ABSTRACT
The first flaw is that the Senate’s power to block supply is incompatible with the system of responsible government.1 At the heart of this doctrine lies the obligationimposed by convention rather than law-that a government which no longer enjoys the confidence of Parliament must resign. In the United Kingdom, ‘not having the confidence of Parliament’ is indicated where a government loses a formal vote of no confidence, when it fails to get through Parliament a piece of legislation which it (the government) has stated will be a test of confidence, or when Parliament blocks supply. The last of these is an indication of lack of confidence because a government which is unable to obtain authorisation for taxation or expenditure from Parliament cannot lawfully raise revenue or spend money, as was established in R v Hampden (Ship Money case).2 This aspect of the doctrine of legislative confidence has a clear rationale, because a government which persists in office will ultimately be drawn into illegality The same reasoning applies in Australia, where s 83 of the Constitution prohibits the expenditure of money in the absence of appropriations legislation. It, therefore, cannot be denied that failure to obtain supply is, under the conventions of responsible government we inherited from the United Kingdom, an event triggering the obligation of the government to resign.
