Editing Filibuster (section)

==Westminster-style parliaments==
{{See also|Westminster system}}
<!--Should probably transclude the introduction for Westminster system here-->

===Australia===
Both houses of the [[Government of Australia|Australian]] parliament have strictly enforced rules on how long members may speak, so filibusters are generally not possible, though this is not the case in some state legislatures.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/standing_orders/a00.htm |website=Parliament of Australia |title=Standing Orders and other orders of the Senate |access-date=June 23, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120216184132/http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/standing_orders/a00.htm |archive-date=February 16, 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/House/pubs/standos/chapter1.htm |website=Parliament of Australia |title=House of Representatives Standing and Sessional Orders |access-date=June 23, 2008  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120216145339/http://www.aph.gov.au/House/pubs/standos/chapter1.htm |archive-date=February 16, 2012 }}</ref>

In opposition, [[Tony Abbott]]'s Liberal National [[Coalition (Australia)|coalition]] used [[Suspension of the rules|suspension]] of [[Parliamentary procedure|standing orders]] in 2012 for the purposes of filibustering, most commonly during question time against the Labor government.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Ireland |first=Judith |date=February 29, 2012 |title=Abbott finds a new victim for his schtick |work=Sydney Morning Herald |url=http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/blogs/question-time/abbott-finds-a-new-victim-for-his-schtick-20120229-1u2p7.html |url-status=live |access-date=November 17, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140506173228/http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/blogs/question-time/abbott-finds-a-new-victim-for-his-schtick-20120229-1u2p7.html |archive-date=May 6, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=2012-03-16 |title=Suspended in the time it takes for a sound bite |work=The Australian |url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/suspended-in-the-time-it-takes-for-a-sound-bite/story-e6frgd0x-1226300897875 |url-status=live |access-date=2013-06-28 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140323080359/http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/suspended-in-the-time-it-takes-for-a-sound-bite/story-e6frgd0x-1226300897875 |archive-date=2014-03-23}}</ref>

In 2022, [[Liberal Party of Australia|Liberal]] Senator [[Michaelia Cash]] engaged in a nine-hour filibuster in [[committee of the whole]] (in which senators can usually question ministers as often as they liked) in an effort to stall the passage of industrial relations laws.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Karp |first=Paul |date=1 December 2022 |title=Labor's industrial relations bill passes the Senate despite late Coalition filibuster |url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/dec/01/labors-industrial-relations-bill-was-progressing-relatively-quickly-enter-michaelia-cash |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221201060355/https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/dec/01/labors-industrial-relations-bill-was-progressing-relatively-quickly-enter-michaelia-cash |archive-date=December 1, 2022 |access-date=December 1, 2022 |website=[[Guardian Australia]]}}</ref>

===Canada===

====Federal====
A dramatic example of filibustering in the [[House of Commons of Canada]] took place between Thursday June 23, 2011 and Saturday June 25, 2011. In an attempt to prevent the passing of Bill C-6, which would have legislated the imposing of a four-year contract and pay conditions on the locked out [[Canada Post]] workers, the [[New Democratic Party]] (NDP) led a filibustering session which lasted for fifty-eight hours. The NDP argued that the legislation in its then form undermined collective bargaining. Specifically, the NDP opposed the salary provisions and the form of binding arbitration outlined in the bill.<ref name="CBC">{{Cite news |date=June 25, 2011 |title=Canada Post back-to-work bill passes key vote |publisher=CBC |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-post-back-to-work-bill-clears-house-1.1053744?ref=rss |url-status=live |access-date=June 25, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110626185933/http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/06/25/canada-post.html?ref=rss |archive-date=June 26, 2011}}</ref>

