WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1996 97
Date Introduced: 5 February 1997
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Finance
Commencement: Commencement: The Act commences on
the day on which it receives the Royal Assent
To authorise the Minister for Finance to issue an additional
$471 270 776 from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in addition to the
funds allocated under the Appropriation Act (No.2) 1996 97
for proposed expenditure on capital works and services, payments to
the States and Territories and other services.
Annual authorisations for expenditure are contained in the
Appropriation Act (No. 1), which authorises expenditure
for the ordinary services of government.The Appropriation Act
(No. 2), deals with expenditure on capital works and services,
payments to the States and other purposes not authorised by special
legislation. The Parliamentary Departments are covered by the
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bills.
Additional appropriations may be sought in further Appropriation
Bills, commonly known as additional estimates, when the
appropriation sought in the Appropriation Bills is insufficient for
the financial year.
Supply Bills are required as a result of the timing factors in
the Budget cycle. The Commonwealth financial year begins on 1 July,
but the Budget is often not presented until August and it is
usually not until November that the Appropriation Bills have been
enacted. Since the Appropriation Bills of the previous financial
year lapse on 30 June, a hiatus of approximately five months
duration appears in the financial activities of the Government (In
recent years the Budget has been presented, where possible, in
May). This hiatus necessitates interim appropriations. This is
achieved through the passing of Supply Bills shortly before the end
of the previous financial year.
The major additional appropriations effected by this Bill
are:
- Department of Transport and Regional Development $364 380 000
$347 400 000 is appropriated for the purpose of restructuring the
Australian National Railways Commission.
- Department of Industry Science and Tourism $32 510 000 Agrant
of $5 000 000 and further loan of $25 000 000 is being made to
Australian Leather Holdings Limited (ALHL).The
Minister second reading speech states that the $30 000 000 package
is assistance following the agreement reached with the United
States to remove automotive leather from eligibility under the
textiles, clothing and footwear Import Credit Scheme.
- Attorney General's Department $448 776 $49 776 is appropriated
for legal costs incurred by, or on account of acting for, Dr Carmen
Lawrence for or in relation to the Marks Royal Commission.A
question without notice which appears at page 53 of Hansard for 12
February 1997 sets out the Attorney General's position on the issue
of payment of Dr Lawrence's legal costs and is extracted at Endnote
1.
- Department of Environment, Sport and Territories $4 522 000 $4
080 000 is appropri ated as payments to the states and territories
for the management of World Heritage Properties.
- Department of The Prime Minister and Cabinet $220 000 $200 000
is appropriated as a contribution to the Port Arthur Victims Appeal
Fund.
The effect of clause 3 is to authorise the Minister for Finance
to issue from the Consolidated Revenue Fund an additional $471 270
776 for the year ending 30 June 1997 (Schedule 2 gives a portfolio
and program breakup of the proposed expenditure).
Clause 4 deals with payments to the States.Schedule 2 deals with
payments to the Sates and Territories by each Department.Payments
to States details in Schedule 1 must be made on the terms and
conditions determined by the specified Minister.
1. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Member for Fremantle: Legal Costs
Mr RICHARD EVANS
--My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Minister, I
understand from press reports that the former solicitors of Dr
Lawrence, the member for Fremantle, intend to commence legal
proceedings against the Commonwealth claiming that it should pay
all of Dr Lawrence's legal costs in relation to the Marks royal
commission and her challenges to it. Can you advise the House what
the government proposes to do about this claim?
Mr SPEAKER
-- call the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice.
Mr WILLIAMS
--I thank the honourable member for Cowan for his question. The
legal costs of the member for Fremantle fall into three categories:
the costs of her representation before the Marks royal commission,
the costs of her court challenges to the appointment of the royal
commission, and the costs of the Western Australian government
which courts ordered she pay in respect of failed challenges. As I
stated in this House on 19 November last year, the government
intends to comply with the parliament's previous explicit decision
to approve payment of only so much of the member for Fremantle's
legal costs as were reasonably incurred in appearing before the
Marks royal commission, less such costs as are payable by the state
government of Western Australia. Under the appropriation approved
by parliament for the 1995-96 financial year, $319,927 has already
been paid by the Commonwealth in respect of these costs. This
appropriation lapsed on 30 June 1996.
I said on 19 November that the government intended to seek
parliament's approval of a further appropriation of approximately
$50,000. That remains the government's position. That amount
represents the balance of the royal commission costs, after making
allowance for the amount of the royal commission costs which we
understand are payable by the state government. The government
intends not to pay any of the court costs, in accordance with the
parliament's previous explicit decisions. In other words, the
foreshadowed litigation has not affected the government's
intentions.
When the proposed payment of Dr Lawrence's legal costs was put
before this House in 1995, the then government agreed, in this
House, to a coalition amendment reducing the amount of money
appropriated by parliament to pay for Dr Lawrence's legal costs by
the amount of the court costs. In the Senate, the wording of the
appropriation was amended explicitly to exclude the payment by the
Commonwealth of any costs other than the royal commission costs. We
understand that these costs other than the royal commission costs
were to have been paid by the Carmen Lawrence Defence Fund, which
was set up specifically to pay those costs that the parliament had
refused to authorise the government to pay. The Australian public
and the donors to that fund are entitled to ask why the fund has
not been applied in payment of those costs, as this was the stated
reason for the fund being set up. It might also be asked whether
any interest has accrued on the funds, or whether administration
fees have been charged. The fund was set up to pay those costs and
should be applied accordingly.
Lee Jones
24 March 1997
Bills Digest Service
Information and Research Services
This Digest does not have any official legal status. Other
sources should be consulted to determine whether the Bill has been
enacted and, if so, whether the subsequent Act reflects further
amendments.
IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents
with Senators and Members and their staff but not with members of
the public.
ISSN 1323-9031
© Commonwealth of Australia 1996
Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including
information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior
written consent of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Members
of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official
duties.
Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library,
1997.
This page was prepared by the Parliamentary Library,
Commonwealth of Australia
Last updated: 9 April 1997
Back to top