**substantive motions*\ [#fn6]_ are ones which bring forward proposals to the meeting to achieve substantive outcomes;\ [#fn1]_ for example, to take a certain action, endorse a certain position or exercise a certain power
**subsidiary motions* are ones which are dependent on, or relate to, an existing item of business;\ [#fn36]_ for example, to postpone consideration of an existing item
In this chapter, we will focus primarily on substantive motions. In :mdoc:`‘Altering the flow’ <altering-flow>`, we will cover in greater detail other subsidiary motions, including *procedural motions*, which relate to regulating the procedure of the meeting.
Traditionally, in English, motions begin with the word ‘That’,\ [#fn7]_ and are worded using the *subjunctive mood*. The subjunctive mood is how the verb is used, for example, in the title of Beyoncé's ‘If I *Were* a Boy’, or the sentence ‘It is important that you *be* here’. Examples of motions using the subjunctive mood are:
* ‘That the expenditure be approved’ or ‘That the committee approve the expenditure’ (not ‘That the expenditure *is* approved’ or ‘That the committee *approves* the expenditure’)
..
* ‘That Charlie be appointed Secretary’ (not ‘That Charlie *is* appointed Secretary’)
..
* ‘That the Board put on record its opposition to the policy’ (not ‘That the Board *puts* on record its opposition to the policy’)
By convention, motions also traditionally observe a number of other principles:
* Motions are worded in the affirmative, so that voting ‘yes’ registers support for taking some action, unless there is a good reason not to.\ [#fn5]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn18]_ A motion worded in the negative, where a ‘yes’ vote registers support for a ‘no’ proposal, would be confusing to members.
* Motions are conventionally worded as one single sentence, although the sentence may be split up into multiple parts for easier reading.\ [#fn5]_ For example:
| That:
| \(a) a finance committee be established; and
| \(b) the committee consist of 5 members appointed by the President; and
| \(c) the Chair of the committee be elected by and from the committee members.
..index:: motion; omnibus, omnibus motion, motion; composite, composite motion
.._omnibus-motion:
A motion like this which contains multiple parts (particularly if they deal with different topics) is referred to as an *omnibus motion* or *composite motion*.\ [#fn15]_
If desired, the motion may include a *preamble*,\ [#fn8]_ to provide additional context. For example, ‘That, as the rules require a Secretary to be appointed and Charlie is the only nominee, Charlie be appointed Secretary’.\ [#fn9]_
Alternative forms of motions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is, of course, open to a body to adopt different forms for its motions.\ [#fn14]_ Among organisations stoic enough to withstand the stern looks of disapproval given by meeting procedure connoisseurs to those who dare break from tradition, several alternative forms are common:
* beginning motions with the word ‘That’, but not using the subjunctive mood – for example:
* ‘That the expenditure is approved’
* ‘That Charlie is appointed Secretary’
* ‘That the Board puts on record its opposition to the policy’
..
* beginning motions with the word ‘To’ – for example:
* ‘To approve the expenditure’
* ‘To appoint Charlie as Secretary’
* ‘To put on record the Board's opposition to the policy’
..
* expressing motions as declarative statements by the body\ [#fn35]_ – for example:
* ‘This committee approves the proposed expenditure.’
* ‘Council appoints Charlie as Secretary.’
* ‘The Board opposes the proposed policy.’
Unacceptable motions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
However a body chooses to phrase its motions, there are a number of key requirements which arise from the law:
* As follows from the requirement in :mref:`‘Holding meetings’ <meeting-requirements>` that a meeting must be convened with requisite authority, a motion must not conflict with any :ref:`rules <meeting-requirements>` which bind the meeting, or be beyond the scope of the purposes or objects of the body as prescribed in its rules. A motion which is beyond the meeting's authority to agree to is known as being *ultra vires*.
* A motion must comply with all requirements of form and :ref:`notice <notice>` prescribed by the rules – for example, if the rules require advance notice to be given of proposed special resolutions.
* A motion which has been ruled out of order by the Chair must not be considered again at the same meeting, unless the ruling is successfully :mref:`dissented from <dissent>`.
A motion may also be ruled out of order by the Chair if it does not comply with one of a number of other rules:
* A motion should be relevant (*germane*) to the purpose for which the meeting was called, and if it is a subsidiary motion, it should be germane to the business to which it relates.
..index:: rule; same question, same question rule
.._same-question-rule:
* A motion must not constitute, explicitly or implicitly, a reversal of a motion carried earlier at the same meeting; nor be a renewal of a motion lost earlier at the same meeting. This is known as the *same question rule*.
* A motion should not be inconsistent with a resolution of a previous meeting of the body. The earlier resolution should instead be :mref:`rescinded <rescission>`.
In the event that a motion is mistakenly allowed to stand, and is carried, in contravention of these 3 requirements, ‘its validity would be … in jeopardy’.\ [#fn10]_
Typically, in order to bring a motion to the meeting for its consideration, the motion is first formally proposed (*moved*).
..index:: call
.._obtaining-the-call:
Obtaining the call
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In order to speak, and therefore to propose the motion, a member must first be recognised by the Chair and obtain the right to speak – known as obtaining the *call*. In North America, this is known as obtaining the *floor*.
A member seeks to obtain the call by (in large meetings) standing, or (in smaller meetings) gaining the Chair's attention in some other way, such as by raising their hand. The Chair will then *call on* the member, by stating their name or otherwise indicating who has the call.
If 2 or more members stand (raise their hands, etc.), the Chair will choose whichever person caught their attention first. If the meeting disagrees with the Chair's decision, a procedural motion may be moved :msubref:`BeNowHeard <be-now-heard>`. Procedural motions are covered in greater detail in the next chapter.
* by the chair, to call attention to a breach of meeting procedure (for example, a breach of the :mref:`rules of decorum <rules-of-decorum>`) or for another valid purpose
* by another member, to raise a :mref:`point of order <point-of-order>`
* by another member, to move one of a limited range of :ref:`procedural motions <procedural-motions>` permitted to interrupt another speaker\ [#fn65]_
Moving the motion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
After obtaining the call, the member says ‘*I move*’, followed by the words of the motion; for example, ‘*I move that the expenditure be approved*’.\ [#fn2]_
As noted previously, when one member has the call, they cannot generally be interrupted to move another motion. Additionally, a substantive motion may also only be moved when there is no other question pending before the meeting. If a member has sought to move a motion in violation of these requirements, it should be ruled by the Chair as out of order.
If the motion is particularly complex, it should be provided in writing to the Chair. Some rules require this of all motions.
After moving the motion, the member may then, if desired, make a speech in support of the motion – explaining, for example, why other members should support the motion, and so on. This speech will be subject to the :ref:`rules of decorum <rules-of-decorum>`, explained in more detail in the next section.
However, if the mover chooses not to make a speech, they will nevertheless be deemed as having spoken to the motion – the mover's initial right to speak cannot be ‘reserved’ for later.\ [#fn48]_ (Contrast with the position of the seconder, below.)
Once the mover has concluded speaking, they should (if standing) sit back down (*resume their seat*).
Seconding the motion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Although there is no requirement at common law,\ [#fn37]_ it is customary for (and some rules require) a motion to be *seconded* before it can be proceeded with further.\ [#fn39]_
At the conclusion of the mover's speech, the Chair should, if necessary, remind the meeting of the text of the motion, and ask ‘*Is the motion seconded?*’
A member (other than the mover) who wishes to second the motion should :ref:`obtain the call <obtaining-the-call>` in the same way as described previously, and say ‘*I second the motion*’. The seconder may then, if desired, make their own speech on the motion. Again, once the seconder has concluded, they should (if standing) resume their seat.
