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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1956 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

he has applied to the so-called inconsistency between me or the Labor Party on this clause and any other clause is just illusory.

This clause, this provision, is about the Commonwealth Liberal government's determination to narrow the class of people who can witness an application for enrolment on the federal electoral roll, which is the roll that we utilise in the ACT. The Commonwealth has prepared regulations which are basically being blocked in the Senate. They are being blocked on the basis that the majority of senators refuse to accept them and the government has not assisted with them. This provision says that we will tie ourselves to the Commonwealth position whilst we do not know what it is. That is the difference, of course; we do not know what the Commonwealth's position is in relation to witnessing the electoral roll.

Mr Moore: It is exactly the same with the returns.

MR STANHOPE: It is not exactly the same. We know what the Commonwealth's position is in relation to all of the other matters that have been under discussion today.

Mr Moore: You do not.

MR STANHOPE: Yes, we do. We know precisely what it is. We do not know what it is going to be in this regard. If the regulations do get passed in the Senate, we can consider the position. That is the simple position that the Labor Party puts. As soon as the regulations are passed in whatever form they are passed, if there is any change to the witnessing requirements in relation to the federal electoral roll, in light of that knowledge, we will make a decision, or could make a decision. This is the only area that we have actually discussed or voted on tonight in which we do not know of the possible position in the future. Of course we know that regulations have been made and we know the federal government's position. At the moment, we are utilising the Commonwealth electoral roll because we know the requirements in relation to the Commonwealth electoral roll, and we are quite satisfied with them.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health, Housing and Community Services) (11.20): Mr Speaker, if Mr Stanhope had been here during the other part of the debate he would have realised that he is in the process, inadvertently, of misleading the house, because we know that, just as the matter that he speaks about in relation to clause 9 is before the federal Senate, so is the question of whether you allow for $1,500 donations or $5,000 donations. That is the scheme to which he has committed himself later in terms of the slave system. That is before the Senate in exactly the same way. We do not know what the outcome is going to be. Nevertheless, he has already committed himself to a much more important issue about the disclosure of financial things, so he is being inconsistent and what he is saying is simply incorrect.

MR BERRY (11.21): Mr Speaker, here we go again. Mr Stanhope explained truly the situation in relation to this matter. Mr Moore may not like it, but that is the situation in relation to that clause. We do not know what is the position in relation to the regulations. Mr Moore wants to change his vote now because he does not like something that the Labor Party did later. In particular, in foreshadowing that he was going to do so, he gave the alleged inconsistency of Mr Stanhope as the reason for changing his mind, not the issue of substance.

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