Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2018 Week 10 Hansard (Tuesday, 18 September 2018) . . Page.. 3718 ..
MR WALL (Brindabella) (4.27): Madam Speaker, you cite standing order 201A, which refers to the Assembly’s resolution of 23 November 1995:
“That this Assembly reaffirms the principles of the Westminster system embodied in the financial initiative of the Crown” …
That is a resolution of the Assembly, not merely a standing order. That principle of the financial initiative of the crown is not in any way, shape or form reflected under section 65 of the self-government act. I wonder if, by prohibiting members moving an amendment such as this, whether or not we are in a quasi way imposing a law that is in fact inconsistent with the self-government act.
The self-government act is very short and makes only two points:
(1) An enactment, vote or resolution (proposal) for the appropriation of the public money of the Territory must not be proposed in the Assembly except by a Minister.
I do not think that anyone disagrees with initiation of a proposal for a money bill. But (2) says:
(2) Subsection (1) does not prevent a member other than a Minister from moving an amendment to a proposal made by a Minister unless the amendment is to increase the amount of public money of the Territory to be appropriated.
I think the question still remains as to whether the money that has been appropriated in the appropriation bill would be increased by the consideration of Mr Parton’s amendment and whether or not we have in fact put unnecessary restriction on members’ free rights here that were not intended as part of the self-government act, noting that that provision of the self-government act was amended back in 1994 given that earlier Assemblies struggled with this provision specifically relating to amendments to the appropriation bill itself, not to subsequent taxation legislation.
MADAM SPEAKER: I will make one more comment and then my ruling will stand. If you disagree, you will have to move dissent from my ruling. The self-government act section 65(1) and (2), almost word for word, are reflected in standing orders 200 and 201 and, as I just said, the moneys raised may only be expended in accordance with an appropriation. What Mr Parton is effectively doing is taking it out of consolidated revenue and giving it to another group. We have been through this. My ruling is as clear as I can make it. Mr Parton’s amendment is out of order.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (4.29): I accept that that is out of order. Therefore, I seek leave to suspend so much of the standing orders as would allow Mr Parton to move an amendment to Mr Barr’s bill.
MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (4.30): The Greens will not be supporting the suspension of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I think that your advice on this is very clear. I flagged my concerns earlier in the day but I think we have now had a further explanation. The fact is that it has now been made clear that the act of directing these