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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 9 Hansard (23 November) . . Page.. 2600 ..

14. The primacy of the executive Government, as the representative of the Crown, in outlining the boundaries of the budget is expressed at length in May. It is described, properly in my view, as "the long established and strictly observed rule of procedure, which expresses a principle of the highest constitutional importance, that no public charge can be incurred except on the initiative of the Crown."(671)

15. A section on amendments in May is worth setting out in full :(p 693-4) "APPLICATION TO AMENDMENTS OF RULES REGULATING FINANCIAL PROCEDURE.

The House of Commons has long found it necessary to place restrictions on the moving of amendments in order to keep intact the principle of the financial initiative of the Crown.

The royal recommendation fixes the upper limit of a charge

The Crown's recommendation ( for ACT purposes the Treasurers budget speech) lays down the maximum amount of a charge and its objects and purposes. An amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown, not only if it increases the amount, but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications, expressed in the communication by which the Crown has recommended the charge. Accordingly no amendment to a motion for supply is in order except a simple reduction of the amount demanded."

16. I thus conclude that it is not in order for Mr Moore to move to amend a line item in the debate on the Appropriation Bill 1995-6.

17. While the Standing Orders may, of course, be suspended, section 65 of the Self Government Act which is in effect our constitutional settlement, may not be overridden by vote of the House.

18. I thus conclude that an amendment to increase a line appropriation would be contrary to standing orders and must be ruled out of order. A question then would arise if the Speaker was to rule the amendment in order, or if the Assembly were to accept a motion to suspend the standing orders- in effect to acknowledge the breach and to seek to remedy it. While such a ruling ,or motion if carried ,would remedy the defect due to breach of standing orders, it could not correct a breach of s65. While the question of a decision of the Assembly to act in breach of a Standing Order is probably non justiciable, a decision of the Assembly to pass a vote inconsistently with section 65 of the Self Government Act would in my opinion lead to the law in question being subject to challenge. While the Courts in the United Kingdom take the view that Parliament is

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