Page 4744 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 7 December 1994

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .


leaves power in the hands of the Assembly. That is the problem. That is why people want citizens referenda - so that they can have a say. The percentage is double that which applies around the world. It does not allow for optional voting and is not binding on the Assembly. Let me quote from one of the submissions:

The Liberal Party Bill contains a number of provisions which clearly show the reluctance of the Party to allow citizens ready access to the governmental process. It contains provisions which allow the Executive to not only oversee the CIR process but to regulate it, control it, and as a final measure to ignore the process and the results of any referendum if it so chooses.

That is the nub of the whole matter; the very basis of why people want CIR. Let us look at the submission to the inquiry into community-initiated referendums by the Electoral Commissioner; it is an interesting one. It says, on page 2, under "Summary of Recommendations", item 3:

That the scheme set out in the CR Bill be used as the basis for any proposed CIR scheme rather than the scheme set out in the EIR Bill, as the scheme set out in the CR Bill is better conceived.

I suggest that that is more of a political statement. It says in Attachment B, looking at the Electors Initiative and Referendum Bill 1994 [No. 2]:

The Bill is generally not drafted using standard legislative conventions.

Let me make a couple of points. First of all, all around Australia there is a call for drafting in plain English. It comes again and again. I suggest that the standard legislative conventions need some updating. But the truth of the matter is that the basis of the EIR Bill was a Bill that was introduced into the New South Wales Parliament after being drafted by legislative draftsmen. The submission also says that the commission is concerned that the Bill does not specify the level of checking of signatures which will be required; it simply provides that the Electoral Commissioner may make due inquiries as to whether signatories are electors. Later, on the same page, it says:

The requirement to verify signatories in this Bill will be considerably more onerous than the equivalent requirement in the CR Bill.

(Quorum formed) I would suggest that those statements are contradictory - to say that there is an onerous requirement to verify signatures and that that is a problem, and then to say that the Electoral Commissioner may make due inquiries as to whether signatories are electors. We put it in the hands of the Electoral Commissioner to do what the person thinks is reasonable. You cannot have it both ways. It also says:

It is theoretically possible for referendums to be held every three months under this Bill.


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .