Previous Fragment    Next Fragment

Ch9 Motions / MOTIONS OF NO CONFIDENCE AND CENSURE / The Government



Download Word

House of Representatives                                Ch 9                                                 p 316

 

 

The Government

Perhaps the most crucial motions considered by the House of Representatives are those which express censure of or no confidence in a Government, ¹ as it is an essential tenet of the Westminster system that the Government must possess the confidence of the lower (representative) House. By convention, loss of the confidence of the House normally requires the Government to resign in favour of an alternative Government or to advise a dissolution of the House of Representatives. The importance of such motions or amendments is recognised by the rule that any motion of which notice has been given, or amendment, ² which expresses censure of or no confidence in the Government, and is accepted by a Minister as a motion or amendment of censure or no confidence, takes precedence of all other business until disposed of. ³ Additional speaking time is allotted to these motions—the mover of the motion, who is usually the Leader of the Opposition, may speak for 30 minutes; the Prime Minister or a Minister deputed by the Prime Minister may also speak for 30 minutes, and any other Member for 20 minutes. ⁴

A notice of motion not accepted by a Minister in the terms of standing order 48 is treated in the same manner as any other notice given by a private Member and is entered on the Notice Paper under private Members’ business. Although action may be taken to bring the matter on for debate immediately or at an early stage, such a motion does not attract the increased speaking times of an accepted censure or no confidence motion. ⁵ The Government may not accept a notice as a no confidence motion immediately, but it may be accepted on the next sitting day ⁶ or some future day, ⁷ after which it takes precedence until disposed of.

The importance with which no confidence motions were regarded historically is reflected in the fact that on occasions, the last being in 1947, the House has adjourned until the next sitting day following notice being given of such a motion. ⁸ Also, it was often the case in the past that the Senate remained adjourned while the Government was under challenge in this way in the House. ⁹ However, the importance of these motions, from both a parliamentary and public point of view, has lessened in more recent years because of the increasing frequency of censure motions generally (mostly censure of the Prime Minister or Ministers, rather than of the Government). ¹⁰ In the modern House, pressure of business is such as to preclude an adjournment.

The withdrawal by the House of its confidence in the Government may be shown:

By a direct vote of censure of or no confidence in the Government, usually for certain specified acts or omissions. A no confidence motion, however, does not always contain reasons in its terms. ¹¹

By defeating an issue central to government policy or rejecting a legislative measure proposed by the Government, the acceptance of which the Government has declared to be of vital importance. Conversely, a vote by the House agreeing to a particular legislative measure or provision contrary to the advice and consent of the Government could similarly be regarded as a matter of confidence. Following defeat a Government may choose to resign, as in April and August 1904, 1929 and 1941 ( see below ), or to seek a direct vote of confidence.

By defeat of the Government on a vote not necessarily central to government policy but accepted by the Government as one of confidence, as in 1905, 1908, 1909 and 1931 ( see below ).

A defeat of the Government in the House of Representatives does not necessarily mean it has lost the confidence of the House or that it ought to resign. As Jennings states:

It must not be thought . . . that a single defeat necessarily demands either resignation or dissolution. Such a result follows only where the defeat implies loss of confidence . . . ¹²

What a Government will treat as a matter of sufficient importance to demand resignation or dissolution is, primarily, a question for the Government. The Opposition can always test the opinion of the House by a vote of no confidence. No Government [in the United Kingdom] since 1832 has failed to regard such a motion, if carried, as decisive. A House whose opinion was rejected has always at hand the ultimate remedy of the refusal of supply. ¹³

A Government may consider it appropriate, if it is defeated on a matter which it deems to be of sufficient importance, to seek the feeling of the House at the first opportunity by means of a motion of confidence. A motion of confidence could also be used pre-emptively—for example, in October 1975 Prime Minister Whitlam, following an announcement of the Opposition’s intention to delay in the Senate bills appropriating money for the ordinary annual services of the Government, moved a motion of confidence in the Government. An amendment was moved and negatived and the original motion agreed to. ¹⁴

In 1903 the Government was defeated on an important amendment to a Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. Prime Minister Barton stated that the vote created a situation of some gravity and the Ministry would consider its position before any further business was undertaken. The next day he announced that the Government could not accept the amendment or proceed with the bill as amended and, therefore, the Government intended to drop the bill. ¹⁵ The same Government also decided not to proceed with the Papua (British Papua New Guinea) Bill after the Government was defeated on certain amendments. ¹⁶ Government defeats on tariff matters were not uncommon during this period ¹⁷ and in 1904 the Watson Government suffered other defeats to its conciliation and arbitration legislation prior to the defeat that led to its resignation. ¹⁸

It has been claimed that the loss of control of the business of the House is a matter over which Governments should resign. In 1908 Prime Minister Deakin resigned when he accepted that any amendment to a motion to alter the hour of next meeting was a challenge to his Government, and the 1909 and 1931 resignations of Governments followed from similar acceptances ( see below ). In each case the Governments were on the point of losing the necessary support to remain in power. In 1923, however, the Government having lost control of the business of the House the previous evening, Prime Minister Bruce confidently assured the Opposition ‘the Government will very soon take it back into its own hands today’. ¹⁹ During 1962 and 1963, when the Menzies Government had a floor majority of one, it suffered a number of defeats ²⁰ and, although it did not resign, its precarious majority was a factor which led to the early dissolution of the House. ²¹

A motion (or amendment) expressing censure of the Government, although not seen in the same light as one expressing no confidence, is still of vital importance. A censure motion, as the words imply, expresses more a disapproval or reprimand at particular a ctions or policies of the Government and, although such a motion or amendment has never been successful in the House, an early authority has stated that it would:

. . . ordinarily lead to [the Government’s] retirement from office, or to a dissolution . . . unless the act complained of be disavowed, when the retirement of the minister who was especially responsible for it will propitiate the House, and satisfy its sense of justice. ²²

On no occasion has a direct vote of censure of or no confidence in a Government been successful in the House of Representatives. On eight occasions however Governments have either resigned or advised a dissolution following their defeat on other questions in the House:

Deakin Ministry, 21 April 1904—The Government resigned following its defeat 29:38 in committee on an amendment moved by the Opposition to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. ²³

Watson Ministry, 12 August 1904—The Government resigned following its defeat 34:36 on an amendment to its motion that the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (which it inherited from the previous Government and carried through the committee stage) be recommitted for consideration of certain clauses and a schedule. ²⁴

Reid Ministry, 30 June 1905—The Government resigned following the House agreeing 42:25 to an amendment to the Address in Reply (proposing to add the words ‘but are of the opinion that practical measures should be proceeded with’). ²⁵

Deakin Ministry, 10 November 1908—The Government resigned following its defeat 13:49 on an amendment to the motion to alter the hour of next meeting. ²⁶

Fisher Ministry, 27 May 1909—The Government resigned following defeat, 30:39, on a motion moved by a private Member to adjourn debate on the Address in Reply. ²⁷

Bruce-Page Ministry, 10 September 1929—The Governor-General accepted the Prime Minister’s advice to dissolve the House after an amendment had been agreed to in committee to the Maritime Industries Bill (35:34). The amendment was to the effect that proclamation of the Act would not be earlier than its submission to the people either at a referendum or a general election. ²⁸

Scullin Ministry, 25 November 1931—The Governor-General accepted the Prime Minister’s advice to dissolve the House after the question ‘That the House do now adjourn’ was agreed to 37:32, against the wishes of the Government. ²⁹

Fadden Ministry, 3 October 1941—The Government resigned when, during the Budget debate in committee of supply, an opposition amendment to the effect that the first item in the estimates be reduced by a nominal sum (£1) was agreed to 36:33. ³⁰

These cases are outlined in more detail in previous editions.

