I take the rule of construction to be this that you cannot have an affirmation without an opposite-an implied exception without something not excepted-and in these clauses mentioning certain things for their main object there must be something the opposite of that. You may have Bills with appropriation for their main object, and Bills with appropriation for their minor object, and something else for the main object. It would, therefore, be possible to initiate in the Senate appropriations which are joined with matters of big general legislation. That was never intended, but it is possible. Further, under section 53, you confer a power upon the House of Representatives of introducing matters obnoxious to the Senate in conjunction with an Appropriation Bill, and of sending up at the latter end of the « Session » the Appropriation Bill with this obnoxious matter in it for acceptance or rejection by the Senate. You can, under the necessity of passing the general supplies, force the hands of the Senate to accept a policy they do not believe in. This is the history of legislation in the colonies, particularly in Victoria, but I am sure it was never intended by the Committee that anything of the sort should be done. I would ask the Leader of the House, Mr. Barton, if there is anything in this section to get rid of the implied effect of section 52? He says that in the Appropriation Bill matters appertaining to the annual supplies only can be dealt with. Section 52 speaks of-I will read it again: Proposed laws having for their main object the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or the imposition of any tax or impost, shall originate in the House of Representatives. You may therefore have a Bill which is an Appropriation Bill in a subsidiary or secondary sense, and dealing as its main object with mattters of general legislation, If that is go you may [start page 607] force the hands of the senators into accepting a matter of general policy, or rejecting through incapacity to amend the Bill altogether. Mr. DEAKIN: Is there not set out practically a definition of the Appropriation Bill in the several sub-sections of clause 53? Mr. GLYNN: I think there is no implied limitation of its application to Bills appropriating revenue, or which excludes the power of joining other matters. Mr. DEAKIN: Does it not speak of appropriating the necessary supplies for the ordinary annual services of the Government? Mr. GLYNN: That is not a definition limiting its general purport, but excludes the joining to two classes of supplies. Mr. BARTON: Did you ever hear of the House passing a resolution after the Committee of Ways and Means has sanctioned the expenditure, taking upon itself the responsibility of amplifying that resolution to put other matters into the measure except- Mr. GLYNN: I think the resolutions generally apply to supplies, but do not exclude inclusion in a Bill with other matters. Mr. BARTON: I think the hon. member is right in one sense and not in another. The Committee of Ways and Means carries certain resolutions, which are received and read a second and third time, and upon which the Bill is founded. Did the hon. member ever hear of a Bill founded upon these resolutions that went beyond them? Mr. GLYNN: Whether I did or not, my knowledge does not limit the possibility of things. I know it would be possible after these resolutions were passed to introduce a Bill dealing with the matter of the resolution and general legislation as well. No resolution would be required to the latter. Is that not possible? I move to cure this by adding to the end of sub-section 4 the words;
Posted on: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 09:06:49 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015