Year

Title of bill and action by Senate

Response of House

1901

Consolidated Revenue Bill (No. 1) [1901]

Returned by the Senate with a ‘respectful request’ that the House amend the bill to show the items of expenditure comprised in the sums it purported to grant His Majesty. (VP 1901–02/61)

The Prime Minister admitted the items should have been shown (he had assumed they were attached as a schedule), the bill was laid aside and the Consolidated Revenue Bill (No. 2) introduced. The second bill included the schedule but left out the ‘free gift’ preamble of the first bill. Members being concerned that there should appear on the face of the bill some express recognition of the originating and granting power of the House, the preamble was amended accordingly and the bill was passed and sent to the Senate.

(VP 1901–02/61–2; H.R. Deb. (14.6.01) 1174–91)

Consolidated Revenue Bill (No. 2) [1901]

Returned by the Senate with ‘suggestions’ for alterations to the title, the preamble and clause 1.

(VP 1901–02/67)

The Senate’s main object was to alter the portion of the preamble which stated the grant was ‘made by the House of Representatives’.

(S. Deb. (20.6.01) 1340)

The House met the Senate’s claim by substituting the words ‘originated in the House of Representatives’.

(H.R. Deb. (21.6.01) 1473)

The other two amendments suggested by the Senate were made by the House. (J 1901–02/46)

The Senate agreed to the modification made by the House and requested the House to make the amendments agreed upon. (VP 1901–02/69)

The House formally made the amendments to the bill. (VP 1901–02/69)

The bill was agreed to by the Senate as amended by the House. (VP 1901–02/70)

[Before considering Consolidated Revenue Bill (No. 2) the Senate, on a separate motion of privilege, debated at some length whether the item for the military and naval demonstration at the opening of Parliament was for ‘ordinary annual services’, or whether it should have been in a separate bill which the Senate could amend. The motion was eventually withdrawn.

(J 1901–02/41; S. Deb. (20.6.01) 1310–37) ]

[It is also of interest that strong objection was taken in the House to the fact that the Senate returned the bill ‘. . . with . . . suggestions . . . in which . . . the Senate requests the concurrence of the House of Representatives’, it being argued that this form obliterated all distinction between ‘suggestion’ and ‘amendment’ (see comments by Sir John Quick and others, H.R. Deb. (21.6.01) 1476ff) ]

1902

Customs Tariff Bill [1902]

Returned by the Senate with 93 requests. (VP 1901–02/472–81)

The House made 33 of the requested amendments, made one in part, made 10 with modifications and did not make 49. (VP 1901–02/503–4)

The Senate agreed to the House’s modifications on eight requests, did not request the House to make 24 amendments originally requested, modified two of its requests and pressed 26 others. (VP 1901–02/521–2)

Having been asked to give his ruling as to whether the Senate message was in order and could be received, the Speaker saw it as necessary that the two Houses should jointly make rules or orders laying down the practice to be followed. He ruled that, as the House had not exercised the power given by the Constitution to make rules or orders in respect of the order and conduct of its business and proceedings in relation to money bills under discussion between the two Houses, the question of the receipt and consideration of the message was one to be determined by the vote of the House. He further ruled that the order to take the message into consideration would give all the necessary power to consider the message and to determine all the issues raised in it as a majority may desire. The House then resolved ‘That having regard to the fact that the public welfare demands the early enactment of a Federal Tariff, and pending the adoption of Joint Standing Orders, the House refrains from the determination of its constitutional rights or obligations in respect to this Message, and resolves to receive and consider it forthwith’. The House later ordered that the resolution be incorporated in the message returning the bill to the Senate. (VP 1901–02/524–5)

The House then amended its modification to one request, made one amendment as requested, agreed to 11 requests with modifications, insisted on its modification to one request, and did not make 14 requests pressed by the Senate. (VP 1901–02/527)

The Senate agreed to consider the message and resolved ‘. . . that the action of the House of Representatives in receiving and dealing with the reiterated requests of the Senate is in compliance with the undoubted constitutional position and rights of the Senate’. The Senate then agreed to the House’s further amendment in regard to one request, the House’s modifications to 11 requests and the modification to one request the House had insisted on, did not further press the requests to which the House had not acceded and agreed to the bill as amended by the House at the request of the Senate. (J 1901–02/551–3; VP 1901–02/530–1)

1903

Sugar Bounty Bill 1903

(originally Sugar Bonus Bill 1903) The Senate returned the bill with 10 amendments. (VP 1903/55) (The Senate’s committee of the whole originally reported the bill with requests but the bill was recommitted, the resolution of request rescinded and the bill reported with amendments and with the title amended. (J 1903/48–9, 55, 60–1))

The Speaker pointed out that one of the amendments would, if passed, increase ‘a proposed charge or burden on the people’ and was a direct contravention of subsection 3 of section 53 of the Constitution and the alteration, if sought, should have been by request and not by amendment. (VP 1903/55)

The House agreed to all the Senate amendments except one because ‘the Bill is a proposed law appropriating revenue or moneys, and Amendment No. 3 is an infraction of the provisions of section 53 of the Constitution . . .’. (J 1903/67)

The Senate returned the bill with a message that it did not insist upon the amendment, but requested the House to make the amendment. (VP 1903/68)

The House made the requested amendment with a modification. (VP 1903/70)

The Senate agreed to the modification made by the House to the request. (VP 1903/72)

Appropriation Bill 1903–4

The Senate returned the bill with five requests. (In considering the estimates the House’s committee of supply had struck out salary increases to certain officers of the Senate

(H.R. Deb. (15.9.03) 5050–2). The Senate requested the House to provide these increases and also to reduce the number of, and amount provided for, Superintendents of Works).

(VP 1903/167, 172)

The House made the requested amendment regarding the Superintendents of Works but refused the other requests. (VP 1903/172)

The Senate pressed its requests. (VP 1903/179)

The order of the day for consideration of the Senate’s message was discharged and the bill laid aside.

(VP 1903/181)

A new appropriation bill incorporating the Senate requests was introduced and passed both Houses without amendment or request.

(VP 1903/182; J 1903/237)

1906

Excise Tariff (Spirits) Bill [1906]

Returned by the Senate with nine requests.

(VP 1906/145, 158)

The House made five of the requested amendments, made one with a modification and did not make three. (VP 1906/158)

The Senate agreed to the modifications of its request and pressed the three requests the House did not make. (VP 1906/169)

The House made one requested amendment and made the others with modifications. (VP 1906/ 169)

The Senate further pressed its two requests. (VP 1906/173)

The House made the two requested amendments as originally requested (VP 1906/173), as a consequence of amendments made to the Spirits Bill 1906. (H.R. Deb. (10.10.06) 6408)

Customs Tariff (British Preference) Bill [1906]

Returned by the Senate with three requests. (VP 1906/171–2)

The House made the two requested amendments and did not make one, amending the schedule in its place. (J 1906/209)

The Senate pressed its request and considered that the amendments made were not a modification of the request. (VP 1906/173; and see S. Deb. (10.10.06) 6372–9)

The House made the amendment requested, resolving that it ‘. . . thought fit at the present stage of this Bill to make the requested amendment instead of the amendment made and transmitted to the Senate, and desires to inform the Senate that in its opinion the amendment previously made was clearly a modification of the amendment requested’. (VP 1906/173–4)

The Senate agreed to the bill as amended by the House at the request of the Senate.

(VP 1906/175)

The Governor-General returned the bill to the House with recommended amendments (identical to those modifications made by the House in consequence of the Senate’s first request for amendments). The House agreed to the amendments recommended by the Governor-General. (VP 1906/175)

The Senate disagreed to the amendments recommended by the Governor-General.

(VP 1906/175)

The House resolved not to insist upon the amendments recommended by the Governor-General, made by the House, and disagreed to by the Senate. (VP 1906/175) The Governor-General reserved the bill for the King’s assent. (VP 1906/177) Assent was not given.

1908

Customs Tariff Bill (1907)

Returned by the Senate with 238 requests. (VP 1907–08/303–69)

At the commencement of the House’s consideration of the Senate message a point of order was raised that the Senate, in making requests for increases in duty, had exceeded its powers under the Constitution. The Speaker ruled inter alia that the message was one which it was within the power of the Senate to send and which, following precedents laid down, the House may well consider and deal with on its merits. (VP 1907–08/384–5) As at 5 May 1908 the House had considered 113 of the requested amendments, making 65 of them, making 12 in part, making 11 with modifications, postponing one and not making 24. A message was sent to the Senate informing it of the manner in which the House had dealt with the foregoing requests and stating that when the remainder had been dealt with the result would be communicated to it. (VP 1907–08/399–416) At 19 May 1908 the House completed consideration of the Senate’s remaining requested amendments, making 84 of them, making eight in part, making 10 with modifications, making consequential amendments and not making 24. (VP 1907–08/431–52)

Senate did not press 32 of its requests, agreed to the House’s modifications to 21 requested amendments and to consequential amendments, pressed 14 requests and requested that the House reconsider the 27 amendments which were not made, were made in part, or were modified by the House, and which the Senate modified, pressed or pressed in part.

