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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 4038 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

We normally work on the principle that, if parliament provides for certain things, the Executive will not detract from those positions or weaken or reduce the operation of those provisions unless specifically empowered to do so. Well, in this case it is.

The reason I suggest that we should support this is not that in principle I am particularly enamoured of this kind of provision - in fact, generally I am not in favour of it at all - but that it reflects the provisions in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. If we do not have this provision, if the Commonwealth regulations are changed to reduce the disclosure provisions in the Commonwealth legislation and we do not have the capacity to quickly follow suit through regulation, then we potentially destroy the capacity of parties or candidates to supply an annual return which is the same for the Commonwealth and the ACT at the one time.

The whole exercise has been about allowing parties or individuals who happen to stand for election at both levels to do so and to satisfy the requirements with the same single return. It is conceivable that, if we do not have that regulation-making power in our legislation and the Commonwealth exercises its in the same way, we end up destroying what is basically the object of this exercise, which is to have a single document you can use in both contexts. Although I do not support the principle generally, in this case I think it is important that we do have it.

Let me remind members, Mr Speaker, that if the Government uses a regulation such as this, of course, it is a disallowable instrument; it has to lie on the table in this Assembly. If members feel that the reduction in the amount of information to be provided in returns is inappropriate, then of course they can move not only to disallow it but also, under our Subordinate Laws Act, to amend the regulations; to do something quite different; to expand it if the Assembly so wishes. Not much is lost in those circumstances.

The only situation where there would be some serious problem occurring would be if the Commonwealth amended its regulations to reduce the amount of information required just before the ACT parliament was to be prorogued and the ACT Executive were to follow suit before there was time to call the Assembly together to overturn this regulation. In that circumstance, some arguably serious harm could be done. But that is a very remote possibility. A government which tampered with the electoral laws just before an election would be very foolish indeed, and I suggest that is not a real danger. The appropriate course of action, I think, is to reflect the Commonwealth provisions. I therefore urge members to oppose Mr Moore's amendment on that score.

MR WHITECROSS (Leader of the Opposition) (9.40): I share Mr Moore's concerns in relation to this provision. I also share Mr Humphries's concerns in relation to it. However, like Mr Humphries, I am persuaded that, on balance, it is the right way to go on this occasion. I will be opposing Mr Moore's amendment.

MR MOORE (9.41): I do not consider this one to be anywhere near as serious as the other ones that I have not moved as they would be lost. Indeed, I recognised at the time that this was a disallowable instrument, and I indicated that. I accept that there is another tool for dealing with it, and that makes it a much less serious situation than the others. Although I still think it is a good idea and I am a bit disappointed, I think I can understand the Minister's view.

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