Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection: Senator Allison says that, in return, we will not secede. I am not a secessionist, I must say. Yes, if that threat would work and in return we would get $1 billion, I would enjoy that. But I must say that the Commonwealth needs to be far more sympathetic, when it is establishing funds, not just to hard infrastructure—ports and roads and so on, which are all very necessary—but to what is known as soft infrastructure. That does not just mean education and health; it means the normal social infrastructure that cities should enjoy. So, with that pitch from me for my state, I will move on.

These bills again raise several questions as to the nature and suitability of the appropriations bills before us. I think it is important for me to continue to stress the fact that there is no resolution yet to the conflict between the Senate and the executive over the way in which appropriations bills are styled and the placement of the content of those bills. This is not me speaking as the finance spokesperson for the Democrats; this is me reflecting a Senate view—the unanimous view of the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee and the unanimous view of the Senate Appropriations and Staffing Committee.

We need to remind ourselves, when we look at appropriations bills, that that compact that the Senate came to with the executive in 1965—and which is now a subject for continuing dispute—does need to be refreshed, resolved and reinforced. That compact was a consequence of the constitutional provisions and the Senate’s view as to how those constitutional provisions should be dealt with. One obvious emphasis of the compact is that new policies not authorised by special legislation are to be included in the second appropriation bill, which is subject to Senate amendment or rejection, and in this instance it would be Appropriation Bill (No. 6). These are important matters which the coalition, now they are in opposition, should turn their mind to again and not take the somewhat executive minded view that they formerly took. They need to take a more Senate minded view on these matters.

Over more recent years, several parliamentary committees and the Australian National Audit Office have identified a growing number of examples of expenditure measures that are incorrectly included in the appropriations bills reserved for the ordinary services of government. In what appears to constitute a significant departure from the Senate compact, recent ordinary annual services appropriations bills have included any expenditure measure, including new policies, that falls within an existing agency outcome. As a result, in a blatant disregard for budgetary propriety, recent ordinary annual services appropriations bills contained a somewhat bizarre list of significant government expenditure that could only be classified as new policies but which were being slipped through under the guise of being ordinary annual services provisions.

On several occasions the then President of the Senate and then Minister for Finance corresponded in an attempt to resolve this problem. I say to the Senate that the current government with the current set of appropriations bills has still not addressed this problem. What is concerning is that this unresolved issue continues. That is quite simply unacceptable. There has been no change to the process for this series of appropriations bills. I would urge the government, the executive, the opposition and the Senate to tackle this issue with some vigour and to resolve the matter in the interests of proper harmony between the two houses and between the Senate and the executive.