(VP 1907–08/458–78)

A point of order was raised that the Senate had not the power to return any proposed law a second time with requests for amendments. The Speaker was not prepared to give a ruling on the question, informed the House of the precedents on the matter and stated it was up to the House either to proceed with consideration of the message, or to deal with it as it may think fit, or to refuse to consider it.

(VP 1907–08/479)

The House resolved ‘That, having regard to the fact that the public welfare demands the early enactment of the Tariff, and pending the adoption of the Joint Standing Orders, this House refrains from the determination of its constitutional rights or obligations in respect to the Message No. 28 received from the Senate in reference to the Customs Tariff Bill (1907), and resolves to consider it forthwith’. The House also ordered that the resolution be incorporated in the message returning the bill to the Senate. (VP 1907–08/485) The House made certain of the requested amendments pressed by the Senate, made others as modified by the Senate, made others with modifications, in part or with amendments, and did not make the remainder. (VP 1907–08/487–500)

The Senate agreed to consider the message and resolved ‘. . . that the action of the House of Representatives in receiving and dealing with the reiterated Requests of the Senate is in compliance with the undoubted constitutional position and rights of the Senate’.(J 1907–08/611) The Senate did not further press the requests with which the House had not complied, agreed to the House’s modifications to its other requests and agreed to the bill as amended by the House at the request of the Senate.

(VP 1907–08/506)

Manufacturers Encouragement Bill [1907]

Returned by the Senate with eight amendments. (VP 1908/95)

The Speaker called attention to two amendments proposed by the Senate (Nos. 7 and 8), noting that under an earlier ruling of the President (S. Deb. (3.10.07) 4165–7) they were beyond the authority of the Senate. The House resolved ‘That, whilst of opinion that Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 made by the Senate strictly are in excess of the powers of the Senate (as declared by the President of the Senate on the 3rd October, 1907), yet, in view of the insignificant nature of the excess, the House agree to those Amendments on condition that the matter is not to be drawn into a precedent’. (VP 1908/105)

Appropriation Bill 1908–9

Returned by the Senate with requests for amendments (one primary amendment and consequential amendments to totals in schedule). (VP 1908/107)

The House did not make the requested amendments. (VP 1908/107)

The Senate did not press its requests and agreed to the bill. (VP 1908/108)

1910

Appropriation (Works and Buildings) Bill (1910–11)

Returned by the Senate with an amendment. (VP 1910/125, 130)

The Speaker stated that in his opinion the amendment was out of order as it altered the destination of a vote and enabled the money to be expended at a place not recommended by the estimates forwarded with the Governor-General’s message.

The House disagreed to the amendment ‘Because it alters the destination of the vote’. (VP 1910/130)

The Senate insisted on its amendment. (VP 1910/131)

The House insisted on disagreeing to the amendment but as a consequential amendment omitted the whole item and made the necessary alterations in the totals in the bill. (VP 1910/134) Both the Government and the Opposition in the House supported the Speaker’s opinion that the Senate amendment was out of order. (see H.R. Deb. (22.9.10) 3617–18)

The Senate no longer insisted on its amendment and agreed to the consequential amendment made by the House. (VP 1910/138)

1911

Customs Tariff Bill (1911)

Returned by the Senate with 31 requests. (VP 1911/196)

The House made one requested amendment with a modification, did not make another and made the remaining 29. (VP 1911/202–3)

The Senate did not press the request which the House did not comply with, agreed to the modification and agreed to the bill as amended. (VP 1911/205)

1916

Supply Bill (No. 3) 1916–17

Returned by the Senate with two requests. (VP 1914–17/537)

The House did not make the requested amendments. (VP 1914–17/537–8)

The Senate pressed its requests. (VP 1914–17/539)

The House laid the bill aside. (VP 1914–17/539)

A new bill, Supply Bill (No. 3) 1916–17 (No. 2), was introduced which gave effect to the Senate’s requests. This bill was agreed to by the Senate without requests. (VP 1914–17/540–1)

In speaking to the question on the third reading the Prime Minister said, in part, ‘The Government had to choose between making provision for the payment of the salaries, or, . . . engaging in a political or constitutional struggle over the power of the two Houses. The Government have taken, I think, the wiser way . . .’. (H.R. Deb. (15.12.16) 10 015)

1921

Customs Tariff Bill (1921)

Returned by the Senate with 92 requests. (VP 1920–21/700, 713–32)

The House made 48 amendments requested by the Senate, made 22 with modifications and did not make 22 others. (J 1920–21/449)

The Senate returned the bill and did not press 14 requests, agreed to the House’s modifications to 18, pressed 9, agreed to two modifications with further modifications and did not press one request but made a modification to it. (VP 1920–21/789, 810–20)

The Speaker declined to put the formal question setting a future day for consideration of the question until a motion was moved from the floor as he was of the opinion that the Senate, in pressing certain requests for amendments in the customs tariff, had exceeded the rights conferred on it by section 53 of the Constitution. He added that the right of the Senate to press requests in connection with the tariff had never been admitted by the House. (VP 1920–21/789)

The House resolved ‘That, having regard to the fact that the public welfare demands the early enactment of the Tariff, and pending the adoption of Joint Standing Orders, this House refrains from the determination of its constitutional rights or obligations in respect of Message No. 97 received from the Senate in reference to the Customs Tariff Bill (1921), and resolves to consider it forthwith’. (VP 1920–21/809)

The House made one amendment as originally requested, made three requested amendments as modified by the Senate, made two with modifications, insisted on its modifications to two and insisted on not making four requested amendments. (J 1920–21/498)

On receipt of the House’s message the President made a statement regarding its ‘unusual terms’ and the Senate agreed to consider the message and resolved ‘. . . that the action of the House of Representatives in receiving and dealing with the reiterated Requests of the Senate is in compliance with the undoubted constitutional position and rights of the Senate’. (J 1920–21/503)

During debate on consideration of the message Senator Millen (Minister for Repatriation) said in part ‘The other House recognizes fully and frankly the need for an early finalization of the Tariff, and the Senate . . . should adopt the same attitude’. (S. Deb. (7.12.21) 13 898)

The Senate agreed to the modifications made by the House to two requests, did not press two amendments as originally requested and agreed to the modifications made by the House therein, did not further press the other four requests and agreed to the bill as amended by the House at the request of the Senate. (VP 1920–21/839)

Appropriation Bill 1921–22

Returned by the Senate with two requests (an increase in a salary vote for a Senate officer and a decrease in the Salary vote for the Clerk of the House). (VP 1920–21/845, 855)

The House did not make the requested amendments. (VP 1920–21/855) In moving the motion that the requested amendments be not made, the Prime Minister indicated that the request seeking a salary increase for the Senate officer would be met by a supplementary appropriation, but ‘The Senate must not be permitted to interfere with the control by this House of its own officers’. (H.R. Deb. (9.12.21) 14 219)

The Supplementary Appropriation Bill 1921–22 (appropriating the sum of £25 for an increase in salary for the Special Messenger in charge of stores and stamping correspondence in the Senate) was introduced and passed both Houses. (VP 1920–21/860, 866)

The Senate pressed the request relating to the salary of the Clerk of the House. (VP 1920–21/863)

The House insisted on not making the requested amendment. (VP 1920–21/863)

An informal committee of both Houses considered the matter and concluded that ‘it is advisable that there should be uniformity in the salaries of the chief officers in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. That in the future preparation of the estimates this uniformity should be observed’.

The House endorsed the recommendations and gave the necessary authority to the Speaker to carry them into effect. (VP 1920–21/863)

In view of the recommendation of the informal committee the Senate did not further press the request and agreed to the bill.

(VP 1920–21/864)

1926

Customs Tariff Bill (1926)

Returned by the Senate with 19 requests.

(VP 1926–28/175, 199–201)

The House made 16 requested amendments, made two with modifications and did not make another.

(J 1926–28/126)

The Senate agreed to the two modifications, did not press its requested amendment which had not been made and agreed to the bill as amended by the House at the request of the Senate. (VP 1926–28/210)

1928

Customs Tariff Bill (1927)

Returned by the Senate with nine requests.

(VP 1926–28/518, 520–1)

The House made seven requested amendments and made two with consequential modifications.

(J 1926–28/349)

The Senate agreed to the two consequential modifications made by the House and agreed to the bill as amended by the House at the request of the Senate. (VP 1926–28/534)

1930

Appropriation Bill 1930–31

Returned by the Senate with a request (that the appropriation be reduced by £1).

(VP 1929–31/385, 386)

The House did not make the amendment requested.

(VP 1929–31/386)

The Senate did not press its request and agreed to the bill. (VP 1929–31/393)

1932

Financial Emergency Bill (1932)

Returned by the Senate with an amendment.

(VP 1932–34/350)

The Speaker drew the attention of the House to the fact that the message covered an amendment which may be in conflict with section 53 of the Constitution. The House disagreed to the amendment as it ‘. . . increases a proposed charge or burden on the people and accordingly is an infringement of section fifty-three of the Constitution’.

(VP 1932–34/350)

The Senate acquainted the House ‘. . . that whilst in the opinion of the Senate it is not clear the Amendment would have the effect of increasing the charge or burden upon the people, the Senate refrains at this stage from any determination of its rights under the Constitution, and does not insist upon its Amendment disagreed to by the House of Representatives’. (VP 1932–34/352)

1933

Customs Tariff Bill (1933)

Returned by the Senate with 47 requests.

(VP 1932–34/686, 740–52)

The House made 33 requested amendments, made seven with modifications and did not make the remaining seven amendments. (J 1932–34/342)

The Senate did not press four of its requests, agreed to the House’s modifications to seven of its requested amendments and pressed three of its requests. (VP 1932–34/794)

Following the announcement of receipt of the Senate message the Speaker reviewed the precedents on the matter and stated that the right of the Senate to press a request for amendment in connection with the tariff had never been admitted by the House, nor had the House determined its constitutional rights and obligations. (VP 1932–34/795)

Following the announcement of receipt of the Senate message the Speaker reviewed the precedents on the matter and stated that the right of the Senate to press a request for amendment in connection with the tariff had never been admitted by the House, nor had the House determined its constitutional rights and obligations. (VP 1932–34/795)

The House agreed to the three amendments originally requested, with modifications.

(J 1932–34/379)

On receipt of the House’s message the President made a statement on the matter and the Senate agreed to consider the message and resolved ‘. . . that the action of the House of Representatives in receiving and dealing with the reiterated Requests of the Senate is in compliance with the undoubted constitutional position and rights of the Senate’. (J 1932–34/381)

The Senate agreed to the modifications made by the House to the three requests and agreed to the bill as amended. (VP 1932–34/844)

Excise Tariff Bill (1933)

Returned by the Senate with two requests. (VP 1932–34/687, 770)

The House made the requested amendments with modifications. (J 1932–34/348)

1936

Customs Tariff Bill (1936)

Returned by the Senate with nine requests.

(VP 1934–37/609, 612–4)

The House made five requested amendments, made one with a modification and did not make the remaining three. (J 1934–37/223)

The Senate did not press two requests, agreed to the House’s modification to one of its requested amendments, and pressed the remaining request.

(VP 1934–37/630)

The Speaker made a statement to the House concerning the right of the Senate to press requests in connection with the tariff and suggested the House act as it had done in the past.

The House resolved ‘That, having regard to the fact that the public interest demands the early enactment of the Tariff, and pending the adoption of the Joint Standing Orders, this House refrains from the determination of its constitutional rights or obligations in respect of Message No. 123, received from the Senate in reference to the Customs Tariff Bill (1936), and resolves to consider it forthwith’.

(VP 1934–37/630)

The House did not make the amendment requested by the Senate. (VP 1934–37/630–1)

On receipt of the House’s message the Deputy President made a statement and the Senate agreed to consider the message and resolved ‘. . . that the action of the House of Representatives in receiving and dealing with the reiterated Requests of the Senate is in compliance with the undoubted constitutional position and rights of the Senate’.

(J 1934–37/229)

The Senate did not further press the request and agreed to the bill as amended.

(VP 1934–37/632)

1943

Income Tax Bill 1943

Returned by the Senate with three requests. (VP 1940–43/508–09)

The House made two of the amendments requested and did not make the other. (VP 1940–43/509)

The Senate pressed its requested amendment not made. (VP 1940–43/513)

The Speaker stated that the right of the Senate to press a request for an amendment had never been admitted by the House though the House on previous occasions, having regard to the fact that public welfare demanded the passing of certain legislation, had refrained from a determination of its constitutional rights and obligations.

(VP 1940–43/513)

The House resolved ‘That this House takes note of the statement of Mr Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised by Message No. 171, received from the Senate in reference to the Income Tax Bill 1943, but refrains from the determination of its constitutional rights in respect of such Message and resolves to consider it forthwith’.

The House then made the requested amendment.

(VP 1940–43/514)

1964

Television Stations Licence Fees Bill 1964

Returned by the Senate with a request. (VP 1964–66/229, 235)

The House did not make the requested amendment. (VP 1964–66/235–6)

The Senate did not press its request and agreed to the bill. (VP 1964–66/238)

1966

Customs Tariff Bill (No. 2) 1966

Returned by the Senate with three requests. (VP 1964–66/599, 601–02)

The House did not make the requested amendments. (VP 1964–66/601–02)

The Senate did not press its requests and agreed to the bill. (VP 1964–66/604)

1967

Homes Savings Grant Bill 1967

Returned by the Senate with two requests. (VP 1967–8/116, 139–40)

The House did not make the requested amendments. (VP 1967–68/140–1)

The Senate did not press its requests and agreed to the bill. (VP 1967–68/147)

1968

Parliamentary Allowances Bill 1968

Returned by the Senate with two requests (to provide for an allowance to the leader of the second non-government party in the Senate and to increase the electorate allowances of Senators by $150). (VP 1968–69/316)

The House agreed to the first requested amendment but did not make the second. (VP 1968–69/316)

The Senate did not press the request not made and agreed to the bill. (VP 1968–69/318)

1970

National Health Bill 1970

Returned by the Senate with seven requests, one consequential request and the message also informed the House that the Senate had made 12 amendments in the bill. (VP 1970–72/183, 200–01)

The House made one requested amendment and did not make the remaining six nor the consequential amendment. (VP 1970–72/201–02)

The Senate did not press its requests not made by the House, but made two further requests. (VP 1970–72/210–11)

The House made the further requested amendments. (VP 1970–72/210–11)

The Senate agreed to the bill as amended by the House at its request and requested the concurrence of the House in the 12 amendments made by the Senate. (VP 1970–72/212–4)

The House agreed to seven amendments, disagreed to two and disagreed to a further three but made amendments in place thereof. (VP 1970–72/214–7)

The Senate did not insist upon the amendments disagreed to by the House and agreed to the amendments made by the House in place of three of its amendments. (VP 1970–72/225)

1973

Meat Export Charge Bill 1973

Returned by the Senate with a request. (VP 1973–74/423, 490)

The House did not make the requested amendment. (VP 1973–74/490)

The Senate did not press its request and agreed to the bill. (VP 1973–74/502)

States Grants (Schools) Bill 1973

Returned by the Senate with a request. (VP 1973–74/621, 642)

The House made the requested amendment with modifications and made a consequential amendment. (VP 1973–74/643–5)

The Senate agreed to the modifications made by the House to its request, agreed to the consequential amendment and agreed to the bill. (VP 1973–74/654)

1975

Stevedoring Industry Charge Bill 1975

Returned by the Senate with a request. (VP 1974–75/828, 910)

The House made the requested amendment with modifications and also made three further amendments (standing orders having been suspended). The House ordered that, in the message returning the bill, the Senate be requested to reconsider the bill in respect of the amendments made by the House. (VP 1974–75/910)

The Senate agreed to the House’s modifications to its request, agreed to the other amendments made by the House (standing orders having been suspended) and agreed to the bill. (VP 1974–75/914; J 1974–75/914–6)

1981

Sales Tax Amendment Bills (Nos. 1a to 9a) 1981

Returned by the Senate with seven requests for each bill. (VP 1980–83/542, 589–92)

The House did not make the requested amendments. (VP 1980–83/589–93)

The Senate pressed its requests. (VP 1980–83/613)

The Speaker made a statement concerning the power of the House in respect of money bills and concluded that it rested with the House whether it would consider the Senate’s message insofar as it purported to press the requests.

The House resolved:

(1) That this House endorses the statement of Mr Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised by Message No. 185 transmitted from the Senate in relation to the Sales Tax Amendment Bills (Nos. 1A to 9A) 1981;

(2) That this House declines to consider Message No. 185 insofar as it purports to press the requests that were contained in Message No. 160 from the Senate; and

(3) That the consideration of further action in relation to the Sales Tax Amendment Bills (Nos. 1A to 9A) 1981 be made an order of the day for the next sitting. (VP 1980–83/613–5)

The order of the day for the consideration of further action in relation to the bills was discharged. (VP 1980–83/945)

States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1981

Returned by the Senate with amendments.

(VP 1980–83/667)

The Speaker drew the attention of the House to the fact that the message covered amendments which may have been in conflict with section 53 of the Constitution.

The House resolved:

(1) That this House considers that the effect of the purported amendments of the Senate would be to increase the burden on the people in contravention of section 53 of the Constitution and therefore declines to take the purported amendments into consideration; and

(2) That the bill be laid aside. (VP 1980–83/668)

1985

Dairy Industry Stabilisation Levy Amendment Bill 1985

Returned by the Senate with a request.

(VP 1985–87/326)

The House did not make the requested amendment.

(VP 1985–87/326–7)

The Senate pressed its request not made.

(VP 1985–87/357)

The Speaker made a statement concerning the power of the House in respect of money bills, and concluded that it rested with the House whether it would consider the Senate’s message insofar as it purported to press the request.

The House resolved:

That—

(1) this House endorses the statement of Mr Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised by Message No. 108 transmitted from the Senate in relation to the Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Amendment Bill 1985;

(2) this House declines to consider Message No. 108 insofar as it purports to press the request that was contained in Message No. 69 from the Senate; and

(3) consideration of further action in relation to the Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Amendment Bill 1985 be made an order of the day for the next sitting. (VP 1985–87/357–8)

The order of the day for the consideration of further action in relation to the bill was discharged.

(VP 1985–87/1046)

Veterans’ Entitlements Bill 1985

Returned by the Senate with six requests.

(VP 1985–87/645)

The House did not make the requested amendments.

(VP 1985–87/645–6)

The Senate pressed its requests not made.

(VP 1985–87/663)

The Speaker made a statement concerning the power of the House in respect of money bills, and concluded that it rested with the House whether it would consider the Senate’s message insofar as it purported to press the requests.

The House resolved:

That this House—

(1) endorses the statement of the Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised by Message No. 175 transmitted from the Senate in relation to the Veteran’s Entitlements Bill 1985;

(2) refrains from the determination of its constitutional rights in respect of such message; and

(3) resolves to consider the message in committee of the whole House forthwith. (VP 1985–87/820–1)

The House informed the Senate that its requests would be acceptable in the form indicated in a schedule if proposed in conjunction with certain suggested amendments also indicated in the schedule. (VP 1985–87/831–8)

Consequent upon consideration of the message from the House, the Senate made 17 requests.

(VP 1985–87/856–8)

The House made the requested amendments.

(VP 1985–87/858)

The Senate agreed to the bill as amended by the House at its request and requested concurrence of the House to 43 amendments.

(VP 1985–87/871–5)

The House agreed to the amendments.

(VP 1985–87/875)

1988

States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1988

Returned by the Senate with two requests and the message also informed the House that the Senate had made five amendments in the bill.

(VP 1987–90/991)

The House did not make the requested amendments.

(VP 1987–90/991)

The Senate pressed its requests and reiterated that it had made five amendments in the bill.

(VP 1987–90/1012)

The Deputy Speaker made a statement concerning the power of the House in respect of money bills and concluded that it rested with the House whether it would consider the Senate’s message insofar as it purported to press the requests.

The House resolved:

That—

(1) this House endorses the statement of the Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised by Message No. 295 transmitted from the Senate in relation to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1988;

(2) this House, having regard to the fact that the public interest demands the early passage of the legislation, refrains from the determination of its constitutional rights in respect of such message;

(3) this House resolves to consider the message in committee of the whole House forthwith; and

(4) part (2) of this resolution be incorporated in the message when the Bill is returned to the Senate.

The House then made the requested amendments.

(VP 1987–90/1012–14)

The Senate agreed to the bill as amended by the House at its request and requested the concurrence of the House in the five amendments made by the Senate.

(VP 1987–90/1016)

The House agreed to three amendments, two were disagreed to but a new clause was inserted in place of one of them. (VP 1987–90/1016–19)

The Senate did not insist on the amendments disagreed to by the House and agreed to the amendment made by the House in place of one of the amendments. (VP 1987–90/1026)

States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Bill 1988

Returned by the Senate with four amendments.

(VP 1987–90/994)

The Deputy Speaker drew the attention of the House to the fact that the message covered an amendment which may have been in conflict with section 53 of the Constitution. The House disagreed to the amendments but made an amendment in place of one of them and informed the Senate in the reasons that one of the amendments increased the proposed charge or burden on the people.(VP 1987–90/995–7)

The Senate did not insist on two of its amendments, insisted on the other two, including the one which the House considered was in conflict with section 53 of the Constitution, and agreed to the amendment made by the House in place of one of its amendments. (VP 1987–90/1014) The House insisted on disagreeing to the amendments insisted on by the Senate.(VP 1987–90/1014–5)

The Senate did not insist on the amendments to which the House insisted upon disagreeing.

(VP 1987–90/1055)

1990

Sales Tax (Nos. 1 to 9) Amendment Bills 1990

Returned by the Senate with a request for each bill. (VP 1990–93/119–20)

House did not make the requested amendments but made amendments in their place. (VP 1990–93/119–20)

Senate did not press its requested amendments and agreed to the amendments made in their place. (VP 1990–93/129)

1991

Superannuation Supervisory Levy Bill 1991

Returned by the Senate with a request. (VP 1990–93/642)

House did not make the requested amendment but made amendment in its place. (VP 1990–93/700–01)

Senate did not press its requested amendment and agreed to the amendment made in its place. (VP 1990–93/719)

Wool Tax (Nos. 1 to 5) Amendment Bills 1991

Returned by the Senate with a request for each bill. (VP 1990–93/907–10)

The House did not make the requested amendments. (VP 1990–93/907–10)

Senate pressed requested amendments. (VP 1990–93/920–3)

The Speaker made a statement concerning the power of the House in respect of money bills, and concluded that it rested with the House as to whether it would consider the Senate message insofar as it purported to press the requests. (VP 1990–93/920–3)

The House resolved:

That—

(1) This House endorses the statement of the Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised by Message No. 257 transmitted from the Senate in relation to the Wool Tax (Nos. 1 to 5) Amendment Bills 1991;

(2) this House having regard to the fact that the public interest demands the early consideration of the legislation, refrains from the determination of its constitutional rights in respect of such message;

(3) this House resolves to consider the message in committee of the whole House forthwith; and

(4) part (2) of this resolution be incorporated in the message when the Bill is returned to the Senate.

The House did not make the requested amendments but made amendments in their place.

(VP 1990–93/920–3)

Senate did not further press its requested amendments and agreed to the amendments made in their place. (VP 1990–93/927)

Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1991

Returned by Senate with 12 amendments. (VP 1990–93/1236–43)

Deputy Speaker made a statement concerning the amendments and querying whether they should have been pursued as requests.

[Proposed private Member’s amendment to Senate Amendment No. 8 ruled out of order as its effect would be to increase the size of benefits payable under the legislation.]

The House agreed to the amendments.

(VP 1990–93/1236–43)

Later, Speaker made detailed statement to the effect that one of the Senate’s amendments would indeed increase the charge or burden on the people. He noted that the First Parliamentary Counsel (FPC) had agreed with the House’s conclusion on the matter but that the Clerk of the Senate had contested the FPC’s arguments. Speaker stated the Clerk would ensure that messages from the Senate returning bills would be examined to protect the interests of the House.

Motion endorsing Speaker’s statement carried.

(VP 1990–93/1298)

1992

Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1992

Returned by Senate with two amendments.

(VP 1990–93/1598)

House agreed to Amendment No. 1. With respect to Amendment No. 2, the Speaker made a statement concerning the power of the House in respect of money bills and nature of the Senate amendment and querying whether it should have been pursued as a request for an amendment.

The House adopted report of committee of the whole that it:

(1) considers that the effect of Amendment No. 2 of the Senate would be to increase the burden on the people in contravention of section 53 of the Constitution and declines to consider the amendment; and

(2) recommends that the Senate be informed that if Amendment No. 2 contained in Message No. 489 is forwarded to the House as a request for an amendment, the request would be considered by the House. (VP 1990–93/1598–9)

Senate returned the purported amendment as a request for amendment (while not conceding that it should have been a request).

(VP 1990–93/1628)

House made the requested amendment.

(VP 1990–93/1628)

1993

Social Security Amendment Bill 1993

Returned by the Senate with an amendment.

(VP 1993–95/99)

The Speaker drew the attention of the House to the effect of the amendment. He stated that from the viewpoint of section 53 the matter was unclear, that it was difficult to be confident about the eventual impact and that it was for the House to decide whether it wished to take any action on this matter.

(VP 1993–95/99–100)

The Parliamentary Secretary responsible for the bill acknowledged the Speaker’s statement and stated that the Government would not object to the Senate’s message on the grounds that the amendment should have been made as a request. (VP 1993–95/100)

Amendment disagreed to. (VP 1993–95/100–105)

Senate did not insist upon its amendment disagreed to by the House. (VP 1993–95/149)

Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 1993

Returned by the Senate with an amendment.

(VP 1993–95/105)

The Speaker’s statement in respect of the Social Security Amendment Bill was also relevant to this bill.

(VP 1993–95/99–100

Amendment disagreed to.

(VP 1993–95/105–6, 112–6)

Senate did not insist upon its amendment disagreed to by the House. (VP 1993–95/149)

Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1993

Returned by the Senate with two amendments.

(VP 1993–95/140)

Speaker made a statement concerning the constitutional significance of Senate Amendment No. 2, and concluded that it was for the House to consider what action it may wish to take.

The House resolved:

That—

(1) the House endorses the statement of the Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised by Message No. 35 transmitted by the Senate in relation to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1993;

(2) the House, having regard to the fact that the public interest demands the early enactment of the legislation, refrains from the determination of its constitutional rights in respect of Senate Message No. 35;

(3) should the House concur in the amendments transmitted in Senate Message No. 35, the Speaker’s statement and parts (1) and (2) of this resolution be incorporated in the message returning the Bill to the Senate; and

(4) the amendments be taken into consideration, in committee of the whole House, forthwith.

Amendments agreed to. (VP 1993–95/140–3)

Sales Tax (Customs) (Deficit Reduction) Bill 1993

Returned by Senate with five requests. (VP 1993–95/358)

House did not make requested amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 5, but made requested amendments Nos. 3 and 4. (VP 1993–95/364–5)

Senate did not press its requests Nos. 1, 2 and 5 and agreed to the bill. (VP 1993–95/403).

Sales Tax (Excise) (Deficit Reduction) Bill 1993

Returned by Senate with five requests. (VP 1993–95/358)

House did not make requested amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 5, but made requested amendments Nos. 3 and 4. (VP 1993–95/365–6)

Senate did not press its requests Nos. 1, 2 and 5 and agreed to the bill. (VP 1993–95/403).

Sales Tax (General) (Deficit Reduction) Bill 1993

Returned by Senate with five requests.

(VP 1993–95/359)

House did not make requested amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 5, but made requested amendments Nos. 3 and 4. (VP 1993–95/366)

Senate did not press its requested amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 5 and agreed to the bill.

(VP 1993–95/403).

Excise Tariff (Deficit Reduction) Bill 1993

Returned by Senate with six requests. (VP 1993–95/404)

House made requested Amendment No. 2, but did not make requested amendments Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. (VP 1993–95/405–7)

Senate did not press its request for amendments Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and agreed to the bill. (VP 1993–95/416–17)

Customs Tariff (Deficit Reduction) Bill 1993

Returned by Senate with four requests. (VP 1993–95/407)

House did not make the requested amendments. (VP 1993–95/407–9)

Senate did not press its requests and agreed to the bill. (VP 1993–95/416–17)

1994

Social Security (Home Child Care and Partner Allowances) Legislation Amendment Bill 1994

Returned by the Senate with two requests. (VP 1993–95/825)

House did not make the requested amendments. (VP 1993–95/835–6)

Senate did not press its requests and agreed to the bill. Message returning bill to House included terms of Senate resolution relating to the requested amendments. (VP 1993–95/905–7)

Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1993

Returned by the Senate four requests and the message also informed the House that the Senate had made 14 amendments in the bill. The message stated that the Senate’s agreement to make requests did not indicate that the Senate considered requests were appropriate or that the Senate had formed a conclusive view on application of sections 53 or 55 of the Constitution to the bill. The message also stated that the matter of the application and interpretation of the third paragraph of section 53 in relation to bills dealing with taxation had been referred to a Senate committee for consideration. (VP 1993–95/884) Speaker made a statement concerning the proper interpretation of the third paragraph of section 53 of the Constitution.

Speaker made a statement concerning the proper interpretation of the third paragraph of section 53 of the Constitution.

The House resolved:

That—

(1) the question of the interpretation and application of the provisions of the third paragraph of section 53 of the Constitution be referred to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs; and

(2) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and asking that the Senate:

(a) consider broadening the terms of the reference to its Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to allow its committee to consider the interpretation and application of the third paragraph of section 53 generally; and

(b) agree to an order to permit its committee to confer with the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on this matter with a view to reports being presented to both Houses.

The House made the requested amendments.

(VP 1993–95/884–900)

The Senate agreed to the bill as amended by the House at the request of the Senate, and requested the concurrence of the House in the 14 amendments made by the Senate.

(VP 1993–95/903)

The House agreed to the amendments.

(VP 1993–95/903–5)

Student Assistance Amendment Bill 1994

Returned by the Senate with two requests and the message also informed the House that the Senate had made amendments in the bill. (VP 1993–95/1035)

The House did not make the requested amendments. (VP 1993–95/1035–6)

Senate pressed its requested amendments.

(VP 1993–95/1108–9)

The Speaker made a statement concerning the power of the House in respect of money bills, and concluded that it rested with the House whether it would consider the Senate’s message insofar as it purported to press the requests.

The House resolved:

That—

(1) the House endorses the statement of the Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised by Message No. 289 transmitted by the Senate in relation to the Student Assistance Amendment Bill 1994;

(2) the House refrains from the determination of its constitutional rights in respect of Senate Message No. 289; and

(3) the message be considered forthwith.

The House did not make requested amendments.

Bill laid aside. (VP 1993–95/1108–10)

Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1994

Returned by the Senate with 34 amendments. (VP 1993–95/1406–7)

The Deputy Speaker made a statement to the House concerning uncertainty about the effect of Amendment No. 4 in terms of a possible charge or burden on the people, and whether the matter should have been dealt with as a request. The Deputy Speaker suggested that, to ensure the legislation was not unduly delayed, it might suit the convenience of the House to consider the amendments forthwith.

The House agreed to 30 amendments, did not agree to three, and made an amendment in place of Senate Amendment No. 4. (VP 1993–95/1407–1416)

The Senate did not insist upon the amendments not agreed to by the House, agreed to the amendment in place of Amendment No. 4 with a further amendment and made seven further amendments to the bill.

(VP 1993–95/1603–4)

The Speaker made a statement concerning the power of the Senate in terms of section 53 of the Constitution.

The House resolved:

That—

(1) the House endorses the statement of the Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised by Message No. 355 transmitted by the Senate in relation to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1994;

(2) the House, having regard to the fact that the public interest demands the early enactment of the legislation, refrains from the determination of its constitutional rights in respect of Senate Message No. 355;

(3) should the House concur in the amendments transmitted in Senate Message No. 355, the Speaker’s statement and parts (1) and (2) of this resolution be incorporated in the message returning the bill to the Senate; and

(4) the amendments be considered forthwith.

The House agreed to the amendment made by the Senate to the amendment made by the House in place of Senate Amendment No. 4 and the seven further amendments. (VP 1993–95/1604–8)

ATSIC Amendment (Indigenous Land Corporation and Land Fund) Bill 1994

Returned by the Senate with a request and the message also informed the House that the Senate had made 67 amendments in the bill.

(VP 1993–95/1600–1)

The House did not make the requested amendment.

(VP 1993–95/1601)

The Senate did not press its request for an amendment, which the House did not make, but in its place made three amendments and requested the concurrence of the House in the 67 amendments made by the Senate.

(VP 1993–95/1869–70)

The Speaker stated that the right of the Senate to press a request for an amendment had never been accepted by the House, though the House would proceed to consider the message.

(VP 1993–95/1870)

The House disagreed to the 3 amendments made in the place of the requested amendment the House did not originally make, disagreed to 38 of the amendments made by the Senate and agreed to 29 further amendments.

Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1994

Returned by the Senate with three amendments. (VP 1993–95/1703)

The Speaker made a statement concerning the power of the Senate with regard to section 53 of the Constitution and concluded that even if the House dealt with the proposals as amendments, Members would not have wanted this action to be taken as an acceptance by the House that they should have been proposed in this way.

The House agreed to the amendments.

(VP 1993–95/1703–4)

Student Assistance (Youth Training Allowance) Amendment Bill 1994

Returned by the Senate with 23 requests and the message also informed the House that the Senate had made 152 amendments in the bill. (VP 1993–95/1705)

The House made 22 requested amendments and did not make one amendment, making another amendment in its place. (VP 1993–95/1705–9)

The Senate did not press its requested amendment not made by the House, agreed to the amendment made in its place and requested the concurrence of the House in the 152 amendments made by the Senate.

