Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 9 Hansard (23 November) . . Page.. 2583 ..

Resolution

17. The words "a resolution for the appropriation of public money" merit some scrutiny. It is my assumption that, at least in part, the use of the term in section 56 of the Constitution relates to the then financial procedures in the colonial legislatures and the UK House of Commons (and used by the House of Representatives until 1963) where certain Bills were based on financial resolutions (as they still are in certain jurisdictions). Financial procedures were more complex involving consideration by the committees of supply and ways and means. The procedure in relation to the main appropriation Bill of the year culminated with formal consideration of the Committee of Ways and Means after which a Bill to give effect to the resolution was brought in and usually passed formally and immediately (see House of Representatives Practice, p.408). Such procedures are not used by the Assembly.

18. At this stage I cannot envisage anywhere in our procedures whereby a " resolution for the appropriation of the public money of the Territory" could be readily proposed in the Assembly. Were we to alter our financial procedures (remembering the Territory is altering its whole method of financial reporting), circumstances could alter and appropriation of funds could proceed, to some extent at least, by way of resolution.

Vote

19. The question remains as to what is a "vote". In one sense, a question in the Assembly may be decided by Members challenging the opinion of the Chair as to whether the "Ayes" or "Noes" have it and requesting a call of the Assembly. Members then vote on the question.

20. In relation to items of appropriation, the term is not defined in the Assembly Standing Orders. Standing order 180, which deals with the consideration in detail of the appropriation bill for the ordinary annual services of the Executive, provides that:

... any schedule expressing the services for which the appropriation is to be made shall be considered before the clauses and, unless the Assembly otherwise orders, the schedule shall be considered by proposed expenditures in the order in which they are shown.

21. The practice of the Assembly in considering items of expenditure is relevant to the question and I will return to that later.

22. House of Representatives Practice does not define a "vote" in relation to items of proposed expenditure. Their standing order 226 is very similar to Assembly standing order 180, providing that ".. any schedule expressing the services for which the appropriation is to be made shall be considered before the clauses and ...that schedule shall be considered by proposed expenditures in the order in which they are shown.". House of Representatives Practice (p.423) states that the proposed expenditures are "traditionally listed in alphabetical order of government departments". It is worth noting in passing that House of Representatives standing order 292 makes explicit provision in relation to proposals for the appropriation of public moneys in that:

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .