In connection with the Order Paper for to-day, I understand that it would suit the convenience of the Minister for Education if item No. 2—Motion: "That the National School Teachers Superannuaation (Amendment) (No. 2) Scheme, 1940, made by the Minister for Education with the consent of the Minister for Finance under the Teachers Superannuation Act, 1928 (No. 32 of 1928) be confirmed"—were taken first. If there is no objection to that course, perhaps we can proceed accordingly.

Agreed.

I should also say, at this point, that I have been given to understand that it is not intended to move to-day Item No. 11, the motion standing in the names of Senators MacDermot and Tierney. The House may wish to have that intimation now.

So that the motion is not being withdrawn? It is still on the Order Paper and is not being taken off?

No.

So then we are only getting a postponement of mischief-making?

Comment on the terms of the motion is, of course, at the moment, out of order.

There is such a thing as public interest, I suggest, and that is more important than a matter of order.

Or such a thing as Fifth Column activities.

I should like to know what is the general rule with regard to a motion. If a person puts down a motion, and it appears on the Order Paper, is it at the option of the mover of the motion to decide at what date it will be taken?

A motion lapses when reached unless it is moved, but it has been the practice of the House to agree to the postponement of a motion to meet the convenience of the mover. It is, of course, a matter for agreement by the House.