The House was supposed to break for the summer on June 23 but remained open in an extended session due to the filibuster. The 103 NDP MPs had been taking it in turn to deliver 20-minute speeches, plus 10 minutes of questions and comments, to delay the passing of the bill. MPs are allowed to give such speeches each time a vote takes place, and many votes were needed before the bill could be passed. As the [[Conservative Party of Canada]] held a majority in the House, the bill passed.<ref name="CBC" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=June 24, 2011 |title=John Ivison: Time stands still in the House of Commons as NDP filibuster drags on |url=http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/06/24/john-ivison-time-stands-still-in-the-house-of-commons-as-ndp-filibuster-drags-on/ |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130129151106/http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/06/24/john-ivison-time-stands-still-in-the-house-of-commons-as-ndp-filibuster-drags-on/ |archive-date=January 29, 2013 |website=National Post}}</ref> This was the longest filibuster since the 1999 [[Reform Party of Canada]] filibuster, on native treaty issues in [[British Columbia]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=How much will the NDP filibuster cost taxpayers? |url=http://politics.canada.com/2011/06/ndp-filibuster-cost-canadians/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629101140/http://politics.canada.com/2011/06/ndp-filibuster-cost-canadians/ |archive-date=June 29, 2011 |website=Canada.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=June 24, 2011 |title=Marathon Canada Post debate continues on Hill |work=Vancouver Sun |url=http://www.vancouversun.com/news/canada/Marathon+Canada+Post+debate+continues+Hill/4999680/story.html |url-status=live |access-date=June 26, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110628214546/http://www.vancouversun.com/news/canada/Marathon+Canada+Post+debate+continues+Hill/4999680/story.html |archive-date=June 28, 2011}}</ref>

Former Conservative [[House of Commons of Canada|Member of Parliament]] [[Tom Lukiwski]] was known for his ability to stall [[Standing committee (Canada)|Parliamentary Committee]] business by filibustering.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Alexander Panetta |date=2008-04-03 |title=Tory's loose lips an asset – until now |publisher=The Canadian Press |location=Toronto |url=https://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/409983 |url-status=live |access-date=2010-02-13 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110426071116/http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/409983 |archive-date=2011-04-26}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Catherine Clark |first=Tom Lukiwski |date=July 27, 2009 |title='Beyond Politics' interview (at 19:11) |url=http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&pagetype=vod&lang=e&clipID=2996 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110720112642/http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&pagetype=vod&lang=e&clipID=2996 |archive-date=July 20, 2011 |access-date=February 14, 2010 |publisher=CPAC}}</ref> One such example occurred on October 26, 2006, when he spoke for almost 120 minutes to prevent the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development from studying a [[private member's bill]] to implement the [[Kyoto Accord]].<ref>{{Cite news |date=2006-10-26 |title=Parties trade blame for House logjam |publisher=The Canadian Press |location=Toronto |url=https://www.thestar.com/article/111918 |access-date=2010-02-13 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110606044507/http://www.thestar.com/article/111918 |archive-date=2011-06-06}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=October 26, 2006 |title=Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development |url=http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2440684&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1#Int-1732248 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160108130652/http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2440684#Int-1732248 |archive-date=2016-01-08 |access-date=2010-02-13 |publisher=Parliament of Canada}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Mike De Souza |title=Tories accused of stalling their own green agenda |url=http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=963fa80f-2996-46c4-8696-6df2034365f8&sponsor= |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110604123717/http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=963fa80f-2996-46c4-8696-6df2034365f8&sponsor= |archive-date=2011-06-04 |access-date=2010-02-13 |publisher=www.canada.com}}</ref> He also spoke for about 6 hours on February 5, 2008, and February 7, 2008, at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs meetings to block inquiry into allegations that the Conservative Party [[In and Out scandal|spent more than the maximum allowable campaign limits]] during the [[2006 Canadian federal election]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Angry chairman suspends session |url=http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=04f4ea3b-6cdd-4cca-8aba-78710c4a8733 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110604123721/http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=04f4ea3b-6cdd-4cca-8aba-78710c4a8733 |archive-date=2011-06-04 |access-date=2010-02-13 |publisher=www.canada.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Tories accused of stalling ad scheme review |url=http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=90e06005-f60c-4f46-b668-6015e7fffebc |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110604123728/http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=90e06005-f60c-4f46-b668-6015e7fffebc |archive-date=2011-06-04 |access-date=2010-02-13 |publisher=www.canada.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=O'Malley |first=Kady |date=2008-02-05 |title=Filibuster ahoy! Liveblogging the Procedure and House Affairs Committee for as long as it takes... |url=https://www.macleans.ca/general/filibuster-ahoy-liveblogging-the-procedure-and-house-affairs-committee-for-as-long-as-it-takes-from-the-archives/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141003092908/https://www.macleans.ca/general/filibuster-ahoy-liveblogging-the-procedure-and-house-affairs-committee-for-as-long-as-it-takes-from-the-archives/ |archive-date=2014-10-03 |access-date=2023-01-18 |publisher=www.Macleans.ca}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=O'Malley |first=Kady |date=2008-02-07 |title=Liveblogging PROC: We'll stop blogging when he stops talking – the return of the killer filibuster (From the archives) |url=https://www.macleans.ca/general/liveblogging-proc-well-stop-blogging-when-he-stops-talking-the-return-of-the-killer-filibuster-from-the-archives/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211205030153/https://www.macleans.ca/general/liveblogging-proc-well-stop-blogging-when-he-stops-talking-the-return-of-the-killer-filibuster-from-the-archives/ |archive-date=2021-12-05 |access-date=2021-12-05 |publisher=www.Macleans.ca}}</ref>