Alternatively, if the seconder chooses not to make a speech when seconding the motion, they are entitled to speak later as usual during the debate, so long as this is made clear at the time of seconding – this is known as *reserving* the right to speak.\ [#fn49]_
If no one wishes to second the motion, convention would have it that the Chair may decline to accept the motion, and the result will be as if the motion was never moved. The motion is said to have *lapsed* for want of a seconder. However, as seconders are not required at common law, whether this is legally permissible (in the absence of a specific rule) is considered doubtful.\ [#fn38]_
Alternatively, a member may rise to second the motion *pro forma*, which indicates that the member does not support the motion but would like it to be debated.\ [#fn73]_
Once the motion has been moved and, if necessary, seconded, the Chair will formally *propose the question* to the meeting, by saying ‘*The question is that*’ followed by the rest of the motion, or if the text of the motion does not need repeating, ‘*The question is that the motion be agreed to*’.
Note that while it is usual for the Chair not to accept a motion until it is formally moved, this is not a legal requirement. A Chair also has the power to put a motion to the meeting without it being moved or seconded.\ [#fn50]_ Alternatively, the Chair may suggest wording for a motion, and invite another member to move it; for example, by asking ‘*May I have a motion that …*’.\ [#fn51]_
Once a motion is accepted by the Chair, it becomes the property of the meeting. It cannot be amended or withdrawn unless the meeting agrees – for example, by :ref:`amendment <amendments>`, :ref:`procedural motion <procedural-motions>` or :ref:`leave <leave>`.\ [#fn74]_
.._debate:
Debate
------
Once the question is proposed by the Chair, the motion is opened to debate by other members who wish to speak for or against the motion.
A member who wishes to speak in debate should :ref:`obtain the call <obtaining-the-call>` as previously described, make their speech, then (if standing) resume their seat.
As noted in :mref:`‘Obtaining the call’ <obtaining-the-call>`, the call is usually allocated to the member who is noticed by the Chair first. However, the Chair may instead consider it beneficial to alternate between those speaking for and against the motion, or to give effect to a prior agreement about speaking order.\ [#fn44]_
At meetings of small committees, there is generally no restriction on the number of times a member may speak in a debate. In larger meetings, each member (except for the mover, who has a :ref:`right of reply <right-of-reply>`) is entitled to speak only once during the debate.\ [#fn44]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn40]_
Exceptions to the one-speech-per-debate rule may be advanced at the discretion of the Chair – for example, to allow a member to clarify a statement made by them earlier in the debate which appears to have been genuinely misinterpreted.\ [#fn44]_ Alternatively, if it is desired at a large meeting to allow all members to speak an unlimited number of times to each question, see :mref:`‘Committee debate’ <committee-debate>`.
As there is now a motion before the meeting, no other different substantive motion may be moved at this time. However, if relevant, a member may, during their speech, notify other members of an intention to later propose (*foreshadow*) another motion.\ [#fn63]_
.._rules-of-decorum:
Rules of decorum
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A number of rules apply to speeches during debates, and to the conduct of members generally during a meeting:
..index:: Chair; speaking through the
* Members should (if at a large meeting) stand when speaking, and face the Chair. Members should phrase their remarks as if addressing the Chair, rather than as if talking to any other particular individual; i.e. the term ‘you’ refers to the Chair.\ [#fn41]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn46]_ This is known as *speaking through the chair*, and is designed to discourage heated personal arguments.
..
* Members should not engage in offensive language, imputations of improper motives or personal reflections on other members.\ [#fn41]_ Members should be reminded to debate the idea, not the person.
..
* Members should not engage in repeated disruptive interjections, heckling or private conversations while another member is speaking.\ [#fn41]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn42]_
..
* Speeches should be relevant to the topic currently before the meeting.\ [#fn42]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn47]_
..
* When the Chair rises to speak, members should stop speaking and resume their seat.\ [#fn42]_
Chairs have the power to regulate breaches of decorum. A misbehaving member may be interrupted by the Chair and reminded of the expectations, asked to withdraw and apologise, or ordered to resume their seat.\ [#fn42]_
In extreme cases, if a person's behaviour is so obstructive to the proceedings that the meeting cannot be peaceably continued, the Chair may order that person be removed from the meeting and prevented from returning.\ [#fn43]_
.._right-of-reply:
Right of reply
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If a motion is debated, the mover of a substantive motion is conventionally offered the privilege of speaking a second time at the end of the debate. This is known as the *right of reply*.\ [#fn45]_
The Chair has the power to determine when the debate is to be closed,\ [#fn76]_ and should seek to do so once no other speakers are forthcoming, or if the previous few speakers have all been from the same side and no opposing speakers are forthcoming.\ [#fn77]_
At this time, the Chair should call on the mover to speak ‘in reply’, if the mover desires. The mover may also speak ‘in reply’ if the debate is ended by a :ref:`procedural motion <procedural-motions>`.\ [#fn52]_
As the reply will be the last speech in the debate, and opponents of the motion will therefore not have an opportunity to respond, the mover is not permitted to introduce any new information or argument, but may only address what has previously been raised.\ [#fn45]_
The mover of an amendment or procedural motion does not have a right of reply.\ [#fn52]_
If the substantive motion is proposed to be amended (see :mref:`‘Amendments’ <amendments>`), there is some disagreement on when the right of reply may be exercised. The 3 possibilities are:
:ref:`Lang (2015) <horsley>`\ [#fn52]_ and :ref:`Puregger (1998) <puregger>`\ [#fn75]_ recommend, and the author agrees, that the mover may exercise the right of reply at their choice at any of these 3 times.
Some authorities also suggest that the right of reply is forfeit if the mover speaks in the debate on an amendment.\ [#fn52]_:ref:`Lang (2015) <horsley>`\ [#fn52]_ further recommends that the Chair may, at their discretion, rule this to be the case when appropriate.
The Chair again announces ‘*The question is that*’ followed by the rest of the motion, or ‘*The question is that the motion be agreed to*’, as appropriate.
At common law, voting on motions is by show of hands.\ [#fn53]_ When voting by show of hands, the Chair says words to the effect of ‘*Those in favour, please raise your hand*’ (or ‘*please indicate*’\ [#fn55]_ or ‘*please show*’\ [#fn54]_), followed by the same for ‘*Those opposed*’.
Unless the rules require it, or the result is close and the Chair wishes to, there is no requirement to actually count the number of hands raised.\ [#fn55]_
The Chair will determine which side, in their opinion, had more votes, and announce the result accordingly; for example, ‘*The question is agreed to and the motion is carried*’ or ‘*The question is negatived and the motion is lost*’.
If members disagree with the Chair's determination, they may request a :ref:`poll <poll>`. More detailed rules for voting by show of hands or poll, and for other forms of voting, are discussed in :mdoc:`‘Voting and elections’ <voting>`.
Once a motion is carried, it becomes, and is known as, a *resolution* of the meeting.
..index:: Chair; voting by
Voting by Chair
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
..index:: deliberative vote, vote; deliberative, Chair; deliberative vote of
When the Chair of a meeting is also a voting member of the body, the Chair is entitled to exercise the *deliberative vote* they have in their capacity as a voting member.
Authorities recommend that if the Chair is to exercise their deliberative vote, it should be exercised at the same time that the other members vote.\ [#fn26]_ However, in Australia, the courts have also endorsed as acceptable exercising the deliberative vote if necessary only after the other votes have been counted.\ [#fn27]_
..index:: casting vote, vote; casting, Chair; casting vote of
In addition to the deliberative vote, the rules of many bodies provide that, if the votes on a question are tied, the Chair has a second (*casting*) vote.\ [#fn25]_ This may be the case even if the Chair does not have a deliberative vote.\ [#fn29]_ As the casting vote is conditional on the votes being tied, it is naturally only exercised once the other votes have been counted.
Traditionally, the casting vote is exercised in favour of the status quo.\ [#fn29]_ This principle was developed more specifically by John Evelyn Denison, Speaker of the British House of Commons from 1857 to 1872, in what is now known as *Speaker Denison's rule*:
* the casting vote is cast in favour of further discussion, if further discussion is possible (e.g. against :ref:`closure <closure>`)
* if no further discussion is possible, decisions should not be taken except by a majority (i.e. the casting vote is cast against substantive motions)
* in a vote on an amendment, the casting vote is cast in favour of leaving the motion in its existing form (i.e. against the amendment)\ [#fn31]_
However, this is not a legal requirement. Courts have expressed that a Chair exercising a casting vote must ‘exercise it honestly and in accordance with what [they believe] to be the best interests of those who may be affected by the vote’, but subject to that, ‘is fully entitled to … vote as [they think] fit’.\ [#fn30]_
As the casting vote is conditional on the votes being tied, the Chair cannot use a casting vote in order to *cause* a tie. Nor can a casting vote conditional on a tie be used to resolve a question when more than a majority vote is required (for example, when a two-thirds majority is required by the rules).\ [#fn28]_
A Chair may cast both a deliberative vote and a casting vote – i.e. use their deliberative vote to cause a tie, then use their casting vote.\ [#fn27]_ This should be done with great caution, however, so as to avoid any suggestion of bias.
..index:: tied votes, vote; tied
Tied votes
^^^^^^^^^^
If the votes on a question are tied, and the Chair does not have (or chooses not to exercise) a casting vote, the question is not agreed to, as a majority (*more than* half) has not been obtained in favour.
However, in such a case, whether the question has been *negatived* (and in the case of a motion, whether it has been *lost*) is ambiguous. :ref:`Citrine (1982) <citrine>`\ [#fn23]_ and :ref:`Puregger (1998) <puregger>`\ [#fn78]_ take the view that the motion is declared ‘not carried’, but is not ‘lost’ per se. In this case, the effect is as if the motion had never been moved.
On the other hand, :ref:`Renton (2005) <renton>`\ [#fn28]_ and :ref:`Lang (2015) <horsley>`\ [#fn56]_ suggest, and the Australian Constitution explicitly prescribes for the Senate,\ [#fn24]_ that when the votes are tied the question is negatived.
Because of this ambiguity, the author recommends that the rules of the body should explicitly prescribe what should happen in the event of such a tie – for simplicity, the author recommends that the question should be negatived.
It is often the case that, after a motion has been moved and seconded, some members would prefer that changes be made to the motion. This may be accomplished by an *amendment*, which is a proposal to alter the wording of a motion once it has been accepted by the Chair.
In this book, when we say *principal motion*, we mean the motion that the amendment proposes to amend.
Form of amendments
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
An amendment can be conceptualised as a type of subsidiary motion of the form ‘*That the motion be amended by …*’ (or equivalent).
Customarily, a motion may be amended to:\ [#fn19]_
The example motions shown are non-exhaustive, and many other valid forms will be seen in practice – including forms for more complex types of amendment. All should be regarded as acceptable, so long as the intended effect is clear.
Curious readers may be interested in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel's *Amending Forms Manual*, which provides clear examples of wording amendments (in the ‘amended as follows’ form) for a variety of situations, including complex ones.\ [#fn13]_
Unacceptable amendments
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Like motions, there are a number of rules that amendments must comply with:
..index:: direct negative, amendment; direct negative
* An amendment must not be a *direct negative* of the principal motion.\ [#fn61]_ A direct negative amendment is one that simply inverts the effect of the motion, so that a ‘Yes’ vote would become a ‘No’ and vice versa. For example, in the motion ‘*That Charlie be appointed Secretary*’, to insert ‘*not*’ before ‘*be*’.
