Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Ch12 Senate amendments and requests / PROCEDURE FOLLOWING SENATE CONSIDERATION / Senate amendments which, in the view of the House, should be made as requests / Increases in proposed charges or burdens on the people



Download WordDownload Word

House of Representatives                                Ch 12                                                 p 437

 

Senate amendments and requests / PROCEDURE FOLLOWING SENATE CONSIDERATION / Senate amendments which, in the view of the House, should be ma de as requests

 

Increases in proposed charges or burdens on the people

Paragraph 3 of section 53 of the Constitution states that the Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people. The precise meaning of this provision has not been conclusively determined, nor agreed between the Houses. The Senate’s decisions in relation to its power of amendment were questioned on this ground in relation to the following bills:

  • Sugar Bounty [Bonus] Bill 1903
  • Financial Emergency Bill 1932
  • States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1981
  • States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Bill 1988
  • Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1991
  • Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1992
  • Social Security Amendment Bill 1993
  • Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1993
  • Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1993
  • Student Assistance Amendment Bill 1994
  • Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1994
  • Income Tax Rates Amendment (Family Tax Initiative) Bill 1996
  • Taxation Laws Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 2001.
  • ( See also bills listed under ‘Amendments requiring a Governor-General’s message’ at page 440 .)

    Difficult questions of interpretation can arise in this area. At one extreme, almost every amendment will cause some degree of ‘charge or burden on the people’, 1 whilst at the other extreme it may be felt that unless an amendment ‘necessarily, clearly and directly’ causes an increased ‘charge or burden’ it is available to the Senate. It is considered that neither position is appropriate and that, in examining any such question, the better course is to ask what are the probable, expected or intended practical consequences of the proposed amendment. It has been considered that a Senate alteration which would reduce ‘savings’ from the level proposed in a bill can be made as an amendment where the alteration would not lead to expenditure beyond that covered in the existing law—that is, where expenditure would not be greater than under the status quo. 2

    The Speaker is briefed on these matters whenever necessary. Sometimes a statement is made, 3 on other occasions it may be concluded that no statement is necessary.



    In The State of Western Australia v. The Commonwealth (Matter No. P4 of 1994) the High Court heard submissions on s. 53. It was argued that the Native Title Act 1993 was invalid, it being claimed that s. 53 had been contravened because the Senate had amended the bill in ways which would involve a burden on the people. One of the amendments was to establish a parliamentary committee, and it was argued that this would involve administrative and other expenses. While the Court did not hold that s. 53 was justiciable, it commented that none of the Senate amendments appeared to increase a charge or burden on the people.



    VP 1996-98/937.



    Cited in Appendix 18.