Page 2565 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 8 August 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
proposal made by a Minister unless the object or effect of the amendment is to increase the amount of public money of the Territory to be disposed of or charged.
That is also in identical terms to standing order 201. The Bills in question seek to retain the Royal Canberra Hospital and to re-establish the Ainslie Transfer Station. During proceedings on 7 June the Attorney-General saw the former Bill, in particular, as clearly placing a charge on public moneys. In his letter to the Speaker on 7 June, Mr Connolly states that section 65 of the self-government Act presumably is intended to apply to the Assembly the principles derived from the Constitution, and section 56 of the Constitution gives effect to the principle of financial initiative of the Crown which is basic to our system of government.
He notes it is significant, however, that while the Constitution in effect prevents a private member in the House of Representatives from moving a Bill involving appropriation, the ACT provision prescribes a Bill "the object or effect of which is to dispose of or charge any public money of the Territory". Mr Connolly notes that, taken to a literal extreme, the printing of a Bill has the effect of such a charge. Mr Connolly argues that the two Bills do not appropriate money and are valid and that, in effect, section 65 of the self-government Act and standing order 200 should be interpreted in the same manner as section 56 of the Constitution.
In his advice the Deputy Law Officer (Constitutional and Law Reform) contrasts the provisions of section 65 of the self-government Act with section 56 of the Constitution and the equivalent provision in the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. He sees some support for the view that the legislators intended that section 65 of the self-government Act operate in a similar way to section 56 of the Constitution and parliamentary practice elsewhere - that is, that the restrictions relate only to legislation appropriating moneys. However, having examined the text of section 65, he does not believe that analysis of the provisions produces a possible reading that confines its operation to money Bills.
The advice also deals with other questions on the matter, including the remoteness or the proximity of the law to the effect, and importantly, whether the Bills, if passed, would have the effect of disposing of and charging public moneys if money has already been appropriated.
The advice concludes that the two Bills should not be proposed in the Assembly by anyone other than a Minister on the grounds that they have the effect of disposing of or charging public money of the Territory. As Mr Connolly notes in his letter, the matter is one that should be considered carefully and is a subject that should be of deep concern to all members. I am certainly inclined to agree that it should be of deep concern to all members.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .