Page 1198 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
If I may be permitted to digress slightly, I wish to mention a matter which I forgot to mention in respect of the previous matter. There is also a section 258B in that previous amendment which requires that applications to the court of disputed returns be heard together. This ensures that those applications are consolidated and that there is a capacity to deal with them at the same time, presumably by the same judge of the court sitting in the court of disputed returns. That is a fairly important provision.
Turning to amendment zs., Madam Speaker, it is quite important for a court of disputed returns to be able to get to the nub of the matter, and that is whether there is evidence that there has been a breach or breaches of the Electoral Act or regulations such as to suggest that the election ought to be declared invalid. In other words, what is the nature of what has occurred, and how serious is what has occurred that has given rise to these applications? In those circumstances it is extremely important to make sure that people will give evidence fully and accurately before the court if summoned as witnesses before the court. The new section 276A, which I have proposed be inserted in the Act, provides, in a sense, a protection for witnesses who appear before the court. It requires witnesses to give evidence before the court and says that a person is not exempted from answering the court's question if that might tend to incriminate them. There are two exceptions to this rule. One is in proceedings before the court itself, and the other is in proceedings for perjury. Clearly, except in those limited circumstances, there will be incentives for people appearing as witnesses in the court to give full evidence of what they happen to know about a particular application or a particular matter before the court. That is quite important. I hope that the effect is, again, to encourage the process whereby people are allowed the maximum possible candidness in their comments before the court.
Amendment agreed to.
MR HUMPHRIES (3.42), by leave: I move together amendments zt. and zu., which read as follows:
zt. Page 117, line 11, proposed new subsection 278(2) (definition of "electoral bribe", paragraph (b)), omit "or".
zu. Page 117, line 12, proposed new subsection 278(2) (definition of "electoral bribe"), add at the end the following paragraphs:
"(d) inducing a person not to apply, or to withdraw an application, under section 189 to be a candidate for a seat in relation to which a casual vacancy has occurred, where that person is an eligible person within the meaning of that section; or
(e) inducing a person not to apply, or to withdraw an application, to the Court of Disputed Elections under Division 3 of Part XVI to dispute the validity of an election, where that person is entitled to dispute the validity of the election under section 253.".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .