Page 4422 - Week 14 - Thursday, 1 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
COMMUNITY INITIATED REFERENDUMS - SELECT COMMITTEE
Report
Debate resumed from 10 November 1994, on motion by Mr Moore:
That the report be noted.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (11.18): I would like to speak very briefly to the report by the Select Committee on Community Initiated Referendums. In general, the Government supports the recommendations of the select committee. Just to reiterate what those recommendations are, the committee has recommended that the Assembly proceed no further with Mr Stevenson's Bill; that it defer consideration of Mrs Carnell's Bill until the implications of CIR for the ACT have been fully examined; and that we accept in principle the establishment of a select committee on CIR with the terms of reference recommended by the committee. The Government's view is that this is a wise approach, and we have based that view on a number of factors.
I think it is fairly well recognised that Mr Stevenson's Bill is fatally flawed because it proposes a method that is beyond the power of the Assembly to enact.
Mr Stevenson: How about because it works?
MS FOLLETT: Mr Stevenson can shout across the chamber as much as he likes, but the Act speaks for itself and the fact is that Mr Stevenson's Bill cannot be implemented in the ACT as it stands. Mrs Carnell's Bill, on the other hand, provides in effect for advisory referendums only. It appears, therefore, to be within the power of the Assembly, except for the provision that purports to prevent the Assembly from amending a Bill passed at referendum for 12 months. That does appear to be at odds with the basic legislation.
I understand that Mrs Carnell's Bill, even so, would need some technical amendments to correct what are a rather large number of anomalies within it. The Electoral Commissioner, in his submission to the select committee, went to considerable lengths, I believe, to provide a comprehensive analysis of what those technical problems are. It is probably a waste of time my reiterating them this morning, as that submission is available to all members of the Assembly. I suggest that, if people wish to go further with Mrs Carnell's Bill, then those suggestions by the Electoral Commissioner, who is independent and impartial in this matter, ought to be taken very seriously. But the fact of the matter is that the Bill is not in a fit state to be passed in its present form. I believe that it would also need to be amended in the light of the passage by the Assembly of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1994.
The Government supports the report that has been brought down by the select committee. We commend them on the considerable body of work that they have done in a relatively short time. I can only suggest, as does the committee's report, that the further work on this issue ought to take place after the election and be given the kind of time and the kind of exposure that the issue obviously warrants.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .