Mr McCLELLAND (Barton—Attorney-General) (10:03): I submit that the motion moved by the Leader of the House for the suspension of standing and sessional orders should be agreed to, because there is an important constitutional issue to be considered in respect of this private member's bill. I submit to you, Mr Speaker, specifically that there is no proper basis for the bill to proceed once it is called on. There is no proper basis for it to proceed in the House of Representatives, having regard, first, to the requirements of section 56 of the Constitution and, second, to the fact that the bill could not properly have been introduced into the House in view of standing order 179(a). I addressed the first matter generally in a letter of advice to you, dated 16 February 2011, which you tabled on 21 February of this year. I will briefly revisit that constitutional issue before discussing the requirements of standing order 179. Essentially, under Australia's constitutional arrangements, the government of the day is responsible for the management of public revenue and the budget. Specifically, section 56 of the Constitution states that laws appropriating money shall not be passed unless the purpose of the appropriation has been recommended by message of the Governor-General. The Governor-General's message can be given only on the advice of the government of the day, and this procedure is reflected in standing order 180. House of Representatives Practice, fifth edition, 2005, at page 409, states that an appropriation bill includes a bill that would have the effect of increasing or extending the amount that may be paid out of the existing Consolidated Revenue Fund. In my letter of advice to you, I outlined the historical background of these provisions and referred to the previous advices provided by the then Attorney-General, Sir Garfield Barwick. In particular, Sir Garfield was of the opinion that a bill appropriating money includes a bill that has the effect of liberalising the conditions under which the benefits are payable. I will shortly discuss why the subject bill would have that effect. Before I do so, however, I refer to the second issue to which I have referred—that is, the requirement of 179(a), which provides: Only a Minister may initiate a proposal to impose, increase, or decrease a tax or duty, or change the scope of any charge. The Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011, if brought on, would have the effect of both changing the scope of the charge and also introducing an appropriation. In particular, very briefly, I know that this bill proposes to abolish the age limit relating to the payment of superannuation contributions for employees. If the bill was passed, employers who did not make the superannuation contributions for employees aged over 70 would be liable— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Order! If members want to have a discussion across the table whilst the Attorney-General is on his feet they can do so elsewhere. Mr McCLELLAND: I thank you for your courtesy, Mr Speaker, and trust it will be extended by my very noisy colleagues on both sides of the House. If the bill were passed, employers who did not make superannuation contributions for employees over 70 would be liable to pay a superannuation guarantee charge in respect to any shortfall under the act. The consequence of the bill would be that employers would be required to pay charges in cases where they are not currently required to do so. Standing order 179 would have been applied to introduce such a measure and this did not occur. The issue of appropriation also arises because, where the additional charge applies, the Commonwealth would be required to make a payment for the benefit of relevant employees and the Consolidated Revenue Fund would be accessed for that purpose. The proposed law would therefore also involve an appropriation within the meaning of section 56 of the Constitution and standing order 180. On that basis, to be validly passed, the bill requires a message from the Governor-General, which may be obtained only on the advice of the government, and the government does not propose to obtain a message in this case. I therefore support the motion that the bill be brought on and, once brought on, Mr Speaker, I would respectfully request of you that you rule that the bill should not proceed.