Opened the debate
Gorman moved that the requested amendment be made. The motion was agreed to by the House.
Bill Debate · Consideration of Senate Message
Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024; Consideration of Senate Message
House of Representatives · Thursday 13 February 2025
Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia
At a glance
The House considered Senate amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024. A constitutional objection was raised regarding Senate amendment 4, which altered the destination of appropriated funds under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. The House agreed to disagree with the Senate's version of amendment 4 to comply with constitutional requirements. A message from the Governor-General was obtained, allowing the House to move a substantively identical amendment. The bill was subsequently passed with all amendments agreed to.
Outcome
The House disagreed with Senate amendment 4, agreed to the House-substituted amendment, and agreed to Senate amendments 1 to 3, finalising the bill.
Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.
How the debate unfolded
Government response
Keogh moved that the House endorse the Speaker's statement on constitutional questions and consider the message immediately. Keogh then moved to disagree with Senate amendment 4 solely due to constitutional issues, not policy content. Keogh explained that the House would subsequently move the amendment itself after receiving a message from the Governor-General. Keogh sought agreement to finalise the bill that day.
-
Freelander drew attention to a constitutional principle raised by Senate amendment 4. Freelander noted that the amendment changed the persons receiving payments under section 80 of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. Freelander explained that this altered where funds allocated via section 423 of that Act went, triggering section 53 of the Constitution. Freelander stated that a message from the Governor-General under section 56 was required for such a change.
-
Joyce acknowledged the bipartisan nature of the work and accepted the constitutional issue raised. Joyce emphasised the need to ensure the intent of the amendment was preserved to avoid conflict with the Senate. Joyce agreed to concur with the minister's process to disagree with the Senate amendment. Joyce supported moving the House amendment to achieve the same legislative outcome.