(VP 1993–95/1724)

The House agreed to the amendments.

(VP 1993–95/1724–46)

Student Assistance (Youth Training Allowance —Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1994

Returned by the Senate with 22 requests and the message also informed the House that the Senate had made 36 amendments in the bill.

(VP 1993–95/1710)

The House made 21 requested amendments and did not make one amendment, making another amendment in its place. (VP 1993–95/1710–13)

The Senate did not press its requested amendment not made by the House, agreed to the amendment made in its place and requested the concurrence of the House in the 36 amendments made by the Senate.

(VP 1993–95/1747)

The House agreed to the amendments.

(VP 1993–95/1747–54)

1995

Student and Youth Assistance Amendment (Youth Training Allowance) Bill 1995

Returned by the Senate with a request for an amendment. (VP 1993–96/2429)

House did not make the requested amendment. (VP 1993–96/2429)

Not returned from Senate before dissolution of the House on 29 January 1996.

1996

Housing Assistance Bill 1996

Returned by Senate with a request and the message also informed the House that the Senate had made six amendments in the bill. (VP 1996/266)

The House did not make the requested amendment. (VP 1996/266–7)

The Senate did not press its request for the amendment not made by the House and requested the concurrence of the House in the six amendments made by the Senate. (VP 1996/278)

The House agreed to the amendments. (VP 1996/278)

Income Tax Rates Amendment (Family Tax Initiative) Bill 1996

Returned by the Senate with four amendments. (VP 1996/916)

The Deputy Speaker made a statement to the effect that Senate amendments Nos. 1 and 2 may have been amendments which could increase a proposed charge or burden on the people and, as such, should have been put in the form of requests to the House to amend the bill. The Deputy Speaker also stated that he understood the amendments had originally been drafted as requests; and that he would ask all Senate Ministers, when advised that the appropriate course to follow was by way of request for amendment, to satisfy themselves as to the adherence to constitutional principles before deviating from that course.

The House resolved:

That—

(1) the House endorses the statement of the Deputy Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised by Message No. 93 transmitted by the Senate in relation to the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Family Tax Initiative) Bill 1996;

(2) the House, having regard to the fact that the public interest demands the early enactment of the legislation, refrains from the determination of its constitutional rights in respect of Senate Message No. 93; and

(3) the amendments be considered forthwith.

The House agreed to the amendments.

(VP 1996/916–20)

Social Security Legislation Amendment (Newly Arrived Resident’s Waiting Periods and Other Measures) Bill 1996

Returned by the Senate with a request and the message also informed the House that the Senate had made amendments to the bill.

(VP 1996–98/936–7)

Before the House dealt with the Senate’s request the Speaker informed the House that the question had been raised as to whether some of the amendments that the Senate had made to the bill should in fact have been made as requests. The Speaker said that he understood the amendments in question affected eligibility for certain benefits and that expenditure under a standing appropriation would be greater than it would be if the amendments were not made. Nevertheless it appeared that the expenditure would not be any greater than it would have been under the existing law. The burden on the people would not be any greater than under the status quo, but the ‘savings’ originally proposed in the bill would be reduced.

The Speaker further stated that he thought it reasonable for the House to take the view that the Senate alterations could indeed be made as amendments and did not need to take the form of requests; this view was consistent with the view taken by the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs report on these provisions.

Speaker also stated that the point might be relevant to Senate amendments to other bills including the Shipping Grants Legislation Bill listed as the next item of business; unless other factors were involved he did not propose to comment on each such instance.

The House made the requested amendment.

(VP 1996–98/937–8)

1997

Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1997

Returned by the Senate with three requests.(VP 1996–98/1252)

House did not make the requested amendments.

(VP 1996–98/1252–4)

The Senate did not press its requested amendments not made by the House and agreed to the bill. (VP 1996–98/1446–7)

Medicare Levy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1996

Returned by the Senate with 13 requests. (VP 1996–98/1255)

The House did not make the requested amendments. (VP 1996–98/1255–7)

The Senate did not press its requested amendments not made by the House and made nine further requests. (VP 1996–98/1447)

The House made the requested amendments. (VP 1996–98/1447–8)

Telecommunications Bill 1996

Returned to House with 280 amendments.

VP 1996–98/1357

The Second Deputy Speaker made a statement concerning three of the amendments. He said, in part, as he understood the amendments that it was possible they could result in additional payments being made from the proposed universal service reserve. He went on to say that the House might take the view that the connection between the amendments and expenditure from the consolidated revenue fund was somewhat uncertain and, in the circumstances, it might not object to the alterations having been made as amendments rather than as requests.

The House considered and agreed to the amendments. (VP 1996–98/1357–1402)

Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Family and Other Measures Bill) 1997

Returned from Senate with 12 amendments.

VP 1996–98/2179

The Speaker made the following statement:

It appears that proposed changes … [in 8 of the amendments] will, if enacted, have the effect of increasing the expenditure under the standing appropriation in the principal Act. … The change proposed by the Senate … [in 2 amendments] would create a discretionary power to increase expenditure under a standing appropriation. The increase would be a legally possible, probable and expected increase in expenditure.

There is significant doubt that the Senate may proceed in such circumstances by way of amendment, because of the requirements of section 53 of the Constitution. A more appropriate way to proceed would be by way of request for amendment

However, the purported amendments raise an additional important point of constitutional principle. Section 56 of the Constitution provides that a vote, resolution or proposed law for the appropriation of revenue shall not be passed unless the purpose of the appropriation has in the same session been recommended by message of the Governor-General to the House in which the proposal originated. House standing orders 297 and 298 are complementary to section 56, and provide for messages from the Governor-General recommending an appropriation for the purposes of or in relation to amendments or requests to be announced before the amendment is moved or considered. It is my belief that certain of the purported amendments would increase expenditure under the appropriation, as I noted earlier. My belief is supported by legal opinion. … No message has been reported in respect of the purported Senate amendments. In fact, a message could not be reported relating to a Senate amendment—only for Senate requests for amendment.

In the light of this, the matter for consideration becomes not so much the privileges and rights as between the two Houses, but observance of the requirements of the Constitution concerning the appropriation of revenue. Where there is a possibility of certain sections of the Constitution being considered to be matters on which the Courts might not make a pronouncement, there is an obligation on all involved in the parliamentary process to ensure that Constitutional propriety is observed.

House resolved—

That the House endorses the statement of the Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised by message No. 341 transmitted by the Senate in relation to the Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Family and Other Measures) Bill 1997.

The House disagreed to the 10 purported amendments.

A message from the Governor-General was announced recommending appropriation for the purposes of the proposed amendments

The House agreed to 10 amendments to the bill in place of (and in the same terms as) the purported amendments disagreed to, and agreed to the 2 remaining Senate amendments.

(VP 1996–98/2549–52)

The Senate agreed to the amendments made by the House in place of its amendments.

(VP 1996–98/2620)

1998

Taxation Laws Amendment (Trust Loss and Other Deductions Bill) 1997

Returned by the Senate with amendments.

(VP 1996–98/2864)

The Deputy Speaker made the following statement:

My attention has been drawn to the alterations proposed by Senate amendments (10) and (11).

I understand that the alteration in amendment (10) will extend the scope of a definition in the Bill. One result would apparently be that some taxpayers will have tax deductions and other benefits disallowed, so that they would be liable to pay more tax. Amendment (11) is consequential.

It appears that both of these alterations were prepared and circulated in the Senate as requests rather than amendments. This reflected advice received by the Government in terms of compliance with the 3rd paragraph of section 53 of the Constitution.

Following a statement by the Chairman of Committees in the Senate these alterations were however treated as amendments.

On their face the alterations fail the test proposed by our Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee as to the type of amendments open to the Senate. The committee referred, inter alia, to a request being required where an alteration moved in the Senate will make an increase in the total tax payable legally possible.

I note however, that the supplementary explanatory memorandum presented stated ‘the amendments to the Bill will not affect the financial impact outlined in paragraph 1.45 of the explanatory memorandum to the Bill’.

Matters such as these often raise difficult questions of interpretation.

Having drawn attention to this matter, I acknowledge the House may choose not to take any objection and proceed to consider the Senate amendments.

On this occasion the House may wish to follow that course.

The House considered and agreed to the amendments. (VP 1996–98/2864–5)

Ballast Waters Research and Development Funding Levy Collection Bill 1997

Returned from Senate with 3 amendments.

(VP 1996–98/2900)

The Deputy Speaker made a statement on the amendments [which, in effect replaced outmoded appropriation provisions with new appropriating provisions]:

… The Senate may seek by way of amendment the removal from a bill of appropriating provisions. However, having done that, the Senate should not then insert provisions which appropriate moneys. The appropriate way to proceed in these circumstances is by way of request … This is supported by legal opinion.

