion entirely, and the meeting moves to the second paragraph.

74Once all paragraphs are adopted or rejected, the meeting then considers the preamble (if any).[75] Proposals to insert or add new paragraphs are considered at the point where they would be inserted or added.

75By 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.

Cognate debate and consideration together (en bloc)

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?

76Usually, 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.[77] 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).[78]

77This 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 leave.

Starring of agenda items

78En bloc consideration may take the form of starring certain uncontroversial items on the agenda (or, according to the body's conventions, starring controversial items and leaving the remainder unstarred).[79]

79At the start of the meeting, as one of the first items of business, opportunity would be provided for any member to object to the starring of any items (or, if it is the controversial items that are starred, request additional items to be starred).

80A motion would then be moved ‘That the starred items (or “unstarred items”, as appropriate) be adopted en bloc’.

Committee of the whole

Form	‘That the meeting resolve itself into a committee of the whole’[80]
Debatable?	No: Renton (2005)[80]
Requires seconder?	No: Renton (2005)[80]
Chair's discretion to accept?	Yes: Renton (2005)[80]

81Sometimes, it may be desired to relax the rule in large meetings that each member (except the mover in reply) may speak only once on each question. The traditional way of doing this is to resolve the meeting into a committee of the whole.

82If carried, the effect is to appoint a committee made of up all persons at the meeting, refer the matter to the committee, and suspend the meeting of the original body until the committee reports (see ‘Report progress’). Relevantly, until the committee of the whole reports, and the meeting of the original body is therefore resumed:

• the committee of the whole cannot exercise any powers of the original body (including to adopt the principal motion)

• the only matter the committee of the whole may consider is debating the principal motion, and recommending amendments to it

• members may speak more than once on the same question

• seconders are not required

• minutes do not need to be kept[80]

83In North America, Robert's Rules provides that the distinction between the meeting of the original body and the committee of the whole is made by having the committee of the whole be chaired by a different person.[81] While this is the practice in Parliament,[82] it is not attested to in any Australian authorities on meeting procedure generally.

84The committee of the whole was abandoned by the Australian House of Representatives in 1994,[83] and (although still used in the Senate) is considered obscure and rarely seen in meetings of ordinary organisations. The following motion should be preferred.

Committee debate

Form	‘That the matter be debated as if in committee’
Debatable?	As per ‘Committee of the whole’
Requires seconder?
Chair's discretion to accept?

85As an alternative to formally resolving into a committee of the whole, a motion may be moved to debate the matter ‘as if’ in committee. This mechanism is described in North America in Robert's Rules,[84] and the author sees no reason it cannot be adopted here.

86If carried, the matter is ‘debated as if in committee’, and hence members may speak more than once on the same question. However, the meeting continues to be one of the original body, so minutes continue to be kept, and motions and amendments may eventually be put directly to a vote, without needing to go through a stage of ‘reporting’.

General discussion

87At times, it may be desired to permit discussion without a motion being before the meeting. This may be permitted at the discretion of the Chair, but there is some question as to whether this is an absolute right of members.[85] Alternatively, a motion to suspend the rules could be moved to enable a general discussion.

88If only one or a few members wish to speak, leave of the meeting may be sought to allow those speeches to be made.[86] Alternatively, the Chair may exercise their discretion to allow the member to speak – in the House of Representatives, this is known as seeking the Chair's indulgence.[87]

89The more formal method of allowing general discussion is described in the next section.

Grievance debate

Form	‘That the Chair do leave the chair’[88] or ‘That grievances be noted’[89]
Debatable?	Yes: Pitchforth (2010), Renton (2005)[88]
Requires seconder?	Yes: Pitchforth (2010), Renton (2005)[88]
Chair's discretion to accept?	No: Pitchforth (2010), Renton (2005)[88]

90This 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 ‘Vacate the chair’.

