John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Hansard source

Before proceeding I have a statement to make as the chairman of committees. Although the relevant Senate amendment was moved by the government in the Senate without any suggestion that it should be a request, the amendment has been disagreed to in the House of Representatives on the basis that it should have been a request. The statement under the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000, which would have been issued if the government had raised the question in the Senate, would have indicated that it would not be in accordance with the precedents of the Senate to treat this amendment as a request. A resolution of the Senate in 1981 established the principle that an amendment which would empower a minister to make determinations which would increase expenditure otherwise to be made under the bill should not be a request, on a proper interpretation of section 53 of the Constitution. This principle has consistently been applied by the Senate since that time. As the substitute amendment made in the House is the same as the amendment made by the Senate, it is suggested that the Senate can now simply agree to the amendment which it originally made.