Download Word

House of Representatives                                Ch 11                                                 p 418

Consideration in detail

The House or Main Committee first considers the schedule which expresses the services for which the appropriation is to be made, before considering the clauses. ¹ The order for considering the proposed expenditures is the order in which the expenditures are shown in the schedule and they are traditionally listed in alphabetical order of government departments. As this order may not be convenient to individual Ministers or shadow ministers, it is the usual practice for a Minister to suggest an order for consideration, with some departments grouped together for convenience of debate. ² When the House or Main Committee has agreed to the order, it is recorded as a resolution. ³ The agreed order may be varied by further resolution to meet the convenience of the House or the Committee. ⁴

Debate which covers departmental activity and government policy in the area, as well as financial details, is in order. A private Member may not move an amendment which would infringe the financial initiative of the Executive. ⁵ A private Member may move to reduce the amount of the proposed expenditure or may move to omit or reduce items, but may not move to increase an amount or alter the purposes of the proposed expenditure. The traditional form of the amendment is ‘That the proposed expenditure for the Department of . . . be reduced by $. . .’. ⁶ The Member may then state the reason for moving the amendment, for example, ‘as an instruction to the Government to . . .’, ‘because the Government has failed to . . .’, ‘because, in the opinion of the House, the Government should . . .’. The reason is not recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. ⁷

In 1941, under now superseded financial procedures, an amendment was successfully moved in Committee of Supply to reduce the first item by £1. ⁸ The Government resigned four days later. ⁹ However, a successful private Member’s motion to reduce a Budget appropriation does not necessarily place the Government in jeopardy. For example, in 1995 an appropriation in Appropriation Bill (No. 4) was reduced as a result of an amendment moved by an opposition Member. ¹⁰

An amendment to an appropriation bill to increase, or extend the objects and purposes or alter the destination of the appropriation recommended by the Governor-General must be preceded by a further message which must be announced before the amendment is moved. ¹¹ An amendment to an appropriation bill which does not affect the appropriation recommended may be moved without obtaining a further message. ¹²

After completing consideration of the schedule, the House or Main Committee then considers the remainder of the bill in the same way as an ordinary bill. It is usual, however, for the remainder of the bill to be taken as a whole and agreed to formally. ¹³

S.O. 149(d).

H.R. Deb. (14.9.78) 1043; H.R. Deb. (5.6.95) 1142 and VP 1998-2001/622-3 (Main Committee).

E.g. VP 1978-80/387-8; VP 1993-95/2115 and VP 1998-2001/622 (Main Committee).

E.g. VP 1978-80/399, 410; VP 1996-98/3096.

A private Member would not have available the Governor-General’s message required by S.O. 180(d).

E.g. VP 1977/353; 1993-95/324.

H.R. Deb. (14.9.72) 1469; H.R. Deb. (5.10.93) 1638.

The item reduced was for salaries for Senate staff. Nowadays a second reading amendment would be used to express disapproval of the Budget or government policies behind the Budget.

VP 1940-43/190, 193, 195.

VP 1993-95/2655 (proposed payment of $243,537 to fund a Minister’s legal fees in relation to a State Royal Commission—the amendment was not opposed by the Government).

VP 1974-75/944; 1990-92/1736, 1762-3.

VP 1974-75/954; VP 1990-92/197.

VP 1993-95/2124, 2120;VP 1998-2001/652.