Another example of filibuster in Canada federally came in early 2014 when NDP MP and Deputy Leader [[David Christopherson]] filibustered the government's bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act at the Procedure and House Affairs Committee.<ref>{{Cite web |title=House of Commons Committees – PROC (41-2) – Minutes of Proceedings – Number 016 |url=http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6427238&Language=E&Mode=1 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924122839/http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6427238&Language=E&Mode=1 |archive-date=24 September 2015 |access-date=June 15, 2016}}</ref> His filibuster lasted several meetings, in the last of which he spoke for over 8 hours.  It was done to support his own motion to hold cross-country hearings on the bill so that MPs could hear what the Canadian public thought of the bill.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Stone |first=Laura |title=The art of the filibuster: preparation, focus, and a hardy bladder |url=http://globalnews.ca/news/1190246/the-art-of-the-filibuster-preparation-focus-and-a-hardy-bladder/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304060224/http://globalnews.ca/news/1190246/the-art-of-the-filibuster-preparation-focus-and-a-hardy-bladder/ |archive-date=March 4, 2016 |access-date=June 15, 2016}}</ref> In the end, given that the Conservative government had a majority at committee, his motion was defeated and the bill passed — though with some significant amendments.<ref>{{Cite news |date=May 13, 2014 |title=Conservatives pass Fair Elections Act |work=Toronto Star |url=https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/05/13/conservatives_pass_fair_elections_act.html |url-status=live |access-date=June 15, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160810114537/https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/05/13/conservatives_pass_fair_elections_act.html |archive-date=August 10, 2016}}</ref>

In the spring of 2017 Conservative and NDP Opposition MPs united to filibuster a motion from Government House Leader [[Bardish Chagger]], arguing it was an attempt by the [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberal]] government to limit the ability of opposition parties to hold the government to account.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Zimonjic |first1=Peter |last2=Van Dusen |first2=Julie |date=Apr 2, 2017 |title=Committee filibuster over changes to House of Commons rules to resume Monday, opposition MPs say |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/house-procedure-reid-christopherson-1.4050987 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220807162536/https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/house-procedure-reid-christopherson-1.4050987 |archive-date=August 7, 2022 |access-date=August 12, 2022 |website=CBC News}}</ref> David Christopherson was again one of the leaders in this filibuster along with Conservative [[Scott Reid (politician)|Scott Reid]]. Several other opposition MPs made significant contributions to the filibuster, including Conservatives [[Blake Richards]], [[John Nater]], and [[Jamie Schmale]]. The filibuster lasted from March 21 until May 2, when the governing Liberals agreed to drop the most controversial elements of their proposal.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bryden |first=Joan |date=April 30, 2017 |title=Government drops most contentious proposals for reforming House of Commons rules |url=https://www.macleans.ca/politics/government-drops-most-contentious-proposals-for-reforming-house-of-commons-rules/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220128174309/https://www.macleans.ca/politics/government-drops-most-contentious-proposals-for-reforming-house-of-commons-rules/ |archive-date=January 28, 2022 |access-date=January 28, 2022 |agency=The Canadian Press}}</ref>

====Provincial====

=====Newfoundland and Labrador=====

An ironic example of filibustering occurred when the [[Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador]] reportedly had "nothing else to do in the [[Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly|House of Assembly]]" and debated between only themselves about their own budget after both the Conservative and NDP party indicated either their support for the bill or intent to vote.<ref>{{Cite web |last=McLeod |first=James |date=March 14, 2017 |title=Liberal government filibusters its own budget debate |url=https://www.thetelegram.com/news/local/2017/3/14/liberal-government-filibusters-its-own-budget-debate.amp.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170315024711/http://www.thetelegram.com/news/local/2017/3/14/liberal-government-filibusters-its-own-budget-debate.amp.html |archive-date=March 15, 2017 |access-date=November 5, 2017 |website=The Telegram}}</ref>

