Page 1772 - Week 05 - Thursday, 10 May 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
that we will not have exactly the same problem again next time there is a casual vacancy?
I believe the privileges committee should comprise one member of the government, a member of the Greens and a member of the opposition. We should consider where the ACT has been misled in the matter of the appointment of Ms Gallagher to fill the casual vacancy. I think it should be a short and sharp privileges committee. I think we should report back in June, in just a few weeks.
I think we should be able to bring some tangible recommendations to the Assembly so that we are not in this situation again. I very much urge members of the Assembly to support this establishment as I think it goes to the integrity of this place.
MR BARR (Kurrajong—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development and Minister for Tourism and Major Events) (11.38): The government will not be supporting this motion today as the Assembly has already considered this matter. The Assembly determined to refer the matter to the administration and procedure committee, which found that the Legislative Assembly has:
… one of the more robust procedures to select a senator when compared to practices in other State and Territory legislatures.
It is worth observing that the disqualification provisions under section 44 traverse a wide range of matters. The Assembly committee report goes to those questions. They include everything from whether an individual is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent, may have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the public service of the commonwealth or whether they hold an office of profit under the Crown. Indeed that is a matter that has been the subject of determination by the High Court on previous occasions in relation to matters of eligibility to sit in the Senate or the House of Representatives.
It is not the role of the Legislative Assembly to take a position ahead of the ultimate arbiter of someone’s eligibility to sit in the federal parliament. That is the role of the High Court of Australia. We are simply not in a legal or practical position to do so. The attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to create a little political mischief here is not something that this place should consider.
In fact it is very clear from the advice to the Assembly committee that whether a nominee is disqualified by reason of section 44 of the Australian Constitution is not a matter for state and territory legislators; rather, the issue is properly a matter for the individual concerned, the party of which the nominee is a member and, of course, the High Court of Australia in the event that a matter is referred to the High Court.
It is important to acknowledge that the relevant legislation—that is, the constitution of our nation and the Commonwealth Electoral Act—only requires that the Assembly choose a senator who is of the same political party as the previous senator.
The administration and procedure committee has established, and provided quite detailed information on, the practices of all other states and territories. It is clear from
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video