Glenn Milne saw fit to write some unconscionable garbage in reference to the Coalitions thwarted attempt to originate a money bill in the senate. (See here: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24411595-5001030,00.html). The bill was passed by the senate with cooperation from the Greens, it saught to increase old age pensions by $30 a month. This is what Mr Milne had to say:
“…As with Rudd individually, the government collectively did not respond well. First, it tried arguing that the pensions Bill was unconstitutional because Oppositions cannot introduce money Bills.
Well, frankly, who cares?
This issue is about a bit of social justice and calling governments to account, not the finer points of Constitutional law.”
The notion that money bills may not originate in the senate is hardly a fine point in constitutional law. Rather, it is a well known limitation on the powers of the senate explicitly stated in the constitution:
Section 53 of the Constitution Act 1900: “Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate.”
A fact many of us learned in high school, and if not certainly in introductory Australian politics or constitutional law classes at university. This kind of tripe is a sad indictment on Milne as a political journalist, and reflects an inability to balance partisan sympathies with journalistic impartiality. Even an opinion writer must be limited by a respect for facts in their commentary, otherwise what he or she writes is just unsubstantiated diatribe. Further, considerations like “social justice” must not come before the constitution, the very instrument that underpins our democracy and guarantees our freedom. It is reprehensible to declare a clause in our constitution unimportant and to act in a way that is clearly contrary it – especially given that our constitution only allows for change subject to the approval of the Australian people.
While this stunt has all the hallmarks of political genius on the part of the Liberal Party it was totally improper. The clerk of the House was correct to dismiss the bill, even if it was passed by the house the Governor-General would have no option but to refuse assent.