91The motion ‘That the Chair do leave the chair’ is nominally one on adversely reviewing the performance of the Chair.[90] However, it is customarily used in Australia 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.[91]

92If the motion ‘That the Chair do leave the chair’ were to be carried, the effect would be as described in ‘Vacate the chair’; namely, to terminate the meeting. Therefore, this form of motion is typically withdrawn by leave when the desired discussion has been completed.[88]

Closed meeting (in camera)

Form	‘That strangers be excluded’,[92] ‘That the meeting be closed to non-members’ or ‘That the meeting be held in camera’
Debatable?	Yes: Renton (2005)[93]
Requires seconder?	Yes: Renton (2005)[93]
Chair's discretion to accept?	No: Renton (2005)[93]

93It may sometimes be necessary for a meeting to discuss items which, for one reason or another, are confidential. This could include personnel or disciplinary matters, tenders or ‘commercial in confidence’ contracts, or legal disputes. The meeting may therefore wish to exclude the presence of non-members. Such a closed meeting is also known as meeting in camera.[94] In North America, this is also known as executive session.[95]

94When a meeting is being held in camera, the minutes should record, in the usual way, the passing of the motion to go in camera, but then should not record any further details until the meeting is re-opened.[96] A separate set of confidential minutes may be kept recording the proceedings of the closed meeting. This allows the minutes to honestly serve as a ‘true and accurate record’.

95When the confidential discussion is concluded, a motion ought then be moved ‘That strangers be re-admitted’, ‘That the meeting be opened to non-members’, ‘That the meeting be held ex camera’, etc.

96As an alternative to going in camera, some bodies have the habit of instead moving or directing that a particular matter ‘not be minuted’ (presumably, together with that motion itself). While technically within the competence of the meeting, Renton (2005) regards this as ‘most undesirable’, and the author agrees.[97] Such a direction has an air of dishonesty about it – if the minutes are to serve as a true record of the meeting, what impression does excluding a matter from the minutes create other than ‘cooking the books’?

Motions relating to the Chair

97Procedural motions in this section enable meetings to express dissatisfaction with, or otherwise direct, the conduct of the Chair.

Member be now heard

Form	‘That [member not called upon] be now heard’
Debatable?	Yes, but should be avoided: Lang (2015),[98] Renton (2005)[99]
Requires seconder?	Yes: Lang (2015),[98] Renton (2005)[99]
Chair's discretion to accept?	No: Lang (2015),[98] Renton (2005)[99]

98The allocation of speakers is typically at the discretion of the Chair. However, it may occasionally be that the meeting disagrees with the Chair's decision,[99] or otherwise wishes to permit a particular person to be allowed to speak next.[98]

99If moved to overrule the Chair's allocation of the call, it may be moved once another member has been called on, but not yet commenced their remarks.[99]

100If carried, the effect of this motion is that the named member is to be called on by the Chair to speak, if desired.

Dissent from Chair's ruling

Form	‘That the ruling of the Chair (or “your ruling”) be dissented from (or “disagreed with”)’
Debatable?	No, but see below: Lang (2015),[100] Renton (2005)[101]
Requires seconder?	Yes: Pitchforth (2010)[102] No: Lang (2015),[100] Renton (2005)[101]
Chair's discretion to accept?	See below

101In 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.[103] The motion should be moved immediately once the disputed ruling is made.[100]

102The 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.[102]^,[104]

103Authorities vary on whether a Chair has discretion in accepting a motion of dissent,[105] and positions of Australian courts have been inconsistent. Lang (2015) 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.[106]

104Traditionally, 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.[100]^,[101]

105If 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.[100] If, on the other hand, the meeting's vote is binding, the process is more commonly referred to as appeal rather than dissent.[107]

Want of confidence in the Chair

Form	‘That the Chair (or “you”) do not have the confidence of this meeting’[108]
Debatable?	Yes: Renton (2005)[109]
Requires seconder?	Yes: Renton (2005)[109]
Chair's discretion to accept?	No: Renton (2005)[109]

106A motion of no confidence is moved with the intention of securing the resignation of a person from office; for example, the Chair.

107It is accepted that, in general, a meeting may replace the Chair of the meeting.[109]^,[110]^,[111] Authorities vary, however, on whether the position is different if the rules require a particular person (who is not elected by the body, or who is elected for a fixed term) to be the Chair. Renton (2005) suggests that it is possible to replace the Chair even in this situation,[109] while Magner (2012) suggests this is not possible.[110]

108During the debate and vote on a motion of no confidence in the Chair, it would be advisable for the Chair to temporarily vacate the chair and for a temporary Chair to be appointed. If, alternatively, the Chair does not vacate the chair, then the Chair should not participate in the debate.[109]

109If carried, the effect of the motion is that the Chair should resign as chair of the meeting (but not necessarily from any other offices, or as a member of the body).[109]^,[112] The meeting would then go on to elect a new Chair.

110Magner (2012) suggests that a motion of no confidence in the Chair should never be moved, and one of the following 2 motions should instead be used.[110]

Removal of Chair and new election

Form	‘That the meeting declare the chair vacant and proceed to elect a new Chair’[110]
Debatable?	As per ‘Want of confidence in the Chair’
Requires seconder?
Chair's discretion to accept?

111The motion to declare the chair vacant and elect a new Chair is functionally the same as a motion of no confidence in the Chair, but is the wording preferred by Magner (2012).[110]

Replacement of Chair by named successor

Form	‘That [name] take the chair’[110],[113] or ‘That the Chair (or “you”) vacate the chair in favour of [name]’[110],[111]
Debatable?	As per ‘Want of confidence in the Chair’
Requires seconder?
Chair's discretion to accept?

112The motion to replace the Chair by a named successor is the same as the 2 preceding motions, but instead of electing a new Chair, the named person directly succeeds the removed Chair.

Suspension of rules

Form	‘That so much of the standing orders (or “rules”) be suspended as would prevent [desired object]’[114] or ‘That the standing orders (or “rules”) be so far suspended as to enable [desired object]’[115]
Debatable?	Yes: Renton (2005)[116]
Requires seconder?	Yes: Renton (2005)[116]
Chair's discretion to accept?	No: Renton (2005)[116]

113If it is desired to temporarily alter the standing orders, rules or conventions of meeting procedure, a motion may be moved to suspend the rules for a particular purpose; for example:

• if the standing orders ordinarily require a particular motion to be moved on notice: That the standing orders be so far suspended as to enable the following motion to be moved immediately: …

• if the standing orders ordinarily do not allow guests to speak: That the standing orders be so far suspended as to enable [distinguished guest] to speak

114The body's standing orders should make clear how the rules may be suspended. If this is not specified, authorities vary. Renton (2005) suggests that only an ordinary majority would be required,[116] whereas Puregger (1998) suggests that a unanimous vote would be required.[117]

115Note that, unless otherwise provided, a motion to suspend the rules cannot dispense with a requirement of rules externally imposed on the body (for example, by the organisation's constitution) or a requirement of law. A motion to suspend the rules, for example, cannot relax the requirement for a quorum.

Suspension of rules to enable informal debate

116A slightly different meaning of ‘suspending the standing orders’ is used by some bodies – in these bodies, the motion ‘That the standing orders be suspended’ is moved with the intention of relaxing the rules of debate to permitting a more informal mode of discussion. The motion ‘That the standing orders be resumed’ might then be moved to resume the formal rules of debate.[118]

117This practice is probably to be avoided. The plain meaning of ‘That the standing orders be suspended’ is to suspend all standing orders, which may well include important rules that should not be suspended. Rather, see ‘Committee of the whole’, ‘Committee debate’ or ‘General discussion’, as appropriate.

Leave

118As an alternative to moving suspension of the rules, a member may seek leave (unanimous consent) to do something which would otherwise be prevented by the rules, by rising and saying ‘I seek leave to’, followed by the objective.[119]

119For example, in the example from the previous section where the standing orders ordinarily require a particular motion to be moved on notice, one could say ‘I seek leave to move the following motion immediately: …’.

120The Chair will then ask words to the effect of ‘Is leave granted?’ or ‘Is there any objection to leave being granted?’ If no member rises to object, leave is granted. If, however, any member objects, then leave is not granted, and an alternative approach will be required (such as to move to suspend the rules).[119]

Closing the meeting

121Procedural motions in this section all have the effect of terminating the meeting.

Preferred wording

Form	‘That the meeting be closed’
Debatable?	As per ‘Adjournment of meeting’
Requires seconder?
Chair's discretion to accept?

122If it is desired to terminate the meeting, with no intention of resuming, before all business has been concluded, the preferred term is to move to ‘close’ the meeting.[120]

123If carried, the effect is that the Chair will immediately declare the meeting closed.

Adjournment of meeting sine die

Form	‘That the meeting be adjourned (or “do now adjourn”) sine die’ or, confusingly, ‘That the meeting be adjourned (or “do now adjourn”)’
Debatable?	As per ‘Adjournment of meeting’
Requires seconder?
Chair's discretion to accept?

