|
senate vote 2018-03-19#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-07-21 09:59:40
|
Title
Bills — Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018; in Committee- Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018 - in Committee - Constitutional issue
Description
<p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>The question is that the bills be agreed to without amendments or requests.</p> <p class="speaker">David Leyonhjelm</p><p>by leave—I move amendments (1), (2) and (4) on sheet 8390 together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 6, page 5 (line 4), omit "$1,355,473,000", substitute "$1,348,473,000".</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, page 31, Education and Training Portfolio, omit the table, substitute:</p><p class="italic">Departmental Administered Total</p><p class="italic">$'000 $'000 $'000</p><p class="italic">DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING</p><p class="italic">Outcome 1 -</p><p class="italic">Improved early learning, schooling, student 8,8272,69411,521</p><p class="italic">educational outcomes and transitions to and <i>180,084</i><i>476,308</i><i>656,392</i></p><p class="italic">from school through access to quality child care, 166,960 515,866 682,826</p><p class="italic">support, parent engagement, quality teaching</p><p class="italic">and learning environments</p><p class="italic">Outcome 2 -</p><p class="italic">Promote growth in economic productivity and 2,98273,05576,037</p><p class="italic">social wellbeing through access to quality higher <i>174,773</i><i>1,351,767</i><i>1,526,540</i></p><p class="italic">education, international education, and 175,470 1,353,361 1,528,831</p><p class="italic">international quality research, skills and training</p><p class="italic">Total: Department of Education and Training 11,809 75,749 87,558</p><p class="italic">Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017 -2018</p><p class="italic">(3) Clause 7, page 5 (line 4), omit "$132,714,000", substitute "$139,714,000".</p><p class="italic">(4) Schedule 2, page 22, Education and Training Portfolio, omit the table, substitute:</p><p class="italic">Payments to</p><p class="italic">States, ACT, New</p><p class="italic">NT and local Administered</p><p class="italic">government Outcomes Total</p><p class="italic">$'000 $'000 $'000</p><p class="italic">DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING</p><p class="italic">Operating</p><p class="italic">Outcome 1 -</p><p class="italic">Improved early learning, schooling, student 23,922-23,922</p><p class="italic">educational outcomes and transitions to and <i>16,299</i><i>-</i><i>16,299</i></p><p class="italic">from school through access to quality child care, 42,686 - 42,686</p><p class="italic">support, parent engagement, quality teaching</p><p class="italic">and learning environments</p><p class="italic">Outcome 2 -</p><p class="italic">Promote growth in economic productivity and -7,0007,000</p><p class="italic">social wellbeing through access to quality higher</p><p class="italic">education, international education, and</p><p class="italic">international quality research, skills and training</p><p class="italic">Total: Operating 23,922 7,000 30,922</p><p class="italic">Non -operating</p><p class="italic">Equity Injections 3,143</p><p class="italic"> <i> 12,636</i></p><p class="italic">5,985</p><p class="italic">Total: Non -operating 3,143</p><p class="italic">Total: Department of Education and Training 23,922 7,000 34,065</p><p class="italic">Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017 -2018</p><p class="italic">Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017 -2018</p><p class="italic">Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000</p><p class="italic">These amendments are directed at addressing a contravention of section 54 of the Constitution. They seek to remove funds which have been misclassified as ordinary annual services from Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018 and to amend Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018 to appropriate those funds. The amendments to Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018 are framed as requests because they are to a bill which appropriates moneys for the ordinary annual services of the government.</p><p class="italic">Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000</p><p class="italic">The amendments proposed to Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018 would transfer funds which it is argued have been misclassified in a way that would prevent the Senate amending a proposal for new expenditure. In particular, funds argued not to relate to ordinary annual services of the government have been included in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018. However, as this is otherwise a bill appropriating moneys for the ordinary annual services, and section 53 of the Constitution precludes the Senate amending such a bill, it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate for the amendments to Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018 to be moved as requests.</p><p>These amendments were foreshadowed in my speech on the second reading, so I won't spend much time on them except to remind the Senate that they are intended to make these appropriation bills consistent with the Constitution. Under the Constitution, the government should put new initiatives into one bill, not into a bill which cannot be amended by the Senate. These appropriation bills cannot be amended by the Senate. They should not contain new initiatives, but they do. Those initiatives should be taken out and put into a bill which can be amended by the Senate. That's simply the purpose of it. The government is not acting in accordance with the Constitution and it should be.</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>We don't agree with Senator Leyonhjelm's characterisation. His amendments are of course framed as a request because the Senate does not have the constitutional power to amend a bill that appropriates money for the ordinary annual services of the government. The government will not support this request and will not agree to any amendments in the House. 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 agreed to by both the Senate and the government. Over the last 19 years, the compact has been applied in the same way by successive governments of different political persuasions and so we don't accept the premise of Senator Leyonhjelm's argument.</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>I rise to advise that Labor—regrettably, Senator Leyonhjelm—will not be supporting the amendments as circulated in the chamber. 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 a 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, be considered the ordinary annual services of government. Appropriation bills have been prepared according to this principle since 1999, and outcome structures are the basis and the point of appropriations. Therefore, new policies that sit within them can be funded from Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and Appropriation Bill (No. 3). For that principled reason and policy reason, Labor will not be supporting these amendments.</p> <p class="speaker">David Leyonhjelm</p><p>I just remind the chamber that this amendment is in response to a Scrutiny of Bills Committee comment to the effect that the new initiatives are in the wrong bill and that, irrespective of any compact, make it inconsistent with the Constitution. I'm merely acting on the advice of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee.</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>I've just got to make the point here that the views of a committee, however sincerely held, don't make this inconsistent with the Constitution. The committees of the Senate, as much as they are held in high regard by all of us, are not arbiters of what is and what is not consistent with the Constitution.</p><p>The CHAIR: The question is that the amendments and requests as moved by Senator Leyonhjelm be agreed to.</p><p>The committee divided. [17:41]</p><p>(The Chair—Senator Lines)</p><p>Question negatived.</p><p>Bills agreed to.</p><p>Bills reported without amendments; report adopted.</p> -
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-19.165.1) introduced by NSW Senator [David Leyonhjelm](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/david_leyonhjelm) (Liberal Democratic Party), which means they failed.
- ### What do the amendments do?
- Senator Leyonhjelm [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-19.165.1) the amendments:
- > *are intended to make these appropriation bills consistent with the Constitution. Under the Constitution, the government should put new initiatives into one bill, not into a bill which cannot be amended by the Senate. These appropriation bills cannot be amended by the Senate. They should not contain new initiatives, but they do. Those initiatives should be taken out and put into a bill which can be amended by the Senate. That's simply the purpose of it. The government is not acting in accordance with the Constitution and it should be.*
- However, [the Government disagreed](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-19.166.1) with Senator Leyonhjelm's characterisation.
-
-
|