Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Constitution and the House of Representatives Practice are very clear. The Constitution enshrines very clearly under sections 53 and 56 the way that money bills come before the House. Section 53 says:

Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate.

That is a section of the Constitution that from time to time people in the Senate have expressed a different view on. It is understandable that from time to time people will try to increase the importance of the chamber in which they reside, but that is not a principle that has ever been supported by the House of Representatives and neither should it be. Section 56 of the Constitution reinforces section 53. It says:

A vote, resolution, or proposed law for the appropriation of revenue or moneys shall not be passed unless the purpose of the appropriation has in the same session been recommended by message of the Governor-General to the House in which the proposal originated.

It is very clear that there is no message from the Governor-General with this legislation. It is quite clear from the speeches of the member for Mackellar and others that this bill, were it to be passed, would indeed require additional moneys to be expended. The financial initiative of the executive is enshrined not only in the Constitution but also in the House of Representatives Practice and standing orders. House of Representatives Practice has been used in this chamber since this chamber was formed. Page 408 very clearly outlines the financial initiative of the executive:

It is there in the House of Representatives Practice in black and white for all to see, and the Manager of Opposition Business knows this to be the case. Page 431 of Practice goes on to deal with section 53 of the Constitution and the limitations on the Senate powers of amendment. Further, page 567 of House of Representatives Practice says:

A private Member may not initiate a bill imposing or varying a tax or requiring the appropriation of revenue or moneys. This would be contrary to the constitutional and parliamentary principle of the financial initiative of the Executive—that is, that no public charge can be incurred except on the initiative of the Government.

So it makes it very clear. Page 568 of Practice says this:

It would not be possible for a private Member to obtain the Governor-General’s recommendation for an appropriation. Furthermore, of those bills requiring a Governor-General’s message, only those brought in by a Minister may be introduced and proceeded with before the message is announced.

It goes on to say:

Therefore, only a Minister may bring in a bill which appropriates public moneys.

It could not be clearer. Standing order 179(a) is also very clear:

Only a Minister may initiate a proposal to impose, increase, or decrease a tax or duty, or change the scope of any charge.

There is no possibility that those who have moved opportunistically to dissent from your ruling, Mr Speaker, can argue that this does not change the scope of the charge. There is no possibility that they can argue that. They know that that is the case, and they know that their position is contradictory to the standing orders and to House of Representatives Practice. Standing orders 179(b) and (c) say:

(b) Only a Minister may move an amendment to the proposal which increases or extends the scope of the charge proposed beyond the total already existing under any Act of Parliament.

(c) A Member who is not a Minister may move an amendment to the proposal which does not increase or extend the scope of the charge proposed beyond the total already existing under any Act of Parliament.

So we have a very clear position here which is backed up by the Constitution, the House of Representatives Practice and the standing orders. Indeed, when this issue raised its head at the end of last year in this new parliament, the Member for Opposition Business made it clear in public interviews that he understood that only a minister can introduce a money bill. On a number of occasions, the Manager of Opposition Business and other senior members of the opposition have stated that their intention in raising these issues is to get the government to adopt them. They say that in recognition that only a government minister can introduce money bills into this House and only with a message from the Governor-General.

I say to you, Mr Speaker, that your ruling is absolutely correct today. This House has continually reaffirmed this principle, without exception. The House has done so because the founding fathers—and they were all men—were very wise when they wrote the Constitution and put in place provisions that have served this nation well for 111 years. These provisions ensure that when expenditures are approved people know where the money is actually coming from. You cannot have one-off bills not considered as part of the executive government because if you had that there would a range of expenditures which, by themselves, every member of this House would support. Who would not support, in isolation, the concept of giving more money to the homeless or the disadvantaged? Unless it is viewed in the context of a budget, which is the role of the executive government, you simply cannot have a responsible government that puts in place appropriate economic management in the interests of this nation.

We are determined to return the budget to surplus in 2012-13. That is why we have put forward a responsible budget. Those opposite are determined to wreck the budget surplus. They are determined to put forward opportunistic propositions for expenditure and they are determined to opportunistically block savings measures even when they are their own propositions, which is what you see in the alternative fuel debate. Mr Speaker, I ask the House to express its confidence in you, as it has earlier this week, and support your ruling.

See this speech in context