It is now clear that the need for Senate President Alf Oughton to rule on the effort by the Government to prevent the Upper House from voting on parliamentary pay rises was moot, given that at least one Independent Senator would have voted for the increases had it ever come to that.

Nonetheless, the decision dealt with an important principle concerning whether the Senate ever has the right to vote on a "money bill", and as such, it was a debate worth having.

The barring of upper houses, when they are appointed or contain hereditary members, from voting on bills that would result in public expenditure has been embedded in the Westminster system for a century now.

In general terms, the principle is correct. The ultimate responsibility of elected legislators is to take care of the public's money, and to spend them in the public interest. It is generally accepted that it would be dangerous for an appointed body to interfere, or block this process.

Sen. Oughton, on legal advice, ruled that Parliamentary pay would result in "a charge" on the Consolidated Fund ? the primary source of Government spending ? and as such, the Senate was constitutionally prevented from voting on it.

Two arguments were raised against this. One was that a resolution passed by the House must be certified by the Speaker of the House as a money bill before it is sent to the Senate, and it was alleged that this was not done in this case.

The second is that under the parliamentary pay legislation enacted in 1975, it is specifically stated that the resolution authorising changes in pay must be passed by the House and the Senate.

One can only assume that the intent of the framers of the legislation was to ensure that both houses had a say on legislation that affected them directly, and that the Senate, in its role as a parliamentary watchdog, could also make the House think again if if was thought that MPs ? the only public servants who can vote their own raises ? were being excessive.

That seems to have been sound thinking, and the precedent has been in place for 30 years.

However, Sen. Oughton stated that no law could supersede the Constitution.

Sen. Oughton raised a second interesting point, which is that the Premier should have consulted him on the composition of the pay review panel, but failed to do so.

Attorney General Larry Mussenden dismissed this as an oversight and not material to the issue.

But it is. Consultation under the Westminster system is not something that can be taken lightly. The Governor, for example, must consult or take advice from the Premier and/or the Opposition Leader on any number of issues, and because the Premier failed to do so in this case, it could be argued, in Sen. Oughton's words, that the report and its recommendations were a "nullity".

It may be that some bright Parliamentarian or concerned individual may now wish to take this up in the courts, although Sen. Oughton does not seem inclined to do so himself. In this case, a right and a wrong do not make a right.

This newspaper in general does not oppose pay increases for Parliamentarians and Ministers, although it has previously stated its grave concerns about the idea that Ministers can choose for themselves whether or not they can be full time.

But it is important that the correct process is carried out, and Sen. Mussenden has been at pains that that, rather than an attempt to drive the increases through, is his intention. On that basis, the principle that Sen. Oughton was not consulted is as serious a breach of process as the Speaker's alleged failure to certify the pay resolution as a money bill.

It's time to take this whole issue back to the drawing board.