The [[Legislative Assembly of Ontario|Legislature]] of the [[Ontario|Province of Ontario]] has witnessed several significant filibusters,<ref name="cpsa-acsp.ca">{{Cite web |title=Obstruction in the Ontario Legislature: The struggle for power between the government and the opposition |url=http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2006/Locke.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130307231612/http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2006/Locke.pdf |archive-date=2013-03-07 |access-date=2012-08-07}}</ref> although two are notable for the unusual manner by which they were undertaken.<ref>{{Cite web |title=On Filibusters |url=http://thoughtundermined.com/2011/01/26/on-filibusters/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120803022656/http://thoughtundermined.com/2011/01/26/on-filibusters/ |archive-date=2012-08-03 |access-date=2012-08-07}}</ref> The first was an effort on May 6, 1991, by [[Mike Harris]] — later premier but then leader of the opposition [[Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario|Progressive Conservatives]] — to derail the implementation of the budget tabled by the [[Ontario New Democratic Party|NDP]] government under premier [[Bob Rae]]. The tactic involved the introduction of Bill 95 (''a.k.a.'' Zebra Mussel Act), the title of which contained the names of every lake, river and stream in the province.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Hansard Transcripts 1991-May-06 ¦ Legislative Assembly of Ontario |date=May 6, 1991 |url=https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/house-documents/parliament-35/session-1/1991-05-06/hansard#PARA385 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220830173957/https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/house-documents/parliament-35/session-1/1991-05-06/hansard#PARA385 |archive-date=2022-08-30 |access-date=2022-06-03}}</ref> Between the reading of the title by the proposing [[Member of Provincial Parliament (Ontario)|MPP]], and the subsequent obligatory reading of the title by the clerk of the chamber, this filibuster occupied the entirety of the day's session until adjournment. To prevent this particular tactic from being used again, changes were eventually made to the [[Parliamentary procedure|Standing Orders]] to limit the time allocated each day to the introduction of bills to 30 minutes.<ref name="cpsa-acsp.ca" />

A second high-profile and uniquely implemented filibuster in the [[Legislative Assembly of Ontario|Ontario Legislature]] occurred in April 1997, where the [[Ontario New Democratic Party]], then in opposition, tried to prevent the governing [[Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario|Progressive Conservatives']] [[Common Sense Revolution#Bill 103|Bill 103]] from taking effect. To protest the Tory government's legislation that would [[Amalgamation (politics)|amalgamate]] the municipalities of [[Metro Toronto]] into the "megacity" of [[Toronto]], the small NDP caucus introduced 11,500 [[Bill (proposed law)|amendments]] to the megacity bill, created on computers with [[mail merge]] functionality. Each amendment would name a street in the proposed city, and provide that public hearings be held in the megacity with residents of the street invited to participate. The [[Ontario Liberal Party]] also joined the filibuster with a smaller series of amendments; a typical Liberal amendment would give a historical designation to a named street. The NDP then added another series of over 700 amendments, each proposing a different date for the bill to come into force.

