Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to talk to the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016 on behalf of the opposition. At the outset—

A government senator: Just support it and sit down!

Now I feel I need to keep making a greater contribution. I will take that interjection. The Labor Party has a principled position about not blocking supply, a principled position we intend to maintain. These bills reflect measures in the 2015-16 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, MYEFO, as well as machinery-of-government changes resulting from the leadership change last year. I note the Senate has had a big workload and we have been working together on serious legislation over a long period of time, so I will leave our contribution at that. I simply say that we will support this legislation and support it because of our principled position to support supply. That should not wrongly be interpreted as necessarily greater support for the measures that are associated with this. The principle behind this is that we will treat it as supply and, as such, it will be supported.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move my second reading amendment:

At the end of the motion add:

", but given:

(a) section 54 of the Constitution prescribes that the bills appropriating moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government shall deal only with such appropriations; and

(b) appropriations for expenditure on new policies are not appropriations for the ordinary annual services of the Government and the Cities and the Built Environment Taskforce has been 'established' as part of a 'new' Cities Agenda;

the Senate calls on the Government to respect the powers of the Senate and place such programs in appropriation bills other than those for the ordinary annual services of the Government."

The amendment draws attention to the government's inclusion of a new policy in an appropriation bill that the Senate cannot amend. It notes that this inclusion undermines the Senate's constitutional right to amend provisions relating to a new policy. It urges the government to not undermine the Senate and the Constitution in this way. I seek support from any senators who, like me, may wish to oppose spending on new policy, but I also seek support from any senators who simply value the constitutional role of the Senate. I commend my amendment to the Senate.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order, or clarification. We have been here for a long time, so maybe I have misunderstood what Senator Leyonhjelm said. Senator Leyonhjelm, did you move an amendment to the effect of what you said earlier or is that not the case?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Leyonhjelm has moved a second reading amendment, which has been circulated in the chamber.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So I can speak to the amendment?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can speak to the amendment.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Leyonhjelm, we were doing so well together. Things were going so well. But, unfortunately, I have to say that we will not be supporting your second reading amendment. This issue goes to the classification of appropriation items that constitute the ordinary annual services of government, which was worked through in 1965 in the form of the Senate-executive compact. In 1999 it was agreed that new administered expenses that fell within an existing outcome would be included in Appropriation Bill (No. 1), and therefore, by implication all other odd-numbered appropriation bills. Appropriation bills have been prepared according to this principle since 1999, and outcome structures are the basis and point of appropriations. Therefore, new policies that sit within them can be funded from Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and all odd-numbered appropriation bills such as Appropriation Bill (No. 3). For that principled reason and policy reason, Labor will not be supporting your amendment.

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, what do I do about the amendment?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can speak to both the second reading and the second reading amendment.

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was proposing to address Senator Leyonhjelm's issue, and I will do a summing up at the end.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, you can do that, Senator Sinodinos.

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Leyonhjelm's second reading amendment expresses a view that funding for the Cities and Built Environment Taskforce has been inappropriately included in an odd-numbered appropriation bill, when in his view it should be in an even-numbered bill. The classification of expenditure between appropriation bills Nos 3 and 4 is fully consistent with the Senate-executive compact. The compact confirms what can be considered to be ordinary annual services of government for the purposes of section 54 of the Constitution.

The Senate-executive compact has not changed since its last update in 1999, when it was last signed off by both the Senate and the government. Over the last 17 years the compact has been applied in the same way by successive governments of different political persuasions. Senator Leyonhjelm contends that all new initiatives should be included in even-numbered bills. In fact, under the compact, even-numbered appropriation bills include only those new administered expenses which fall under new outcomes. These bills also include appropriations to the states and non-operating appropriations.

In 1999 the then finance minister, John Fahey, explained in a letter to the Senate the rationale for why new administered expenses which fall within existing outcomes should be included in odd-numbered bills. He said this was done 'on the basis that the outcome has been previously approved by the parliament and the new funding simply represents an increase in, or an extension of, an existing outcome.' One of Senator Cormann's predecessors, finance minister Lindsay Tanner, in a letter dated 14 July 2010, advised a previous President of the Senate that there is 'no need to change the interpretation of the Senate-executive compact.'

The appropriation for the Cities and Built Environment Taskforce measure has been included in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) because this initiative is an increase in existing activity under existing outcome 1 of the Department of the Environment, and it is, therefore, part of the ordinary activities of the government. Population policy and cities have been within the responsibility of the Environment portfolio for several years. The cities task force has, therefore, been included under an outcome that already authorises other urban activities.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you going to continue with the second reading remarks as well?

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At this stage I commend the bills to the chamber.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question first of all is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Leyonhjelm be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.