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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 9 Hansard (23 November) . . Page.. 2599 ..

Thus, each line of the schedule to the Appropriation Bill, which corresponds to an appropriation unit, must be separately voted on. At this vote, the Assembly considers the amount to be appropriated to that unit. An amendment at this stage to reduce that appropriation unit would be perfectly in order and in accordance with practice. Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice notes that an amendment in the form "That the proposed expenditure for the Department of .....be reduced by $10" is the normal form for a general debate on the performance of the Government (423). If carried this would be a question of confidence- in 1941 the successful passage of an amendment to reduce the first item by one pound resulted in the resignation of the Fadden Government and the creation of the first Curtin Ministry.

12. An amendment to increase that appropriation unit, which is Mr Moore's proposal, would clearly at this stage amount to an increase in the amount of public money to be appropriated, and so would be inconsistent with s 65 and the equivalent standing orders. This is consistent with Commonwealth practice- Pettifer states quite clearly that "A private Member may not move an amendment which would infringe the financial initiative of the Crown."(423)

13 . British practice supports this view. The current (21st) edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice sets out the equivalent British Practice, where estimates are voted line by line, and where May states (705) "In accordance with the general rules of the House relating to financial procedure, no amendment to a motion for the grant of a sum is in order which seeks to increase the total sum to be granted." It is interesting to note that in 1980-81 the House of Commons established a Select Committee on Procedure (Supply), which established for Britain the estimates committee process . This Committee considered the possibility of allowing amendments stating that "in the opinion of the House" increases in a particular vote should be made, but recommended that such a motion should not be in order.(May, 706) This clear finding on the question now under consideration is of particular significance because this was the Parliament immediately following the election of the Conservative Government in 1979. The events of the previous Parliament- the first minority Government in modern British constitutional practice- would thus clearly have been in contemplation. Any argument that the Assembly should accept a different practice because of the regular feature of minority government would thus be refuted.

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