However, an amendment can still invert the effect of a motion, if it also adds a reason for doing so – called a *reasoned amendment*. For example, in the motion ‘*That Charlie be appointed Secretary*’, to omit all words after ‘*That*’ and substitute ‘*the position of Secretary remain vacant, as a regular election is already scheduled for 1 month's time*’.
* An amendment must be germane to the subject of the motion.\ [#fn61]_
* An amendment must not raise a point already disposed of by a previous vote of the meeting (the :ref:`same question rule <same-question-rule>`).\ [#fn61]_ It follows that an amendment may not propose to remove words inserted by a previous successful amendment, nor propose to insert words previously removed.
Some authorities provide that amendments must be moved in the order they affect the motion, i.e. no amendment may be moved to part of a motion preceding a part previously proposed to be amended.\ [#fn79]_ The author feels this approach to be unnecessarily restrictive, but if it is to be followed, it would be prudent, when an amendment is moved, for the Chair to ask if anyone wishes to propose an amendment to an earlier part of the motion, which would then be considered first.
Additionally, some authorities provide that an amendment may not be itself amended (a *second-degree amendment*), and that alternative amendments should instead be mref:`foreshadowed <foreshadowing-amendments>`.\ [#fn62]_ This has the advantage of avoiding the potentially confusing conceptual complexity of ‘amending an amendment’, but the author believes that a strict prohibition is too strong. The author recommends that the body's standing orders specify that the Chair *may* decline to accept a second-degree amendment at their discretion, and that an amendment to a second-degree amendment is out of order.
During debate on the principal motion, while no other member is speaking, a member may move an amendment in the same way as described in :mref:`‘Moving a motion’ <moving-motion>`, by obtaining the call and saying ‘*I move*’ followed by the text of the amendment as described previously; for example, ‘*I move that the words “…” be omitted*’.
In the same way as a substantive motion, the mover of the amendment may then speak in favour, then a seconder may be sought to second and (if desired) speak on the amendment.
Since, in order to move or second the amendment, a member will need to obtain the call during the debate on the principal motion, a member (at a large meeting) who has already spoken on the principal motion may not move or second an amendment.\ [#fn57]_ Neither the mover nor seconder of the principal motion may move or second an amendment.\ [#fn58]_ Some authorities extend this to require that no one may move or second more than one amendment (or other subsidiary motion) to the principal motion.\ [#fn59]_
Once moved and (if necessary) seconded, the Chair formally proposes the question on the amendment to the meeting, by saying ‘*The question is that*’ followed by the rest of the amendment, or ‘*The question is that the amendment be agreed to*’.
The amendment is then opened to debate by the meeting. The debate, now, is no longer on the principal motion, but is instead on the amendment. As this is a different question, members may speak again on the amendment, even if they have spoken previously in the debate on the principal motion.\ [#fn58]_ The debate, however, must be confined to the appropriateness of the amendment, not to any other aspect of the principal motion.
.._foreshadowing-amendments:
Similarly, as the debate is now on the amendment itself, other different amendments to the principal motion may not be moved at this time. However, a member may :ref:`foreshadow <foreshadowing>` another amendment; for example, an alternative amendment in the event that the present amendment is defeated.\ [#fn64]_
Debate proceeds as described in :mref:`‘Moving a motion’ <moving-motion>`, with a few exceptions: The mover of an amendment has no right of reply.\ [#fn58]_ Some authorities also maintain that the seconder of an amendment has no right to reserve their speech.\ [#fn60]_
Once the debate is concluded, the Chair will put the question on the amendment – the form of doing so varies according to practice, and is described in the next 2 sections.
Traditional form of putting amendments
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Traditionally, the form of putting the question on an amendment varies depending on the type of amendment.
For an amendment to insert (or add) words, the Chair announces ‘*The question is that the words proposed be inserted*’ (or ‘*added*’).\ [#fn32]_ A vote in favour of the question, naturally, is a vote in favour of the amendment.