There have been other cases of interest which did not lead to a change of Government:

8. In 1908 the Government lost a division 28:31 on the question that the debate be adjourned on a motion and amendment. Prime Minister Deakin issued a challenge of confidence on the next division which was decided in favour of the Government. ³¹
9. The Hughes Ministry resigned in January 1918 following the defeat of its proposals in the second conscription plebiscite in December 1917. Prime Minister Hughes gave the Governor-General no advice as to what should be done and after seeking advice from representatives of all sections of the House the Governor-General commissioned Hughes to form another Ministry. ³²

In 1921 the Hughes Government was defeated on a motion to adjourn the House to discuss an urgent matter of definite public importance. The House then adjourned for five days and on its resumption the Prime Minister gave Members an opportunity of registering their opinion by a vote on a motion to print a paper, to which the Opposition moved an amendment seeking the resignation of the Prime Minister. The amendment was defeated 46:23, and the original motion agreed to on the same figures. ³³

See also Ch. on ‘The role of the House of Representatives’. Motions censuring or expressing lack of confidence in the occupant of the Chair are dealt with in Ch. on ‘The Speaker, Deputy Speakers and officers’.

VP 1970-72/445-6.

S.O. 48. The acceptance is by way of a Minister’s formal statement to the House, for example, ‘I inform the House that I accept the notice of motion as a motion of censure of the Government for the purpose of standing order 48’, H.R. Deb. (19.3.85) 461.

S.O. 1.

NP 14 (17.9.74) 1128. For further discussion of the time for moving see Ch. on ‘Order of business and the sitting day’.

VP 1974-75/61.

VP 1974-75/167.

VP 1946-48/250.

See Odgers , 6th edn, pp. 967-8.

An average over the last ten years of about six per year (not including motions directed at the Chair, the Opposition or private Members). The most recent occasion of a motion being accepted under standing order 48 was in 1985. VP 1985-87/81; H.R. Deb. (19.3.85) 461.

VP 1970-72/471.

Jennings, Cabinet government , p. 493.

Jennings, Cabinet government , p. 495.

VP 1974-75/987-90.

VP 1903/216; H.R. Deb. (8.9.03) 4788; H.R. Deb. (9.9.03) 4838-40. Ironically the amendment was very similar to that which led to the resignation of the Deakin Ministry in 1904.

VP 1903/205, 207; H.R. Deb. (9.9.03) 4838.

VP 1901-02/386, 387, 388, 718, 726, 728.

VP 1904/279, 280, 283, 287.

H.R. Deb. (17.8.23) 2964.

VP 1962-63/194, 217-18, 307-8, 348-9.

H.R. Deb. (15.10.63) 1790.

Alpheus Todd, Parliamentary government in England (New edition, Spencer Walpole), Sampson Low, Marsden and Company, London, 1892, vol. II, p. 121.

VP 1904/49, 273; H.R. Deb. (19.4.04) 1043, 1047; H.R. Deb. (21.4.04) 1247.

VP 1904/147, 149.

VP 1905/7, 9.

VP 1908/78-79, 81; H.R. Deb. (6.11.08) 2136; (10.11.08) 2139-40.

VP 1909/7, 9, 11; H.R. Deb. (27.5.09) 126; (28.5.09) 169.

VP 1929/118, 121; H.R. Deb. (10.9.29) 841, 850, 867. H.R. Deb. (12.9.29) 873-4.

VP 1929-31/945, 947, 948; H.R. Deb. (25.11.31) 1899; H.R. Deb. (26.11.31) 1926-7.

VP 1940-43/193, 195; H.R. Deb. (3.10.41) 720.

VP 1907-08/377-8; H.R. Deb. (9.4.08) 10451-60.

VP 1917-19/157-8.

VP 1920-21/489-94; H.R. Deb. (15.4.21) 7466; H.R. Deb. (20.4.21) 7497-9.