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 the three amendments would be dealt with as amendments rather than as requests, in accordance with the precedents of the Senate in relation to these matters.

The amendments in question amend the definition of 'Northern Australia' which could potentially change the destination of the money appropriated by clause 41 of the bill. Clause 41 of this bill appropriates up to $5 billion from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of 'providing grants of financial assistance to the states and territories for the construction of northern Australia economic infrastructure.'

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. In these circumstances, the Senate has taken the view that changing definitions to extend the allocation of funding are appropriately made by amendments rather than requests for amendments. As I indicated at the time, Quick and Garran, in their famous commentaries on the Constitution, stated:

…the Senate is only forbidden to amend [bills imposing taxation] and the annual appropriation bill; it may amend two kinds of expenditure bills, viz.: those for permanent and extraordinary appropriations. …The Senate may amend such money bills so as to reduce the total amount of expenditure or to change the method, object and destination of the expenditure, but not to increase the total expenditure originated in the House of Representatives.

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the same as the amendments made by the Senate, it is suggested that the Senate can now agree to the amendments which it originally made.