Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Hansard source

When the Senate considered the government amendments to the bill, I made a statement indicating that amendment (1) would be dealt with as an amendment rather than as a request, in accordance with the precedents of the Senate in relation to these matters, a position which the minister at the table accepted.

Although, on some readings, the amendment in question may expand the purposes for which amounts may be paid from the fund, it does not affect the appropriation for the special account which is limited. There can be no increased appropriation as a clear, necessary and direct consequence of the amendment because the amendment does not increase the total amount available under the appropriation. There is therefore no increase in any proposed charge or burden on the people.

Unlike a situation where an amendment results in higher expenditure under a standing appropriation—which the Senate has had no difficulty accepting should be dealt with as a request—this bill involves the creation of a special account to which a capped amount is to be credited. It is therefore not the same as an uncapped standing appropriation.

As I indicated at the time, the Senate has long followed the practice that only an amendment which 'clearly, necessarily and directly' affects an appropriation is regarded as an increase in a charge or burden on the people within the meaning of section 53 of the Constitution. Amending a bill to change the allocation of proposed expenditure and the purposes for which money is to be appropriated has long been considered to be within the power of the Senate, provided that the total proposed or available expenditure is not increased.

However, as the substitute amendment made in the House is the same as the amendment made by the Senate, it is suggested that the Senate can now agree to the amendment which it originally made.