Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Hansard source

With the concurrence of the Senate, the statements of reasons accompanying the requests circulated for this bill will be incorporated in Hansard immediately after the requests to which they relate. There being no objection, it is so ordered.

I have a statement, so I'll just give my statement. This is somewhat unusual, so it could be a learning experience for some.

According to the statement of reasons for the government amendments on sheet ZA257, amendment (3) is covered by section 53 of the Constitution because it changes the destination of money appropriated by section 423 of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. This reflects the advice to the government from the parliamentary counsel, but the Clerk's view is that this does not accord with the precedents of the Senate.

The third paragraph of section 53 provides:

The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.

This has relevantly been taken to mean that the Senate may not amend a bill to increase the proposed expenditure under a standing appropriation. However, the amendment in question does not have that effect. Quick and Garran, in their commentaries on the Constitution, say:

… the Senate is only forbidden to amend [bills imposing taxation] and the annual appropriation bill; it may amend two kinds of expenditure bills … 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.

This position is set out at page 671.

The advice of the Clerk, which is set out on the amendment sheet, is that the amendment deals only with the apportionment of expenditure and does not change the total proposed expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 423 of the act. This is highlighted by the note to proposed subsection 80A(2), which makes it clear that the sum of amounts paid to persons cannot exceed the amount the Commonwealth is liable to pay in respect of an eligible person, which is itself a capped amount.

I have considered the views of the parliamentary counsel and the Clerk and consider that the Clerk's view is consistent with the precedents of the Senate. I therefore rule that the amendment should be framed as an amendment, not a request. It's purely of a technical nature, but we won't be making requests to the other House. We will be amending as we see fit.