Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Wednesday, 19 September 1973
Page: 1246


Mr HALLETT (Canning) - There is a parliamentary procedure involved in this amendment and in the Bills which concerns me considerably. This Parliament - and this is what the amendment is all about - has certain responsibilities and so has the Government, in bringing matters relating to taxes before the Parliament. This is in fact a tax matter - a revenue matter. The Bills we are discussing, the clause we are discussing intimately, and the second reading speech introducing these Bills refer to only one point in relation to this money, and that is meat inspection. Nowhere in the Bill and nowhere in the second reading speech are any other words used to show for what purpose the money collected from these Bills and sanctioned by this Parliament - if it is sanctioned - will be spent. This matter is laid down very clearly in our Constitution. I admit that I am moving away from the amendment but it is important to realise that under the Constitution there is a responsibility on the Government, when it brings in Bills for the collection of particular moneys, to set out precisely in those Bills what the money is for.

Nowhere in these Bills is brucellosis or tuberculosis mentioned. The Minister for Immigration (Mr Grassby) has been talking about them.

As I see it, these Bills should be withdrawn and redrafted so that they can be brought back into this chamber in a constitutional manner. The Minister can go and look at his copy of the Constitution if he likes. These Bills should be withdrawn, redrafted and brought back as separate issues. I am quite adamant on that point. It is only right and proper that, when we are dealing with public money drawn from the taxpayers of this country, the Bills should be brought in in the correct form setting out precisely for what purpose the money is being collected. Nowhere in these Bills, in the second reading speech or in debate have the 2 matters of brucellosis and tuberculosis for which, apparently, some of this money will be used, been mentioned. If these Bills are proceeded with in their present form and if they become Acts of Parliament, the people who have to put them into operation, such as the exporters and those involved with the various works, will read them as they are today - these are the documents they will receive - and will find no reference to the 2 points I have made. Therefore, I submit to the Minister and to the Government that the Bills should be withdrawn and presented again when they have been correctly framed.







Suggest corrections