124The word adjourn comes from the Old French a jorn (nomé), meaning ‘to an (appointed) day’.[121] 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 sometimes used to close the meeting, with no intention of reopening it.[56]

125Confusingly, this is sometimes the intention even if the words ‘sine die’ are omitted.[122]

Report progress

Form	‘That the Chair report progress’ or ‘That the Chair report progress and ask leave to sit again’[123]
Debatable?	Yes: Renton (2005)[123]
Requires seconder?	No (as moved in committee)
Chair's discretion to accept?	No: Renton (2005)[123]

126The motion to report progress is moved during committee of the whole to terminate the committee meeting and report back to the original body. If the committee wishes to resume later, the words ‘and ask leave to sit again’ are included.[123]

127If carried, the meeting of the committee of the whole would be terminated, and the meeting of the original body resumed. The Chair would then give a report of the committee of the whole's recommendations, and motions may then be moved to give effect to those recommendations.[123]

Vacate the chair

Form	‘That the Chair do leave the chair’
Debatable?	No: Lang (2015)[124]
Requires seconder?	No: Lang (2015)[124]
Chair's discretion to accept?	No: Lang (2015)[124]

128This section describes the motion ‘That the Chair do leave the chair’ when used as a subsidiary procedural motion. See also ‘Grievance debate’.

129Recall from ‘Chair’ that a Chair is a requirement for a validly constituted meeting. From the moment of this motion being carried, the meeting is without a Chair and is therefore not validly constituted, and no further business may be conducted. If carried, the effect of the motion, then, is to terminate the meeting.[49]^,[124]^,[125]

Footnotes

[1]

Renton 2005, ¶6.2.

[2]

Renton 2005, ¶6.2, citing ‘Some authorities’; Puregger 1998, pp. 39–40.

[3]

Lang 2015, ¶12.3.

[4]

Magner 2012, ¶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/.

[5]

Puregger 1998, p. 61.

[6]

Rigg 1920, p. 64.

[7]

Evans 2016, p. 234.

[8]

Lang 2015, ¶12.4.

[9]

Robert et al. 2020, ¶39:1.

[10]

Robert et al. 2020, ¶39:3; Sturgis 2001, p. 41.

[11]

Lang 2015, ¶12.7; Renton 2005, ¶6.9.

[12]

Lang 2015, ¶12.7; Puregger 1998, p. 61.

[13]

Lang 2015, ¶12.7; Puregger 1998, p. 61. Renton 2005, ¶¶6.17–25 disagrees, providing that the reference motion and meeting adjournment (but not debate adjournment) give a right of reply.

[14] (1,2,3,4)

Lang 2015, ¶12.8; Magner 2012, ¶9.50; Puregger 1998, p. 58; Renton 2005, ¶6.17.

[15]

Magner 2012, ¶9.50; Pitchforth 2010, ¶3-230.

[16]

Lang 2015, ¶12.8; Renton 2005, ¶6.17.

[17]

Curry et al. 1975, pp. 29–30.

[18] (1,2)

Magner 2012, ¶¶9.45, 9.50, suggests that two thirds of members voting on the question must vote in favour for the closure or previous question to be carried, but this is not supported by any other Australian authorities. Indeed, this is not noted in Magner 1994, pp. 50–51, and appears to be a North American import: cf. Robert et al. 2020, ¶16:5.

[19] (1,2)

Robert et al. 2020, ¶16:1; Sturgis 2001, p. 65.

[20] (1,2,3,4)

Lang 2015, ¶12.17.

[21] (1,2,3,4)

Pitchforth 2010, ¶3-265.

[22] (1,2,3)

Renton 2005, ¶6.25.

[23]

Renton 2005, ¶6.7.

[24] (1,2,3)

Renton 2005, ¶6.25.

[25]

Renton 2005, ¶6.25; Puregger 1998, p. 61; Lang 2015, ¶12.9; Elder et al. 2018, p. 393.

[26]

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.

[27]

Lang 2015, ¶12.10; Puregger 1998, p. 61.

[28]

In addition to the motions in this section, Magner 2012, ¶9.15, describes a mechanism of ‘objecting to the consideration of the question’. This is not attested to in any other Australian authority, is not discussed in Magner 1994, and appears to be an American import from Robert's Rules: cf. Robert et al. 2020, §26. Indeed, the other main North American authority, The Standard Code, rejects it in favour of immediately moving next business: Sturgis 2001, p. 233.

[29] (1,2,3,4,5)

Renton 2005, ¶6.19.

[30] (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)

Curry et al. 1975, p. 29.

[31] (1,2,3,4)

Lang 2015, ¶12.12.

[32] (1,2,3)

Magner 2012, ¶9.40.

[33] (1,2,3,4,5,6)

Puregger 1998, p. 59.

[34] (1,2)

Pitchforth 2010, ¶3-250.

[35] (1,2,3,4,5)

Lang 2015, ¶12.11.

[36] (1,2,3,4,5)

Magner 2012, ¶9.45.

[37] (1,2,3)

Pitchforth 2010, ¶3-245.

[38] (1,2,3,4,5,6,7)

Renton 2005, ¶6.18, App. 7.

[39]

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.

[40] (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12)

Lang 2015, ¶12.13.

[41] (1,2,3,4,5)

Magner 2012, ¶9.25.

[42] (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9)

Renton 2005, ¶6.24, App. 7.

[43] (1,2,3,4)

Pitchforth 2010, ¶3-260.

[44]

Robert et al. 2020, ¶17:1 (emphasis added).

[45]

Sturgis 2001, p. 69.

[46] (1,2,3)

Manger 2012, ¶9.60.

[47] (1,2,3,4,5,6,7)

Lang 2015, ¶13.17.

[48] (1,2,3)

Magner 2012, ¶9.20.

[49] (1,2,3)

Puregger 1998, p. 60.

[50] (1,2,3,4,5,6,7)

Renton 2005, ¶6.22.

[51] (1,2,3)

Pitchforth 2010, ¶3-225.

[52]

Curry et al. 1975, p. 30; Lang 2015, ¶13.17; Magner 1994, p. 52; Pitchforth 2010, ¶3-225.

[53] (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)

Lang 2015, ¶12.19; Renton 2005, ¶6.21.

[54] (1,2,3,4)

Magner 2012, ¶9.30.

[55] (1,2)

Renton 2005, ¶6.21.

[56] (1,2,3,4,5)

Lang 2015, ¶13.18; Renton 2005, ¶6.23.

[57] (1,2)

Magner 1994, p. 53.

[58] (1,2,3,4)

Manger 2012, ¶11.15.

[59]

Renton 2005, ¶6.23.

[60]

Lang 2015, ¶13.5; Myer Queenstown Garden Plaza Pty Ltd v Port Adelaide City Corp (1975) 11 SASR 504.

[61]

Lang 2015, ¶13.5; Stoughton v Reynolds (1815) 95 ER 176.

[62]

Lang 2015, ¶13.5; Salisbury Gold Mining Co Ltd v Hathorn [1897] AC 268.

[63]

Lang 2015, ¶13.6.

[64]

Lang 2015, ¶13.14; Scadding v Lorant (1851) 10 ER 164; Jackson v Hamlyn [1953] Ch 577; Wills v Murray (1850) 154 ER 1458; R v Grimshaw (1847) 116 ER 284.

[65] (1,2,3,4,5,6)

Magner 2012, ¶9.70.

[66] (1,2)

Lang 2015, ¶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.

[67] (1,2)

Robert et al. 2020, §37.

[68]

Sturgis 2001, p. 40.

[69] (1,2,3,4,5)

Lang 2015, ¶11.18. ‘A rescission motion that is accepted should be dealt with according to the normal procedure for motions’.

[70]

Lang 2015, ¶11.15.

[71]

Francis et al. 2012, p. 21.

[72] (1,2)

Renton 2005, ¶4.39.

[73]

Robert et al. 2020, ¶35:2.

[74]

Magner 2012, ¶9.65.

[75] (1,2,3,4,5)

Renton 2005, ¶4.36.

[76]

The procedure described in this section is based on the clause-by-clause consideration in detail procedure of the House of Representatives: Elder et al. 2018, pp. 377–379.

[77]

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.

[78]

Elder et al. 2018, pp. 388–390.

[79]

Francis et al. 2012, p. 18.

[80] (1,2,3,4,5)

Renton 2005, ¶2.95.

[81]

Robert et al. 2020, ¶52:7.

[82]

Evans 2016, p. 424.

