I am speaking about the legislation before the House now. The only opportunity we get to contribute to any legislation this Government brings in is here in this House, not outside, in the newspapers, in Press releases or anything else. It is here and this is the time and place for it. By implication, at any rate, the Minister is ridiculing our authority to comment constructively, particularly to suggest any changes whatsoever in the proposals he brings forward. The Minister has to learn to accept that the Opposition are entitled to make their views known and, if their views are not being accepted, they are entitled to exercise the only right left to them, which is to register their disagreement with the Minister by calling for a vote. These are our limited powers. I do not think it fair or just of the Minister to try to play down the important part Opposition parties can play here in Parliament or to deny us—as one might gather also from some of the Minister's comments— our right to make any criticism of some of the Minister's suggestions. We would expect the Minister to be open-minded on these matters. He has implied that he does not consider it to be a major piece of legislation. For that reason, one would imagine that he might be more amenable to consider making worthwhile changes if they are pointed out to him.
This Bill is in two parts. One deals with petitions and the other with certain disqualifications from eligibility to stand for local elections. There are about 23 sections of the Bill taken up with this important matter of petitions. It is made obligatory on a petitioner to state reasons for withdrawing a petition. He is required to sign an affidavit. Why does the Minister consider that such an elaborate procedure should be necessary merely for the withdrawal of a petition? Now I am asking him why, if he requires the petitioner to go to such lengths to make his reasons known and to sign an affidavit, he does not require the Attorney General also to issue a statement to the court on his reasons for withdrawing in advance of the court hearing.
Deputy Lalor made the very legitimate point that if the Attorney General brings a petition in a certain election one can take it that the reasons for such action by the Attorney General and who is involved will become generally known. On top of whatever reasons are known, rumour will add its own list of reasons. There will be quite an amount of speculation about who did what, who is going to be disgraced, which sitting Members are involved and who is going to lose his seat. That is quite a cloud to have hanging over an elected member or any elector entitled to vote in an election in the area in which the petition has been brought. If the Attorney General, having caused all this worry and probably hardship to the people involved and their families, subsequently decides that he has no real grounds for proceeding with his petition and wishes to withdraw it, surely under this section he should be obliged in the same way as an ordinary petitioner to issue a statement. We are asking for that. We deem it to be reasonable and it should not upset the Minister's equilibrium that much.