The filibuster began on April 2 with the Abbeywood Trail amendment<ref>{{Cite web |title=Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Hansard. Wednesday, 2 April 1997, volume B |url=http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?locale=en&Date=1997-04-02&Parl=36&Sess=1&detailPage=/house-proceedings/transcripts/files_html/1997-04-02_L176b.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170707213246/http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?locale=en&Date=1997-04-02&Parl=36&Sess=1&detailPage=%2Fhouse-proceedings%2Ftranscripts%2Ffiles_html%2F1997-04-02_L176b.htm |archive-date=2017-07-07 |access-date=2010-12-24 |publisher=Ontla.on.ca |language=fr}}</ref> and occupied the legislature day and night, the members alternating in shifts. On April 4, exhausted and often sleepy government members inadvertently let one of the NDP amendments pass, and the handful of residents of Cafon Court in [[Etobicoke, Ontario|Etobicoke]] were granted the right to a public consultation on the bill, although the government subsequently nullified this with an amendment of its own.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Hansard. Friday, 4 April 1997, volume H |url=http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?locale=en&Date=1997-04-04&Parl=36&Sess=1&detailPage=%2Fhouse-proceedings%2Ftranscripts%2Ffiles_html%2F1997-04-04_L176h.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110611084941/http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?locale=en&Date=1997-04-04&Parl=36&Sess=1&detailPage=%2Fhouse-proceedings%2Ftranscripts%2Ffiles_html%2F1997-04-04_L176h.htm |archive-date=2011-06-11 |access-date=2010-12-24 |publisher=Ontla.on.ca}}</ref> On April 6, with the alphabetical list of streets barely into the Es, [[Speaker (politics)|Speaker]] [[Chris Stockwell]] ruled that there was no need for the 220 words identical in each amendment to be read aloud each time, only the street name.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Hansard. Sunday, 6 April 1997, volume N |url=http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?locale=en&Date=1997-04-06&Parl=36&Sess=1&detailPage=%2Fhouse-proceedings%2Ftranscripts%2Ffiles_html%2F1997-04-06_L176n.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110611085021/http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?locale=en&Date=1997-04-06&Parl=36&Sess=1&detailPage=%2Fhouse-proceedings%2Ftranscripts%2Ffiles_html%2F1997-04-06_L176n.htm |archive-date=2011-06-11 |access-date=2010-12-24 |publisher=Ontla.on.ca}}</ref> With a vote still needed on each amendment, Zorra Street was not reached until April 8.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Hansard. Tuesday, 8 April 1997, volume S |url=http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?locale=en&Date=1997-04-08&Parl=36&Sess=1&detailPage=%2Fhouse-proceedings%2Ftranscripts%2Ffiles_html%2F1997-04-08_L176s.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110611085115/http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?locale=en&Date=1997-04-08&Parl=36&Sess=1&detailPage=%2Fhouse-proceedings%2Ftranscripts%2Ffiles_html%2F1997-04-08_L176s.htm |archive-date=2011-06-11 |access-date=2010-12-24 |publisher=Ontla.on.ca}}</ref> The Liberal amendments were then voted down one by one, eventually using a similar abbreviated process, and the filibuster finally ended on April 11.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Hansard. Friday, 11 April 1997, volume AE |url=http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?locale=en&Date=1997-04-11&Parl=36&Sess=1&detailPage=%2Fhouse-proceedings%2Ftranscripts%2Ffiles_html%2F1997-04-11_L176zae.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110611085145/http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?locale=en&Date=1997-04-11&Parl=36&Sess=1&detailPage=%2Fhouse-proceedings%2Ftranscripts%2Ffiles_html%2F1997-04-11_L176zae.htm |archive-date=2011-06-11 |access-date=2010-12-24 |publisher=Ontla.on.ca}}</ref>

===India===
The [[Rajya Sabha]] (Council of states) — which is the upper house in the Indian [[bicameralism|bicameral]] legislature — allows for a debate to be brought to a close with a simple majority decision of the house, on a closure motion so introduced by any member.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Government of India |url=http://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsnew/handbook/hand_book_2010.pdf |title=Handbook for Members of Rajya Sabha |date=January 2010 |page=60 |chapter=2: General Matters |access-date=2014-03-19 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120515160055/http://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsnew/handbook/hand_book_2010.pdf |archive-date=2012-05-15 |url-status=live}}</ref> On the other hand, the [[Lok Sabha]] (Council of the people) — the lower house — leaves the closure of the debate to the discretion of the [[Speaker of the Lok Sabha|speaker]] once a motion to end the debate is moved by a member.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Government of India |url=http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/members/membersbook/Chapter2.pdf |title=Handbook for Members of Lok Sabha |edition=Fifteenth |page=67 |chapter=2: General |access-date=2014-03-19 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140813162644/http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/members/membersbook/chapter2.pdf |archive-date=2014-08-13 |url-status=live}}</ref>

===Ireland===
In 2014, [[Minister for Justice (Ireland)|Irish Justice Minister]] [[Alan Shatter]] performed a filibuster; he was perceived to "drone on and on" and hence this was termed a "Drone Attack".<ref>{{Cite news |date=February 20, 2014 |title=Bizarre story defies Shatter's drone attack |newspaper=The Irish Times |url=http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/bizarre-story-defies-shatter-s-drone-attack-1.1697923 |url-status=live |access-date=February 21, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140221075923/http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/bizarre-story-defies-shatter-s-drone-attack-1.1697923 |archive-date=February 21, 2014}}</ref>

===New Zealand===
In August 2000, [[Government of New Zealand|New Zealand]] opposition parties National and ACT delayed the voting for the Employment Relations Bill by voting slowly, and in some cases in [[Māori language|Māori]] (which required translation into English).<ref>{{Cite news |last=Small |first=Vernon |date=2000-08-21 |title=Bill debate goes to rare Monday |work=[[The New Zealand Herald]] |url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=147731 |access-date=2017-12-16 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180315134007/http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=147731 |archive-date=March 15, 2018}}</ref>

In 2009, several parties staged a filibuster of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill in opposition to the government setting up a new [[Auckland Council]] — under urgency and without debate or review by the select committee — by proposing thousands of [[wrecking amendments]] and voting in Māori as each amendment had to be voted on and votes in Māori translated into English. Amendments included renaming the council to "Auckland [[Katchafire]] Council" or "[[Rodney Hide]] Memorial Council" and replacing the phrase "powers of a regional council" with "power and muscle".<ref>{{Cite web |title="Melissa Lee Memorial Council" mooted |url=http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=157300 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090519190937/http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=157300 |archive-date=2009-05-19 |access-date=2010-12-24 |publisher=Newstalk ZB}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=May 25, 2009 |title=Labour filibuster on Supercity bills |url=http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/2415569/Labour-filibuster-on-Supercity-bills |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121013041506/http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/2415569/Labour-filibuster-on-Supercity-bills |archive-date=2012-10-13 |access-date=2010-12-24 |publisher=Stuff.co.nz}}</ref>

=== United Kingdom ===
In the [[Parliament of the United Kingdom]], a bill defeated by a filibustering manoeuvre may be said to have been 'talked out'. The procedures of the [[British House of Commons|House of Commons]] require that members cover only points germane to the topic under consideration or the debate underway whilst speaking. Example filibusters in the Commons and Lords include:
* In 1874, [[Joseph Gillis Biggar]] started making long speeches in the House of Commons to delay the passage of [[Irish coercion acts]]. [[Charles Stewart Parnell]], a young Irish nationalist [[Member of Parliament]] (MP), who in 1880 became leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party, joined him in this tactic to obstruct the business of the House and force the Liberals and Conservatives to negotiate with him and his party. The tactic was enormously successful, and Parnell and his MPs succeeded, for a time, in forcing Parliament to take the [[Irish Question]] of return to self-government seriously.
* In 1983, Labour MP [[John Golding (British politician)|John Golding]] talked for over 11 hours during an all-night sitting at the committee stage of the [[British Telecommunications]] Bill. However, as this was at a standing committee and not in the Commons chamber, he was also able to take breaks to eat.
* On July 3, 1998, Labour MP [[Michael Foster (Worcester MP)|Michael Foster]]'s Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill was blocked in Parliament by opposition filibustering.{{citation needed|date=January 2022}}
* In January 2000, filibustering directed by [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative]] MPs to oppose the [[Disqualifications Act 2000|Disqualifications Bill]] led to the cancellation of the day's parliamentary business on [[Prime Minister]] [[Tony Blair]]'s 1,000th day in office. However, since this business included [[Prime Minister's Questions]], [[William Hague]], the Conservative leader at that time, was deprived of the opportunity of a high-profile confrontation with the Prime Minister.
* On Friday, April 20, 2007, a [[private member's bill]] aimed at exempting Members of Parliament from the Freedom of Information Act was 'talked out' by a collection of MPs, led by Liberal Democrats [[Simon Hughes]] and Norman Baker who debated for five hours, therefore running out of time for the parliamentary day and 'sending the bill to the bottom of the stack.' However, since there were no other private member's bills to debate, it was resurrected the following Monday.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2007-04-24 |title=MPs' info exemption bill revived |publisher=BBC News |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6586131.stm |url-status=live |access-date=2010-12-24 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090423221543/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6586131.stm |archive-date=2009-04-23}}</ref>
* In January 2011, Labour peers, including most notably [[John Prescott]], were attempting to delay the passage of the [[Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill 2010]] until after February 16, the deadline given by the [[Electoral Commission (United Kingdom)|Electoral Commission]] to allow the referendum on the Alternative Vote to take place on May 5. On the eighth day of debate, staff in the House of Lords set up camp beds and refreshments to allow peers to rest, for the first time in eight years.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Thomson |first=Ainsley |date=2011-01-17 |title=U.K. in Marathon Session on Voting Bill |work=The Wall Street Journal |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703396604576087740260334576?mod=googlenews_wsj |url-status=live |access-date=2017-08-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180720195116/https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703396604576087740260334576?mod=googlenews_wsj |archive-date=2018-07-20}}</ref>
* In January 2012, Conservative and [[Scottish National Party]] MPs used filibustering to successfully block the Daylight Savings Bill 2010–12, a private member's bill that would put the UK on [[Central European Time]]. The filibustering included an attempt by [[Jacob Rees-Mogg]] to amend the bill to give the county of [[Somerset]] its own time zone, 15 minutes behind London.<ref>{{Cite web |date=January 21, 2012 |title=Conservative backbenchers halt effort to move clocks forward |url=http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2012/01/conservative-backbenchers-halt-effort-to-move-the-clocks-forward.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120617141753/http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2012/01/conservative-backbenchers-halt-effort-to-move-the-clocks-forward.html |archive-date=June 17, 2012 |access-date=July 12, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{Cite AV media |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n58wr9FVzO0 |title=Jacob Rees-Mogg Proposes Somerset Time Zone |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211211/n58wr9FVzO0 |archive-date=2021-12-11 |url-status=live}}{{cbignore}}</ref>
* In November 2014, Conservative MPs [[Philip Davies]] and [[Christopher Chope]] successfully filibustered a private member's bill that would have prohibited retaliatory evictions. Davies's speech was curtailed by Deputy Speaker [[Dawn Primarolo]] for disregarding her authority after she ordered Davies to wrap up his then hour-long speech. A closure motion moved by the government, which was agreed to 60–0, failed due to being inquorate.<ref>{{Cite web |date=November 28, 2014 |title=Hansard |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/chan70.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304075512/http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/chan70.pdf |archive-date=March 4, 2016 |access-date=August 31, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Fury as retaliatory evictions bill talked out of Commons |url=http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/tenancies/fury-as-retaliatory-evictions-bill-talked-out-of-commons/7007119.article |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160814222938/http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/tenancies/fury-as-retaliatory-evictions-bill-talked-out-of-commons/7007119.article |archive-date=August 14, 2016 |access-date= June 15, 2016 |publisher=Inside Housing}}</ref>
* In October 2016 Conservative Minister [[Sam Gyimah]] filibustered a bill sponsored by [[John Nicolson (politician)|John Nicolson]] of the [[Scottish National Party]] that would pardon historic convictions for homosexual acts (which were no longer an offence), replacing an existing law that requires each pardon to be applied for separately.

The all-time Commons record for non-stop speaking, six hours, was set by [[Henry Brougham, 1st Baron Brougham and Vaux|Henry Brougham]] in 1828, though this was not a filibuster. The 21st century record was set on December 2, 2005, by [[Andrew Dismore]], [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour]] MP for [[Hendon (UK Parliament constituency)|Hendon]]. Dismore spoke for three hours and 17 minutes to block a Conservative private member's bill, the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Protection of Property) Bill, which he claimed amounted to "vigilante law".<ref>{{Cite news |date=2005-12-02 |title=MP's marathon speech sinks bill |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4492688.stm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070313003900/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4492688.stm |archive-date=2007-03-13  |access-date=2023-01-18 |language=en-GB}}</ref> Although Dismore is credited with speaking for 197 minutes, he regularly accepted interventions from other MPs who wished to comment on points made in his speech. Taking multiple interventions artificially inflates the duration of a speech and thus may be used as a tactic to prolong a speech.

In local [[unitary authorities of England]] a motion may be carried into closure by filibustering. This results in any additional motions receiving less time for debate by councillors instead of forcing a vote by the council under closure rules.{{citation needed|date=July 2013}}

====Northern Ireland====
A notable filibuster took place in the [[Northern Ireland House of Commons]] in 1936 when [[Tommy Henderson]] (Independent Unionist MP for Shankill) spoke for nine and a half hours (ending just before 4 a.m.) on the Appropriation Bill. As this bill applied government spending to all departments, almost any topic was relevant to the debate, and Henderson used the opportunity to list all of his many criticisms of the Unionist government.