Sue Lines (President) | Hansard source

Senators, with the concurrence of the Senate I shall incorporate in the Hansard a statement from the Chair of Committees, Senator McLachlan, on the framing of government amendments to the bill. If there is no objection, it is so ordered. The Chair of Committees has ruled the government amendments be dealt with as amendments rather than requests.

The statement read as follows

According to the statement of reasons for the government amendments on sheet PC122, amendments (13) and (14) are covered by section 53 of the Constitution because the amendments "will increase some entities' liability to build to rent development misuse tax". A number of other amendments are noted to be consequential on amendments (13) and (14) and it is suggested that they too be framed as requests. The statement of reasons reflects the advice to the government from Parliamentary Counsel but the Clerk's view is that this does not accord with the precedents of the Senate.

The effect of section 53 of the Constitution is that any change proposed to a bill that imposes tax must be framed as a request. This requirement does not automatically extend to other bills dealing with taxation.

In this regard, Odgers' Australian Senate Practice notes:

In relation to amendments which might increase tax payable, the constitutional provision refers to an amendment which would increase any proposed charge or burden, and the view taken in the Senate since 1903 is that a bill dealing with taxation does not contain a proposed charge or burden unless it is a bill imposing taxation. Amendments of this kind are therefore directed by the chair to be moved as amendments. [14th edition, p. 419]

I have considered the views of Parliamentary Counsel and the Clerk and consider that the Clerk's view is consistent with the precedents of the Senate. I therefore rule that amendments (13) and (14), and their consequential amendments, should be framed as amendments, not requests.

I will now deal with Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by the opposition. As these amendments were not circulated within the required timeframe, they can only be considered by leave.