Image: Stained glass windows in the Legislative Assembly chamber.
For many in the legal profession, the Standing Orders of a Parliamentary Chamber can look like a form of subordinate legislation – detailed rules that appear to invite statutory interpretation. But Standing Orders occupy a different conceptual space.
Each house in a parliament is governed by Standing Orders. Grounded in the Westminster tradition, the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of Western Australia are designed to set out how a House meets and how it conducts its business.
Their purpose is to uphold the enduring principles of English parliamentary law: that debate is orderly, that minority voices are protected, that every member may express their views, that every measure receives proper consideration, and that impulsive legislative action is avoided.
For lawyers, the crucial point is that Standing Orders must not be read as though they were a statute. They are deliberately drafted to not be exhaustive, and they do not attempt to regulate every possible scenario.
This is consistent with the analysis of Sir Ivor Jennings, one of the great constitutional scholars of the 20th century, who observed that parliamentary procedure “is built upon a mixture of law, practice and convention”, and that many rules operate effectively because they are not too rigidly defined.
Jennings’ insight remains fundamental: Standing Orders derive their strength from a balance between written rules and the discretion of the Chair.
This approach was echoed in the 1999 report on the modernisation of the Assembly’s Standing Orders: “Those who approach standing orders in a legalistic sense will come to grief … Within the general rules, flexibility to a degree is important.”
Such flexibility is intentional. The Standing Orders provide clarity, but they depend equally on the Speaker’s judgment, the goodwill of members, and the persistent, often unseen practice of negotiation behind the Chair. These unwritten elements are vital to maintaining momentum and preventing procedural deadlock.
Nor do the Standing Orders exhaust the Speaker’s authority. As the 1999 report observed: “… the standing orders are not written to prescribe what the Presiding Officers can do in each and every situation. Put another way, the standing orders do not delimit the Speaker’s power, they only limit it in certain areas.”
At their core, Standing Orders exist to facilitate debate and scrutiny. They are intended to enable parliamentary decision‑making, not constrain it.
The Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly are currently the subject of a comprehensive review by the Procedure and Privileges Committee.
While they remain fundamentally robust, they have not undergone a full examination for 25 years. Much has changed in that time – politically, technologically, and in the expectations placed upon the institution.
The current review presents an important opportunity to ensure that the Assembly’s procedural framework continues to support a modern, effective, and principled chamber.
