Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 9 Hansard (23 November) . . Page.. 2541 ..
MS TUCKER: Mr Speaker, this amendment does not imply that there is more money added to the bottom line.
Mr De Domenico: Yes, it does.
MS TUCKER: I would argue that it does not.
MR SPEAKER: I still rule it out of order. There are two reasons. First of all, there is the motion that I mentioned to you earlier. Secondly - and this may throw some light, Ms McRae, on something that you raised what seems to be a very long time ago - in addition to the motion that we carried earlier this sitting, the amendment also contains the words "or any other Act". The question arises whether the inclusion of these words contravenes the provisions of standing order 181, which provides:
An amendment may be moved to any part of the bill, provided it is within the title or relevant to the subject matter of the bill, and otherwise conforms with the standing orders.
The title of the Bill is:
An Act to appropriate certain sums out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purposes of the Territory in respect of the year that commenced on 1 July 1995, and for related purposes.
Whilst it is possible to give the term "and for related purposes" a very wide meaning, it is generally used for matters that arise out of the subject matter and purpose of the Bill or that are directly related to the Bill. The use of these words entrenches this prohibition on expenditure in other Acts which may or may not be related to the appropriation of funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the 1995-96 financial year. I therefore rule it out of order on those grounds.
Ms McRae: Mr Speaker, I follow up my earlier point of order. Are you now saying that the 1993 amendment has been entrenched?
MR SPEAKER: Yes, it is - - -
Ms McRae: There you go, Mr Moore; they cannot get rid of any teachers. The 1993 provision is entrenched. Mr Speaker has so ruled.
MR SPEAKER: We will still be seeking an opinion.
Ms McRae: Mr Speaker, with the greatest of respect: If you are going to rule Ms Tucker's amendment out of order on that basis, then you cannot have it both ways. Either it is entrenched or her amendment is in order. I am taking a point of order on that because my understanding of what you are now saying is that either the 1993 amendment is entrenched or Ms Tucker's amendment is in order. This is very serious.