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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 9 Hansard (23 November) . . Page.. 2586 ..

comments. However, the consistent practice of the Assembly since 1990 has been to consider Part II of the Schedule by Division.

34. In the event of an amendment being moved, such as that noted, a definitive ruling will have to be given on what a "vote" is. There is no definition in the context of the Appropriation Bill 1995-96, however, in the light of the provisions of standing order 180 and the Assembly practice to date, it can be concluded that a "vote" in the current context is a Division as listed in Part II of the Schedule.

Transferring appropriations within a vote

35. Unlike House of Representatives standing order 292, Assembly standing order 201 does not specifically prohibit an amendment that would extend the objects and purposes or alter the destination of the appropriation recommended (unless a further message from the Governor-General is received). This issue is addressed by Mr Barram in his advice of 10 November 1995, where he refers to the explanatory memorandum of the Self-Government Act. The explanatory memorandum reads:

Sub-clause 64(2) [now, as amended 65(2)] enables Members of the Assembly to move amendments to monetary proposals made by a Minister but only to decrease or transfer the amount proposed.

36. Former Assembly standing order 201 did contain a prohibition on non Executive Members moving amendments in these circumstances which would have the effect of altering the destination of the amount of public money of the Territory to be disposed of or charged.

37. In summary, there is no prohibition on non Executive Members of the Assembly moving amendments to enactments, votes or resolutions to transfer appropriations, but in doing so it cannot have the effect of increasing the amount of public money to be appropriated to any vote.

Conclusion

38. As mentioned above, no amendment such as that envisaged has been proposed in the Assembly and no amendment has been proposed to an appropriation Bill since standing orders were amended in 1994.

39. The standing orders do not contain a prohibition on non Executive Members proposing amendments that would transfer or alter the destination of the moneys to be appropriated, except they do prohibit non Executive Members moving an amendment to a "proposal" (ie. enactment, vote or resolution) that would increase the amount of public money of the Territory to be appropriated. Whether such an amendment as proposed would be in order depends on the definition of "enactment, vote or resolution for the appropriation of public moneys", especially, in this context, the term "vote".

40. In accordance with Assembly standing order 180, practice in the Assembly to date and practice elsewhere, the most ready identification of a "vote" in the context of Assembly consideration of the Appropriation Bill is a Division as listed in Part II to the Schedule

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