 |
Chapter 12 - Legislation
Revival of bills
A bill which has lapsed because of a
prorogation of the Parliament before it has been
finally passed by the Senate may be revived in the following session, subject
to certain limitations (SO 136; for prorogation, see Chapter 7,
Meetings of the Senate under
Meetings after prorogation or dissolution of House).
If a bill has been referred to a
committee at the time of prorogation, and the committee is empowered to meet
after a prorogation the committee may report on the bill, but the bill has to
be revived by the Senate before it can proceed.
If a bill which
has originated in the Senate was still in the Senate or a Senate committee at
the time of prorogation the Senate may restore the bill to the Notice Paper and
resume consideration of it at the stage it had reached at that time. If such a
bill has been sent to the House of Representatives, the Senate may send a
message to the House asking the House to resume consideration of the bill.
A bill which has
been received from the House of Representatives may be restored to the Notice
Paper, provided that a message is received from the House asking the Senate to
resume consideration of the bill.
These procedures
ensure that a bill is not revived except on the initiative of the House in
which the bill originated.
The overriding
limitation on this procedure is that it may not be employed if a general
election for the House of Representatives or a Senate election has intervened
between the two sessions. The rationale of this rule is that a bill which has
been agreed to by one House should not be taken to have been passed again by
that House if the membership of that House has changed. The procedure may be
employed, however, if it is done in such a way that it is clear that both
Houses have agreed to the bill with their current membership before the bill
proceeds to the Governor-General.
With this
principle in mind, bills have been revived after elections by suspension of the
prohibition in the standing orders (22/4/1983, J.39; 22/2/1985, J.43; 20/3/1985,
J.100; 9/5/1990, J.39-40; 1/6/1990,
J.198; è1/5/1996,
J.61-2).
On 23 August 1990, pursuant to a suspension of standing
orders, the Senate forwarded a message to the House of Representatives asking
the House to resume consideration of the End of War List Bill which the Senate
had passed in the previous Parliament. On 13 September a message was
received from the House of Representatives indicating that the House declined
to consider the bill on the basis that the standing orders of the House
prohibit the revival of a bill passed in a previous Parliament. In a statement
to the Senate, Senator Boswell, who had moved the motion for the request
to the House, explained that the House of Representatives standing order, and its
Senate equivalent which the Senate had suspended in making its request to the
House, were intended to safeguard the principle that a bill not be forwarded
for assent unless the two Houses as currently constituted had agreed to it. Senator Boswell
had waited until the newly-elected senators had taken their seats before moving
the motion for resumption of consideration of the bill, thereby ensuring that,
if the House of Representatives passed the bill, the two Houses as currently
constituted would have agreed that it should pass. Senator Boswell
stated that the House of Representatives had mistaken the standing order for
the principle it was meant to safeguard. Senator
Boswell reintroduced the bill on
18 September, and it was immediately passed through all stages. The bill
was therefore again sent to the House of Representatives, but the government
did not provide time for it to be debated (23/8/1990, J.235; 13/9/1990, J.264; 18/9/1990,
J.283).
An appropriation bill (see Chapter 13,
Financial Legislation) may be revived in the same way as other
bills (ruling of President Baker, SD, 30/8/1905, pp 1627-34).
A bill can be
revived and its consideration resumed by the Senate even if it has been
negatived at any stage (Hindmarsh Island Bridge Bill 1996, 25/3/1997, J.1757;
retirement savings account bills, 12/5/1997, J.1885; Productivity Commission bills,
30/10/1997, J.2773; Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000, 5/12/2000,
J.3730-1; Workplace Relations Amendment (Codifying Contempt Offences) Bill
2003, 21/6/2004, J.3561; National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical
Benefits—Budget Measures) Bill 2002, 24/6/2004, J.3682; Superannuation Laws Amendment
(Abolition of Surcharge) Bill 2005, 10/8/2005, J.895). For a bill negatived at
the second reading, revived and taken together with other bills, see
Superannuation (Surcharge Rate Reduction) Amendment Bill 2003, 10/9/2003,
J.2329. For a bill negatived at the first reading and revived, see Marriage
Amendment Bill 2004, 13/8/2004, J.3927-8. (See Supplement)
In December 2004
a constitution alteration bill,
which had in effect been rejected when it did not gain the support of an
absolute majority of the Senate in May 2003, was restored to the Notice Paper
with consideration to be resumed at the beginning of the committee stage, but
as amended in its previous consideration (1/12/2004, J.166).
Motions for
reviving bills require notice, and are debatable. If a motion for restoring a
bill to the Notice Paper is not agreed to, the bill may be reintroduced afresh.
Following the
Senate practice, the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 was
revived in the House of Representatives in July 1998 after the government had
initially rejected Senate amendments and laid the bill aside, and further
amendments were made for the Senate’s consideration (3/7/1998, VP 3202-4). This
enabled the bill to be passed by the Senate.
When a bill is
restored to the Notice Paper, so that consideration of it may be resumed at the
stage it had reached in a previous session or Parliament, and the order for the
consideration of the bill is called on, a senator who spoke on that stage of
the bill in the previous session or Parliament may speak again. The order is
not an order for the resumption of an adjourned debate, but an order for consideration
of a bill at a particular stage. Therefore, if a bill is restored at the second
reading stage, the mover of the original motion for the second reading may
speak to the second reading, and in reply if they indicate that they again have
carriage of the bill.
Previous page | Contents | Next page
Website feedback: web.senate@aph.gov.au
Last reviewed 31 July 2009 by the Senate Web Administrator
© Commonwealth of Australia
Parliament of Australia Web Site Privacy Statement
Images courtesy of AUSPIC
|
 |
