Page 3835 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 8 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
REFERENDUM (MACHINERY PROVISIONS) BILL 1994
Debate resumed from 22 September 1994, on motion by Ms Follett:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MRS CARNELL (Leader of the Opposition) (8.42): This Bill has taken a long time to see the light of day. If it had been before the Assembly in reasonable time, it could have been suitably amended to cover the administrative aspects of the Community Referendum Bill; but, obviously, it is now too late for that. In any case, this Bill shows all the signs of being cobbled together in great haste. As a result, we cannot be confident that it will provide an adequate basis for conducting referenda in the Territory. The necessity for this Bill or something like it arises from section 26 of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act, which requires that there be a freestanding law by which referenda for the Territory may be conducted. This Bill is that necessary mechanical Bill. It purports to govern how referenda are to be held.
Essentially, the Bill is a "lift" of the mechanism by which the Commonwealth Government conducts referenda, which deals only with constitutional matters - that is, the Commonwealth Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 - and hence has clear-cut Yes and No cases. The Bill provides a default mechanism; so, its provisions apply only if they are not overridden or contradicted by any other law such as an enabling law being put to referendum. In other words, a law being put to referendum for entrenchment may be self-contained and, therefore, may not require any of the machinery provisions of the referendum Bill. It is only if a law being put to referendum is silent on the mechanisms of that referendum that this Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill comes into play.
I said earlier that the Bill shows all the signs of being hastily cobbled together, even though it is lifted from existing Acts. As a result, some parts of it have not been well thought through. For example, in clause 8, line 17, the use of the word "pamphlet" implies something like a glossy, slick brochure. A better word might have been "document", which would convey the sense of factual, informative or even intellectually rigorous preparation. Similarly, in the same line, reference is made to the pamphlet being "posted"; but that says nothing about the relevant papers being received by those who have read them. I would have chosen the word "delivered" rather than "posted". A third example of poor wording is the use of the word "household" at clause 8, line 20. "Household" has restrictive overtones and would not cover all circumstances where electors may live. A better word may have been "residence". I am not for a moment suggesting that these inadequacies are fundamental to the workings of the Bill; but I am concerned that they show haste and sloppy presentation.
The provision for arguments for and against a law being put to a referendum is partially covered by clause 8; but the Bill fails to address the case where, for example, members of the Assembly agree that a referendum should be held but are not necessarily in favour of the matter being submitted. Another scenario could be that two equal groups have different reasons for favouring or opposing a matter to go to referendum, but there is no mechanism for deciding who presents each case or how it is presented. It may not be possible to get sufficient numbers for one of the valid cases to be presented. The Bill fails to deal with this potential outcome.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .