When requests are required: (c) proposed charge or burden
Section 53 of the Constitution provides in the third paragraph that the Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people. Any amendment to a bill which would have this effect must be moved in the Senate by way of a request to the House of Representatives for an amendment. This expression is used only in section 53, and its interpretation is therefore a matter for the two Houses in their dealings with each other.
The interpretation of this provision has been the subject of much discussion in the Senate in the past, and, in particular, was the subject of an extensive debate in the Senate in 1903 in relation to the Sugar Bounty Bill.
The Senate may not initiate bills imposing taxation or appropriating money. The Senate may not amend bills imposing taxation or appropriating money for the ordinary annual services. In the absence of the latter prescription, the Senate would be able to initiate by way of amendment that which it may not initiate by way of its own bill. By the Senate making requests to the House of Representatives for amendments to such bills, the initiative of the House in proposing the imposition of taxation and the appropriation of money is preserved. The further prescription in the third paragraph of section 53 similarly ensures, in relation to appropriation bills which the Senate may otherwise amend, that is, bills appropriating money other than for the ordinary annual services, that the Senate does not initiate by way of amendment that which it cannot initiate by way of its own bill, namely, a further appropriation of money.
The paragraph should therefore be regarded as applying only to that category of bills which the Senate may not initiate but which it may amend, that is, bills appropriating money other than for the ordinary annual services. To seek to apply the paragraph to any other category of bills immediately makes nonsense of it and defeats its purpose. If the paragraph is interpreted as prescribing against the Senate amending a bill which it may initiate, this means either that the Senate may not amend a bill which it has introduced, an obvious nonsense, or that the Senate may not amend a bill for the reason only that the bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives rather than the Senate, which is also a nonsense. It makes no sense to seek to prevent the Senate doing by way of amendment that which the Senate may do by initiating or amending its own bill; the Senate could circumvent such a prescription by refraining from consideration of a bill sent to it by the House, and sending to the House its own bill with a message indicating that its consent to the original bill is dependent upon the House’s consent to the Senate bill. Not only would the supposed prescription thereby be avoided, but the implied extension of the exclusive right of the House to initiate the prescribed kinds of proposals would be undermined.
Therefore the paragraph applies only to bills which the Senate may not initiate but may amend, that is, appropriation bills other than those for the ordinary annual services of the government.
If this interpretation is not adopted, it is not possible to find any coherent purpose of the paragraph; any other interpretation immediately entails a view that the paragraph has no coherent purpose.
This was the interpretation of the third paragraph adopted at the later constitutional conventions, and in the early parliamentary discussion of the paragraph.
At the conventions, it was pointed out that the difference between an amendment and a request would be a matter of procedural form only and not a matter of substantive power, and this was given as a reason for opposing section 53 in the form to which agreement was eventually given. (Speech by George Reid, Melbourne Session, 1898, pp 1997-8.) The same view was repeatedly expressed in the first and only comprehensive debate in the Senate on the interpretation of the paragraph. (On the Sugar Bounty Bill 1903, SD, 2, 8, 22 and 23/7/1903, pp 1691-1703, 1821-63, 2365-415, 2469-503. Speeches by Senators Higgs, MacGregor, Clemons, Millen, Symon and Pulsford, pp 1836, 1843, 1852, 1854, 2404, 2384, 2482.) This observation has repeatedly been made since that time, including by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. (Senator Gareth Evans, SD, 1/9/1993, p. 740.) As will be seen, it was a major factor in the subsequent somewhat careless application of the paragraph.
The claim that there is no substantive difference between amendments and requests, and that it is a matter merely of procedural form, has never been refuted except in terms of the foregoing interpretation of the third paragraph, that it is designed to preserve the initiative of the House in respect of imposition of taxation and appropriations.
When challenged with the assertion that there would be no difference between amendments and requests, Edmund Barton, the leader of the convention, explained the provision in terms of preserving the initiative of the House of Representatives. An amendment, he said, would allow the Senate to put back on the House of Representatives the responsibility for determining whether the measure would pass, whereas a request would ensure that the Senate could not avoid that responsibility. The bill would remain as the House of Representatives had initiated it, and if the House declined to change it at the request of the Senate, the Senate would have to decide whether to agree to the House’s bill. (Adelaide Session, 1897, p. 557.)
The exposition of the third paragraph by Quick and Garran clearly states that it applies only to those bills which the Senate may not initiate but may otherwise amend, that is bills appropriating money other than for the ordinary annual services, and is designed to preserve the House’s originating prerogative:
The second paragraph of sec. 53 takes from the Senate absolutely the power to amend tax bills and annual appropriation bills, whilst the third paragraph restricts its power to amend other appropriation bills. [emphasis added]
Seeing that the Senate cannot amend a bill imposing taxation, it may be naturally asked — how can the Senate possibly amend a proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people? The answer is that the Senate is only forbidden to amend tax bills and the annual appropriation bill; it may amend two kinds of expenditure bills, viz.: those for permanent and extraordinary appropriations. ..... The Senate may amend such money bills so as to reduce the total amount of expenditure or to change the method, object, and destination of the expenditure, but not to increase the total expenditure originated in the House of Representatives. (Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth, 1901, pp 668, 671.)
Garran apparently subsequently changed his mind in that regard (in an opinion of 13 April 1950, presented to the Senate on 22 March 1994), but his later view creates many difficulties.
The first and only comprehensive debate on the interpretation of the paragraph in the Senate was occasioned by an assertion by the House of Representatives that a Senate amendment to a bill should have been a request because it fell within the terms of the paragraph, in that it would increase expenditure under an appropriation in the bill. The message from the House supported this assertion on the ground that the amendment was said to be “an infraction of the provisions of section 53 of the Constitution, which prohibits the Senate from originating a proposed law appropriating revenue or moneys”, as well as the ground of infringement of the third paragraph itself; that is, the third paragraph was seen as supporting the provisions concerning origination. (SD, 1903, p. 2365.) The minister leading for the government in the debate similarly supported the contention that a request was necessary on the basis that an amendment violated the right of the House to originate appropriations (Senator O’Connor, pp 2367, 2369). This theme was emphasised by others during the debate (exchange between Senators Keating and Clemons pp 1854-5; Senator MacGregor p. 1845, Senator Millen pp 2405, 2409). The minister was similarly insistent that a bill must propose an appropriation in order to fall within the prescription of the third paragraph:
Of course, if the bill does not make an appropriation, we can do anything we like with it. (Senator O’Connor, pp 2369, 2406, 2489.)
It was clear then, from this early discussion, that the third paragraph was taken only to prevent the Senate doing by way of amendment that which it could not do by way of initiating a bill, to apply only to appropriation bills which the Senate could otherwise amend, and to prevent only an amendment which would increase expenditure under the appropriation.
This was a rational and coherent interpretation of the paragraph, and an answer, the only coherent answer, to the repeatedly-made observation that there is no difference, other than of procedural form, between an amendment and a request.
Previous page | Contents | Next page
Back to top