The matter for consideration is not so much one of the privileges and rights between the two Houses, but observance of the requirements of the Constitution concerning the appropriation of revenue. …

As the Senate’s purported amendments have an appropriating effect, there is significant doubt as to the constitutionality of proceeding in the absence of a Governor-General’s message recommending appropriation. …

The House endorsed the statement of the Deputy Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised.

The House disagreed to the Senate’s purported amendments.

Message from the Governor-General was announced recommending appropriation for the purposes of the proposed amendments to the bill.

The House agreed to 3 amendments to the bill in place of (and in the same terms as) the amendments disagreed to. (VP 1996–98/2959)

The Senate agreed to the amendments.

(VP1996–98/3070)

Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998

Returned from Senate with 9 amendments.

(VP 1998–99/109)

The Deputy Speaker made statement drawing the attention of the House to one of the Senate amendments which had inserted provisions in the Child Support (Assessment) Act which could increase the amount of child support collected under the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act.

Under that Act amounts equal to those collected are paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Because of the provisions of section 56 of the Constitution it would seem that such alterations should be accompanied by a message from the Governor-General recommending the appropriation.

The Deputy Speaker indicated that if the House wished to entertain the proposals reflected in the amendment, it could choose to proceed by alternative means.

The House endorsed the statement of the Deputy Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised.

The House agreed to 8 amendments and disagreed to the remaining amendment.

A message from the Governor-General was announced recommending appropriation for the purposes of the proposed amendment.

The House agreed to an amendment to the bill in place of (and in the same terms as) the amendment disagreed to.

(VP 1998–2001/175–6)

The Senate agreed to the amendment.

(VP 1998–2001/197)

1999

Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999

Returned by the Senate with a request and the message also informed the House that the Senate had made amendments to the bill.

(VP 1998–2001/444)

The House did not make the requested amendment. (VP 1998–2001/455–6)

Returned to the House with 12 amendments.

(VP 1998–2001/468)

The House agreed to the requested amendments.

(VP 1998–2001/468)

Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill 1999

Telecommunications (Universal Service Levy) Amendment Bill 1999

The Senate returned the bills with amendments.

(VP 1998–2001/629–30)

Prior to the House considering the amendments (together with amendments to two other related bills), the Deputy Speaker made the following statement:

Amendments to the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill and the Telecommunications (Universal Service Levy) Amendment Bill have given rise to questions about the provisions of section 53 of the Constitution.

The second paragraph of section 53 provides that the Senate may not amend a proposed law imposing taxation. The third paragraph provides that the Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.

It is possible that objection could be taken to Senate amendment 34 to the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill on the ground that it would cause an increase in expenditure. I understand however that in essence it is not clear that there will be what might be regarded as a genuine increase in the expenditure of public money. It is also possible to regard the Levy Amendment Bill as a bill imposing taxation, and so incapable of being amended by the Senate. This is however a highly technical argument.

On balance, and while noting the issue, the House may consider that it would be appropriate not to take any objection on constitutional grounds to the Senate amendments in question.

The House endorsed the statement by the Deputy Speaker, and considered and agreed to the amendments. (VP 1998–2001/658–61)

2000

Youth Allowance Consolidation Bill 1999

Returned by the Senate with two requests for amendments. (VP 1998–2001/1356)

The House did not make the requested amendment No. 1 and made an amendment in its place.

(VP 1998–2001/1383)

The House did not make the requested amendment No. 2. (VP 1998–2001/1432)

The Senate did not press its requests for amendments Nos 1 and 2 which the House had not made, agreed to the amendment made by the House in place of the Senate’s request for amendment No. 1 and requested the House to make 4 further amendments.

(VP 1998–2001/1565–6)

The House agreed to the further requested amendments. (VP 1998–2001/1579)

The Senate returned the bill with two amendments. (VP 1998–2001/1592)

The House agreed to the amendments.

(VP 1998–2001/1592)

New Business Tax System (Miscellaneous) Bill 1999

Returned from the Senate with amendments.

(VP 1998–2001/1503)

Prior to the House considering the Senate amendments, the Deputy Speaker made a statement concerning their constitutional significance (specifically to s.53). The effect of the amendments would be to increase the class eligible to receive payments from public funds as a result of the credit franking process.

The House endorsed the statement by the Deputy Speaker. The amendments were disagreed to.

A message was announced recommending an appropriation for the purposes of amendments, and the House made amendments in place of (and in the same terms as) the Senate amendments disagreed to.

(VP 1998–2001/1513)

The Senate agreed to the amendments made by the House. (VP 1998–2001/1584)

Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 2000

Returned by the Senate with a request for an amendment and the message also informed the House that the Senate had made amendments to the bill. (VP 1998–2001/1561)

The House did not make the requested amendment.

(VP 1998–2001/1561)

The Senate did not press its request for the amendment which the House had not made and further requested the House to make an amendment to the bill.

(VP 1998–2001/1592)

The House did not make the further requested amendment. (VP 1998–2001/1592)

The Senate did not press its further request for the amendment which the House had not made and agreed to the bill with 14 amendments.

(VP 1998–2001/1608)

The House did not agree to the amendments.

(VP 1998–2001/1608–10)

Senate did not insist on its amendments disagreed to by the House.

(VP 1998–2001/1617)

New Business Tax System (Alienation of Personal Services Income) Bill 2000

Returned by the Senate with 13 requests for amendments.

(VP 1998–2001/1619)

The House made 10 requested amendments, did not make 2 requested amendments and made 2 amendments in place of another requested amendment. (VP 1998–2001/1619)

Senate did not press its requests for amendments Nos 1, 6 and 13, agreed to the amendments made by the House in place of the Senate’s request for amendment No. 6, and agreed to the bill as amended by the House at the request of the Senate.

(VP 1998–2001/1629)

States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000

Returned by the Senate with two requests and the message also informed the House that the Senate had made amendments to the bill.

(VP 1998–2001/1898)

The House did not make the requested amendments.

(VP 1998–2001/1898–1901)

Senate pressed its requested amendments.

(VP 1998–2001/1909)

The Speaker made a statement concerning the power of the House in respect of money bills, and concluded that it rested with the House whether it would consider the Senate’s message insofar as it purported to press the requests.

The House resolved that:

(1) the House endorses the statement of the Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised by Message No. 496 transmitted by the Senate in relation to the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000;

(2) the House refrains from the determination of its constitutional rights in respect of Senate message No. 496; and

(3) the message be considered forthwith.

The House did not make the requested amendments purportedly pressed by the Senate.

(VP 1998–2001/1909–10)

The Senate further pressed its requests for amendments. (VP 1998–2001/1960)

The Speaker stated that the House had never accepted that the Senate had a right to repeat its requests for an amendment to a bill when the House had rejected the request, however there had been occasions in the past when the House had refrained from determining its constitutional rights. The Speaker concluded that it rested with the House as to whether it would consider the Senate message containing requested amendments which the Senate had purported to press further.

The House resolved that:

(1) the House:

(a) endorses the statement of the Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised by Message No. 504 transmitted by the Senate in relation to the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000;

(b) refrains from any determination of its constitutional rights in respect of Senate message No. 504;

(c) declines to consider further the requested amendments which the Senate has purported to press further;

(d) calls on the Senate to agree to the Bill as transmitted to it by the House of Representatives without requests, amendments or further delay; and

(2) the message returning the Bill to the Senate convey the terms of this resolution.

(VP 1998–2001/1961–63)

Returned by the Senate with 23 amendments.

(VP 1998–2001/2004)

House did not agree to the amendments.

(VP 1998–2001/2004–17)

Senate did not insist on its amendments disagreed to by the House.

(VP 1998–2001/2025–26)

Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2000

Returned by the Senate with a request for an amendment. (VP 1998–2001/1898)

House did not make the requested amendment.

(VP 1998–2001/1918)

The Senate resolved to press its request for an amendment. (VP 1998–2001/1963) The Speaker made a statement concerning the power of the House in respect of money bills, and concluded that it rested with the House whether it would consider the Senate’s message insofar as it purported to press the requests.

The House resolved:

That—

the House endorses the statement of the Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised by Message No. 507 transmitted by the Senate in relation to the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2000;

the House refrains from the determination of its constitutional rights in respect of Senate message No. 507; and

the message be considered forthwith.

The House did not make the requested amendment which the Senate had purported to press.

(VP 1998–2001/1963–64)

The Senate did not further press its request for the amendment which the House had not made.

(VP 1998–2001/1998)

2001

Dairy Produce Legislation Amendment (Supplementary Assistance) Bill 2001

Returned by the Senate with a request for an amendment.