However, for an amendment to omit words, the Chair announces ‘*The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question*’.\ [#fn32]_ In order to vote in favour of the amendment, one must then vote *against* the question proposed by the Chair.\ [#fn33]_
For an amendment to omit words and substitute others, the question is put in 2 stages. The Chair first announces ‘*The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question*’. Then, if and only if that question is negatived, the Chair announces ‘*The question is that the words proposed be inserted*’.\ [#fn32]_ In order to vote in favour of the amendment, one must then vote against the first question, and in favour of the second.
In the author's opinion, the traditional method is needlessly confusing. The UK House of Commons rid itself of this procedure in 1967,\ [#fn34]_ and since its adoption by the Australian House of Representatives in 2011, the following simpler form has also become standard.\ [#fn32]_
Simpler form of putting amendments
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The simpler form of putting the question on an amendment is the same for all amendments: the Chair announces ‘*The question is that the amendment be agreed to*’. A vote in favour of the question is a vote in favour of the amendment, and a vote against is analogous. The ‘2 stage’ process for an amendment to omit words and substitute others is not used.
The author recommends that the body's standing orders specify that all amendments be put in this form.
Effect of amendment
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If the amendment is lost, debate is resumed on the principal motion without any changes being made to its wording. Provided no other amendments are made, the question would eventually be put ‘*That the motion be agreed to*’.
If the amendment is carried, the wording of the principal motion is altered accordingly, and debate is resumed on the principal motion as amended. The question would eventually be put ‘*That the motion, as amended, be agreed to*’.
The rule (in large meetings) continues to apply that a member (except the mover in reply), who has already spoken in the debate on the principal motion, may not speak again – even if the first speech was before the amendment was moved.
In this chapter, we have introduced a great many rules of meeting procedure. In :mref:`‘Role of the Chair’ <role-of-chair>`, we noted that the Chair has the responsibility for maintaining order and upholding these procedures, and in :mref:`‘Obtaining the call’ <obtaining-the-call>`, we noted that the Chair may interrupt a member to draw attention to an irregularity.
Clearly, it would be untenable to expect the Chair to notice every potential irregularity, and so other members of the meeting are permitted to assist the Chair in drawing attention to potential irregularities by raising *points of order*.
A member who wishes to raise a point of order should stand, or raise their hand, as described at :ref:`‘Obtaining the call’ <obtaining-the-call>`, and announce ‘*Chair, I rise to a point of order*’, ‘*On a point of order*’ or simply ‘*Point of order*’. A point of order should be raised as soon as the perceived irregularity is observed,\ [#fn68]_ and so may interrupt another member while they have the call.
The interrupter should then briefly state the point of order. It is most polite for the point of order to be phrased as a question; for example, ‘*Is it in order to … ?*’\ [#fn67]_ The interrupter should then (if standing) resume their seat.\ [#fn66]_
The point of order may be debated,\ [#fn69]_ but it would be advisable to avoid extended discussion.
The Chair will then make a decision, either upholding the point of order (traditionally by stating ‘*The point is well taken*’) or dismissing the point of order (traditionally by stating ‘*The point is not well taken*’ or ‘*There is no point of order*’). The meeting then continues in accordance with the ruling.
**points of explanation*: raised by a member (including to interrupt another who has the call) whose words have been misrepresented or misinterpreted, to give a brief explanation (compare the :ref:`exceptions to the one-speech-per-debate rule <exceptions-one-speech>` in :mref:`‘Debate’ <debate>`)\ [#fn71]_
..[#fn6] Some authorities reserve the term *substantive motion* only for motions after they have been amended: :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.3; :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 38; :ref:`Lang 2015 <renton>`, ¶10.24; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 38.
..[#fn1] In North America, *Robert's Rules* calls these *original main motions*: :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶6:2.
..[#fn9] When using the longer ‘Be it resolved that’ form, the motion also may be preceded by a more formal preamble beginning with ‘Whereas’. For example, ‘Whereas the rules require a Secretary to be appointed and Charlie is the only nominee, be it resolved that Charlie be appointed Secretary’.
..[#fn14] Though still proscribed by many as informal, beginning motions with words other than ‘That’ has been around since at least 1982: :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 16.
..[#fn35] This form is common in meetings outside the English-speaking world; for example, in the United Nations, or the Chinese National People's Congress.
..[#fn2] ‘Move’, in this sentence, has the meaning ‘propose’, so if it helps in understanding the grammar, think instead ‘I propose that the expenditure be approved’. This also explains the use of the subjunctive mood: one would not typically say ‘I propose that the expenditure *is* approved’.
..[#fn37]:ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.12; *Re Horbury Bridge Coal, Iron & Waggon Co* (1879) 11 Ch D 109, 117–18; *National Australia Bank Ltd v Market Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq)* (2001) 161 FLR 1.
..[#fn39] Some rules even require a motion to be seconded before the *mover* can speak in favour of it. The author, as well as :ref:`Lang 2015, ¶10.12 <horsley>`, and :ref:`Puregger 1998, p. 40 <puregger>`, believe this to be an undesirable practice – how can one know whether to second a motion before the mover has a chance to explain it?
..[#fn40] This differs from the practice in North America under *Robert's Rules*, where each member may speak twice (provided that no member may speak a second time before all who wish to have spoken a first time) and there is no right of reply: :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶4:28.
..[#fn63]:ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.46.
..[#fn41]:ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶7.7.
..[#fn46]:ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.35.
..[#fn42]:ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶7.10.
..[#fn47]:ref:`Renton 2005 <joske>`, ¶4.34.
..[#fn43]:ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶7.10; *Toohey v Melville* (1892) 13 LR (NSW) 132.
..[#fn77]:ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 57; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.25.
..[#fn52]:ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.26.
..[#fn70] Some authorities that suggest the right of reply may only be exercised before the first amendment is voted go on to explain that the right is forfeit if not then exercised as, if the amendment is agreed to, it is no longer the mover's original motion: :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 95.
..[#fn75]:ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 53.
..[#fn53]:ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.12; *R v Rector of Birmingham* (1837) 1 A&E 254.
..[#fn27]:ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.14; *Johnson v Beitseen* (1989) 41 IR 395, 414.
..[#fn25] It is a common misconception that Chairs always have a casting vote. At common law, unless the rules provide otherwise, the Chair of a meeting does not have a casting vote: :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.14; :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶10.25; *Bishop of Chichester v Harward* (1787) 99 ER 1300.
..[#fn21] A distinction is sometimes made between *inserting* and *adding*, where words are *inserted* into the middle of a passage, but *added* to the end: :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶12:8.
..[#fn22] In North America, *Robert's Rules* reserves the term *substitute* for units of at least a paragraph: :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶12:8. In Australia, the term is regularly used for substitutions of any size (including single words).
..[#fn11] The rationale for leaving the word ‘That’ stems from the view that, if all the words of the motion were omitted, the motion would no longer exist, and it would not be possible to then substitute words into something which does not exist.
..[#fn12] Note that, in this expression, it is the *new words* which are substituted *for* the *old words*.
..[#fn33] This practice is said to have originated when the UK House of Commons had only one division lobby – the Noes would retire to the division lobby, while the Ayes would remain in the chamber. This would allow government MPs to vote against an opposition amendment without needing to leave the chamber, collecting the votes of anyone too lazy to move. In the Australian House of Representatives, it means that government MPs can vote against an opposition amendment without leaving their seats. It also means that, once the question is negatived, no further amendments may be moved to those words: :ref:`Wright et al. 2012 <horp6>`, p. 315.
..[#fn34]:ref:`Natzler et al. 2019 <may>`, ¶20.35.