[83]

Elder et al. 2018, p. 373.

[84]

Robert et al. 2020, ¶¶52:19–27, which describes 2 variants, ‘quasi-committee of the whole’ (‘consideration as if in committee of the whole’) or ‘informal consideration’. The form of motion proposed in this book is intended to invoke the effect of ‘informal consideration’.

[85]

Magner 2012, ¶7.25; National Roads & Motorists' Association v Parker (1986) 6 NSWLR 517; Stanham v National Trust of Australia (1989) 15 ACLR 87.

[86]

cf. Elder et al. 2018, pp. 500–502.

[87]

Elder et al. 2018, pp. 498–500.

[88] (1,2,3,4,5)

Pitchforth 2010, ¶3-285; Renton 2005, ¶12.55.

[89]

Elder et al. 2018, pp. 586–587.

[90]

Magner 2012, ¶6.80. See also Elder et al. 2018, p. 586–587, which discusses the historical background.

[91]

Elder et al. 2018, pp. 586–587; Renton 2005, ¶12.55.

[92]

Renton 2005, ¶6.26. Strangers is a traditional term for non-members: Elder et al. 2018, p. 115; Renton 2005, ¶6.26.

[93] (1,2,3)

Renton 2005, App. 7.

[94]

Francis et al. 2012, p. 4.

[95]

Sturgis 2001, p. 108; Robert et al. 2020, ¶9:24.

[96]

Renton 2005, ¶12.97.

[97]

Renton 2005, ¶12.99.

[98] (1,2,3,4)

Lang 2015, ¶12.18.

[99] (1,2,3,4,5)

Renton 2005, ¶6.26.

[100] (1,2,3,4,5)

Lang 2015, ¶9.6.

[101] (1,2,3)

Renton 2005, ¶7.11.

[102] (1,2)

Pitchforth 2010, ¶3-270.

[103]

Lang 2015, ¶9.5.

[104]

Lang 2015, ¶9.6. Contrast Renton 2005, ¶7.11, which regards this as ‘undesirable’.

[105]

Renton 2005, ¶7.11, suggests dissent is always permitted, but cites ‘Some authorities’ taking the contrary view. Magner 2012, ¶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.

[106]

Lang 2015, ¶9.5; citing Wandsworth & Putney Gas-light & Coke Co v Wright (1870) 22 LT 404; Wishart v Henneberry (1962) 3 FLR 171.

[107]

Magner 2012, ¶6.70.

[108]

The phrasing ‘do not’ (as opposed to ‘does not’) preserves the subjunctive mood traditionally used in motions: Renton 2005, ¶12.71. However, ‘does not’ is common wording, even traditionally, in a motion of want of confidence, and indeed is the wording prescribed by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (UK).

[109] (1,2,3,4,5,6,7)

Renton 2005, ¶12.76.

[110] (1,2,3,4,5,6,7)

Magner 2012, ¶6.85.

[111] (1,2)

Lang 2015, ¶6.6.

[112]

Puregger 1998, p. 56.

[113]

Puregger 1998, p. 18; Francis et al. 2012, pp. 7–8.

[114]

This is the wording used in the Australian Parliament: Elder et al. 2018, p. 336.

[115]

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.

[116] (1,2,3,4)

Renton 2005, ¶10.12.

[117]

Puregger 1998, p. 37.

[118]

Francis et al. 2012, pp. 152–153; Renton 2005, ¶10.12.

[119] (1,2)

Renton 2005, ¶10.11.

[120]

Renton 2005, ¶12.106; Lang 2015, ¶13.2.

[121]

‘Definition of adjourn’. Lexico. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2020 [cited 2021 Jan 31]. https://www.lexico.com/definition/adjourn.

[122]

Lang 2015, ¶13.18; Renton 2005, ¶6.23; Sturgis 2001, p. 76. One imagines this is inspired by the Australian House of Representatives' practice of finishing each sitting day by moving ‘That the House do now adjourn’. However, the House has adopted standing orders prescribing when each sitting day commences, so, in context, this is more akin to a true adjournment than an adjournment sine die.

[123] (1,2,3,4,5)

Renton 2005, ¶2.96.

[124] (1,2,3,4)

Lang 2015, ¶13.19.

[125]

Renton 2005, ¶12.55; Magner 1994, p. 53; Magner 2012, ¶6.85.