(VP 1998–2001/2413)

The House did not make the requested amendment and made amendments in place thereof.

(VP 1998–2001/2413–14)

Senate did not press its request for an amendment and agreed to the amendments made by the House.

(VP 1998–2001/2445)

States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No.2) 2001

Returned from the Senate with a request for an amendment. (VP 1998–2001/2673)

The House did not make the requested amendment.

(VP 1998–2001/2674–5)

Senate pressed its requested amendment.

(VP 1998–2001/2691–2)

The House was dissolved before the Senate message was considered by the House, and the bill lapsed.

New Business Tax System (Thin Capitalisation) Bill 2001

Returned by the Senate with amendments.

(VP 1998–2001/2686)

The Speaker made a statement noting that the Office of Parliamentary Counsel had provided a statement of reasons as to why some of the Senate’s amendments should be moved as requests. The effect of the amendments would reduce the availability of deductions to certain taxpayers, and therefore increase the burden of taxation on those taxpayers, contrary to the third paragraph of section 53.

The House resolved that:

the House endorses the statement of the Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised by the Senate message in respect of this bill;

the House, having regard to the public interest in the early enactment of the bill, refrains from the determination of its constitutional rights in respect of the matter; and

the amendments be considered forthwith.

The House agreed to the amendments.

(VP 1998–2001/2686–7)

2002

Members of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) Bill 2002

Returned by the Senate with a request for an amendment. (VP 2002–04/490)

The House did not make the requested Senate amendment. (VP 2002–04/492–3)

The Senate pressed its request for the amendment. (VP 2002–04/517)

The Deputy Speaker made a statement noting that the House had never accepted that the Senate had a right to repeat and thereby press or insist on a request for an amendment in a bill which the Senate was not able to amend itself.

The House resolved that:

(1) the House endorses the statement of the Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised . . . and

(2) the House refrains from the determination of its constitutional rights in respect of Senate message No. 131.

The House did not make the requested Senate amendment. (VP 2002–04580–3)

The Senate did not further press its request for the amendment. (VP 2002–04/591–2)

Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Australians Working Together and other 2001 Budget Measures) Bill 2002

Having divided the bill into two bills, the Senate returned one of proposed bills, incorporating amendments. (VP 2002–04/599)

The Deputy Speaker made a statement, noting that on two occasions since 1995 the Senate had requested that the House consider a proposal to divide a House bill and in both cases the House did not consider the message seeking the concurrence of the House in the Senate action.

The House resolved that:

the House—

(1) endorses the statement of the Deputy Speaker . . .

(2) declines to consider Senate message No. 159; and

(3) requests the Senate to reconsider the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Australians Working Together and other 2001 Budget Measures) Bill 2002 as originally transmitted to the Senate . . .

(VP 2002–04/599–601)

The Senate did not insist on its division of the bill and returned the bill with amendments.

The message also reported a Senate resolution reasserting the principle that the division of any bill by the Senate was a form of amendment of a bill, not different in principle from any other form of amendment, and should be considered as such. (VP 2002–04/678)

The Speaker stated that a number of the amendments contained in the Senate schedule should have been addressed to the House in the form of requests for amendments. He indicated that the message also included the text of a resolution agreed to by the Senate relating to the bill but said that this inclusion of other matters in the formal legislative process on a bill was not necessary for the enactment of the measure.

The House agreed to 5 Senate amendments and disagreed to 41 Senate amendments.

A message from the Governor-General was announced recommending an appropriation for the purposes of amendments.

The House then disagreed to 48 Senate amendments and made amendments (in the same terms) in their place. (VP 2002–04/678–9)

The Senate agreed to the amendments made by the House in duplication of its amendments.

(VP 2002–04/684)

[Bill later agreed to following action in relation to the other 41 amendments]

2003

Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Extension of Time Limits) Bill 2003

Returned by the Senate with request for amendments. (VP 2002–04/1284)

The House did not make the requested Senate amendments. (VP 2002–04/1284-5)

The Senate pressed its request for amendments. (VP 2002–04/1335)

Before considering the Senate message, the Deputy Speaker made a statement reminding the House that it had never accepted that the Senate had a right to repeat and thereby press or insist on requests for amendments to bills which the Senate was not able to amend itself.

The House resolved that:

1) the House:

(a) endorses the statement of the Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised . . .;

(b) notes that, in the past, the purported pressing of requests was accepted as a failure to pass proposed legislation in the terms of section 57 of the Constitution;

(c) asserts that, in considering this constitutionally unsound practice of the Senate in purporting to press its requests, the House refrains from any determination of its constitutional rights in respect of Senate message No. 361;

(d) declines to consider further the requested amendments which the Senate has purported to press; and

(2) the message returning the Bill to the Senate convey the terms of this resolution.

VP 2002–04/1545–6

The Senate did not further press its request for amendments, and agreed to the bill with amendments. VP 2002–04/1574–5

The House disagreed to the Senate amendments.

VP 2002–04/1574–5

The Senate did not insist on its amendments.

VP 2002–04/1582

Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill 2003

Returned by the Senate with requests for 8 amendments. (VP 2002–04/1554)

House made requested amendments 2 to 8, and did not make amendment 1. (VP 2002–04/1558)

The Senate did not press its request for the amendment not made, and agreed to the bill with amendments. (VP 2002–04/1572)

The House agreed to the amendments. (VP 2002–04/1572)

2005

Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2005 Budget Measures) Bill 2005

Returned from Senate with 3 amendments.

(VP 2004–07/758)

The Deputy Speaker made a statement concerning Senate amendments (1) and (2) and the matters of constitutional principle they raised:

I understand that proposed Senate amendments (1) and (2) will, if enacted, have the effect of moving expenditure between financial years. The view has been taken that legally this would amount to a change in the destination of the appropriation.

There is doubt that the Senate may proceed in these circumstances by way of amendment because of section 53 of the Constitution. Among other things, this section prohibits the Senate from amending a bill so as to increase ‘any proposed charge or burden on the people’.

I am advised that the view has been taken that, where expenditure is to be transferred in such circumstances, section 56 of the Constitution requires that the proposed appropriation must be recommended by a message from the Governor-General. I understand that such a message has been obtained in this case.

The House will need to consider the way in which it should proceed to deal with the matters raised in Senate amendments (1) and (2). If it wishes to entertain the proposals reflected in the amendments, it may choose to proceed by alternative means. The matter for consideration is not so much one of the privileges and rights between the two Houses as one observance of the requirements of the Constitution concerning the appropriation of revenue.

The House endorsed the statement of the Deputy Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised.

The House disagreed to Senate amendments (1) and (2), and agreed to amendment (3).

Message from the Governor-General was announced recommending an appropriation for the purposes of amendments to the bill.

The House then agreed to two amendments in place of the amendments disagreed to and agreed to a further amendment.

(VP 2004–07/841)

The Senate did not insist on its amendments and agreed to the House amendments.

(VP 2004–07/901)

While the House amendments were being considered the Chairman read a statement, explaining ‘The amendments were moved by the government in the Senate as amendments on the basis of the well-established principle that amendments in the Senate may re-allocate appropriations without increasing the amount of expenditure’. (S. Deb. (9.12.2005) 45)

2009

Health Insurance Amendment (Compliance) Bill 2009

Returned from Senate with 10 amendments.

(VP 2008–10/1496)

The Deputy Speaker made a statement concerning Senate amendments (1) and (10) and the matters of constitutional principle they raised:

As I understand it, advice has been provided that the amendments, if enacted, would have the effect of increasing amounts that would be payable under a standing appropriation in the Health Insurance Act 1973, and would be construed as appropriating money.

There is doubt that the Senate may proceed in these circumstances by way of amendment because of section 53 of the Constitution. Among other things, this section prohibits the Senate from amending any bill so as to increase ‘any proposed charge or burden on the people’. The view has been taken that where revenue or moneys are to be appropriated in these circumstances, section 56 of the Constitution requires that the proposed appropriation must be recommended by a message from the Governor-General.

The House will need to consider the way in which it should proceed to deal with the matters raised in the Senate amendments. If the House wishes to entertain the proposal reflected in the amendments, it may choose to proceed by alternative means.

The House disagreed to Senate amendments (1) and (10), and agreed to amendments (2) to (9).

(VP 2008–10/1496–7)

The Senate insisted on its amendments (1) and (10). (VP 2008–10/1538)

The House insisted on disagreeing to amendments (1) and (10) disagreed to by the House and insisted on by the Senate and, following suspension of standing orders, made an unrelated amendment to the bill. (VP 2008–10/1651–2)

The House was dissolved before the House message was considered by the Senate, and the bill lapsed.