{"id":"C1973A00013","name":"Appropriation Act (No. 4) 1972-73","slug":"appropriation-act-no-4-1972-73","collection":"act","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"repealed","isInForce":false,"actNumber":"13 of 1973","makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":2529,"registerId":"commonwealth-C1973A00013-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-03-29","status":"Repealed","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Appropriation Act (No. 4) 1972-73","content":"Appropriation Act (No. 4) 1972–73\n\nNo. 13 of 1973\n\nAN ACT\n\nTo appropriate a sum out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, additional to the sums appropriated by the Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1972–73, for certain expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30th June, 1973.\n\n\\[Assented to 31 March 1973\\]\n\nBE IT ENACTED by the Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives of Australia, as follows:—\n\nShort title.\n\n1. This Act may be cited as the Appropriation Act (No. 4) 1972–73.\n\nCommencement.\n\n2. This Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.\n\nIssue and application of $67,944,000.\n\n3. The Treasurer may issue out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and apply for the services specified in the Schedule to this Act, in respect of the year ending on 30th June, 1973, the sum of Sixty-seven million nine hundred and forty-four thousand dollars.\n\n  \n\nValidation.\n\n4. The authority conferred on the Treasurer by section 3 of the Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1972–73 to issue out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and apply, moneys referred to in that section for services of a Department of State specified in the Second Schedule to that Act shall, by force of this section, be deemed to have extended to the issuing, during the period commencing on 20th December, 1972, and ending on 28th February, 1973, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and the application, of those moneys for those services by any Department of State.\n\n  \n\nTHE SCHEDULE Sections.3\n\nABSTRACT\n\n| Department                                             | Total      |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | ---------- |\n|                                                        | $          |\n| DEPARTMENT OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS...................... | 630,000    |\n| ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT........................  | 93,000     |\n| DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION..............................  | 55,000     |\n| DEPARTMENT OF SERVICES AND PROPERTY................... | 435,000    |\n| DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY......................... | 35,000     |\n| DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY...........................  | 46,820,000 |\n| DEPARTMENT OF WORKS..................................  | 19,876,000 |\n| TOTAL..........................................        | 67,944,000 |","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[{"type":"retroactive_impossibility","section":"Section 4","severity":"medium","reasoning":"Under the Australian constitutional framework, the Treasurer requires prior parliamentary appropriation authority before issuing funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund (s.83 of the Constitution). Section 4 effectively admits that expenditure was made during 20 Dec 1972 – 28 Feb 1973 without the necessary authority, and attempts to cure this by retrospective validation. While retrospective legislative validation is a known parliamentary technique, the logical absurdity is that it is impossible to grant 'authority' for something that has already happened — authority is prospective by nature. What is actually being done is laundering an unconstitutional act after the fact, which creates a genuine legal and logical tension with the constitutional requirement that money not be drawn from the CRF except under appropriation made by law.","confidence":0.82,"description":"Section 4 purports to retroactively validate expenditure that had already occurred before this Act came into force — it deems authority to have 'extended' to spending during 20 December 1972 to 28 February 1973, yet the Act only received Royal Assent on 31 March 1973, more than a month after that period ended."},{"type":"other","section":"Section 3 / The Schedule","severity":"low","reasoning":"The Schedule heading reads 'THE SCHEDULE Sections.3', which is an unusual and arguably malformed cross-reference. Standard drafting would read 'Section 3' or 'Sections 3'. While this is almost certainly a typographical quirk rather than a substantive defect, in strict statutory interpretation a court could note the ambiguity. Confidence is low because courts generally apply a purposive approach and would resolve this in favour of the obvious intent.","confidence":0.35,"description":"The Schedule lists seven departments with individual amounts that sum to $67,944,000, which matches the figure in section 3. However, the Schedule header references 'Sections.3' (with a full stop) rather than 'Section 3', suggesting a possible drafting error that could, in a strict reading, sever the operative link between the Schedule and the section it is meant to serve."}],"contradictions":[{"severity":"medium","section_a":"Section 2","section_b":"Section 4","confidence":0.78,"description":"Section 2 provides that the Act comes into operation on the day of Royal Assent (31 March 1973). Section 4, however, purports to operate retrospectively from 20 December 1972 — more than three months before the Act commenced. This creates a direct tension: a law that does not exist until 31 March 1973 cannot, on its own terms, have been operative during December 1972 to February 1973, yet s.4 deems it to have been so."},{"severity":"low","section_a":"Section 3","section_b":"Section 4","confidence":0.55,"description":"Section 3 appropriates funds for expenditure 'in respect of the year ending on 30th June 1973' — a forward-looking (or at least whole-year) authority exercisable from Royal Assent. Section 4, by contrast, deals with expenditure already incurred in a past period (20 December 1972 – 28 February 1973) under the entirely separate Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1972–73. The two sections operate on different legal bases and different periods of time, yet both purport to authorise or validate charges against the same Consolidated Revenue Fund in the same financial year, creating potential ambiguity about whether the retrospective validation in s.4 was necessary at all given the broad 'year ending 30 June 1973' language in s.3, or whether s.3's authority is entirely distinct and s.4 is doing separate and uncoordinated work."}]},"summary":{"complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This Act is entirely consistent with its original and stated purpose: to appropriate additional funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the 1972–73 financial year. It is a standard supplementary appropriation Act with a routine retrospective validation clause. There is no evidence of scope creep or expansion beyond its original intent. It does exactly what the title and preamble say it does."},"complexity_factors":["Very short Act — only 4 operative sections","Minimal defined terms — no interpretation section required","One retrospective validation clause (Section 4) adds a small layer of conditional legal reasoning, referencing a prior Act","Single cross-reference to the Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1972–73","Simple Schedule with a straightforward table of departmental allocations","No exceptions, no nested conditions, no delegated legislative powers"],"plain_english_summary":"This supplementary budget law authorises an additional $67,944,000 of Commonwealth spending in 1972–73, concentrated mainly in the Treasury and Works portfolios, and apportioned among seven departments.  \n\nIt also contains a retrospective validation that legalises spending made between 20 December 1972 and 28 February 1973. The measure affects public servants, contractors and payment recipients and matters because it secures parliamentary approval and cures technical irregularities in prior disbursements."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/appropriation-act-no-4-1972-73","history":"/api/acts/appropriation-act-no-4-1972-73/history","analysis":"/api/acts/appropriation-act-no-4-1972-73/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/appropriation-act-no-4-1972-73/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/appropriation-act-no-4-1972-73/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/appropriation-act-no-4-1972-73/documents"}}