|
Failure to move a motion when it is called on results in the notice being withdrawn from the Notice Paper (but see below for an exception). This is one of several methods of avoiding a vote on a matter (other methods include postponing the notice of motion, adjourning the debate once the motion has been moved and, in extremely rare cases, moving the previous question[1]). In the 1938 MS, Edwards cites a specific example of a minister deliberately refusing to move a motion when it had been called on. It occurred in 1917 during a time of great controversy. The Prime Minister of the day, William Morris Hughes, attempted to extend the life of the Parliament beyond its constitutional limits by petitioning the British Parliament to use its imperial legislative power to amend the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. It was a desperate measure which would have undermined the fledgling independence of Australia’s institutions of government.[2] The motion had been agreed to by the House of Representatives but was on the Notice Paper of the Senate where things were much less certain. According to Edwards, the Senate was evenly divided and the Leader of the Government, Senator Millen (Nat, NSW), therefore moved a motion to postpone the matter to another day. This motion was lost on an equally divided vote, meaning that the matter was not postponed and would be called on accordingly. To avoid the loss of the substantive motion on the same basis, Senator Millen remained silent in his seat when the notice was called on by the Clerk. Edwards reports that Millen had to decide very quickly what to do and decided to take advantage of this standing order. The President then announced that as the business was not being proceeded with, it would fall off the Notice Paper. The Government later gave fresh notice of the same motion for the following week when it hoped for a change of fortune but, in Edwards’ words, “in the meantime a state of affairs developed which brought about an election, and the motion for the extension of the life of Parliament was not moved”. In fact, Hughes’ attempted manipulation of the Senate numbers affecting the representation of Tasmania had brought on a revolt by two Tasmanian senators within his own party that deprived it of the necessary margin.[3]
An exception to the rule in paragraph (2) is made for disallowance motions. If a senator in charge of a notice of motion for disallowance failed to move it when it was called on, the chair would be obliged, under SO 78, to provide an opportunity for another senator to take over the notice. For details, see Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, 12th edition, p.339.
|
|