I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, and his officials.
Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2008: Committee Stage.
Sections 1 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 6, line 23, after "members" to insert the following:
"and 3 member constituencies shall only be recommended where there are exceptional circumstances requiring 3 members".
I am sure the Minister will be sympathetic to this amendment. The motivation for it is that one is more likely to get a result in an election that is in keeping with the concept of proportional representation if there are four or five representatives in a constituency. Having three members for a constituency is not the best option for voters in terms of them being able to influence the election and ensuring the most democratic and representative outcome.
When the Minister framed his terms of reference relating to the electoral boundaries for the local elections he said something similar to what is contained in this amendment, namely, that it should only be in exceptional circumstances that an electoral ward or area should return three councillors. The new changes in the local electoral areas have tended towards bigger electoral areas and that favours smaller parties, including the Green Party. That is the point — the more seats there are in a constituency, the more influence the individual voter can have and the more likely it is that a more representative team of people is elected in the area.
I can give another example of how a three-seat constituency can work against the intentions of the electorate. This is where one of the sitting members of a three-seat constituency is appointed Ceann Comhairle. That has been the case, although obviously I am not saying anything about the current Ceann Comhairle. However, if one of the Deputies in a three-seat constituency is appointed Ceann Comhairle, in the following election people can only elect two members in that constituency, which really limits their ability to choose their Deputy. It makes the election close to being a first past the post system. Only two Deputies can be elected in a constituency affected in that way so that will obviously favour the bigger parties, particularly the biggest party.
The amendment is in the interests of democracy. The Minister already made this provision when he gave the terms of reference for the local election boundary changes. We believe it should be in the legislation that underpins the work of the Constituency Commission.
Deputy Tuffy is correct and I am sympathetic to her point of view. Following through on the logic of her arguments on proportionality, one could argue strongly that we should be sympathetic to seven, eight or even nine-seat constituencies, which we had in the early years of the State. We have been restricted to three, four and five-seater constituencies since 1947. To revert to Deputy Tuffy's reference to the local elections and the boundary commission, I vividly recall fairly high-ranking members of the Labour Party making representations to me at that stage. As the Deputy rightly pointed out, I made the terms of reference so that we would have three-seaters only in exceptional circumstances. Having done that, however, I was then accused by a member of the Labour Party of gerrymandering. That was at a public meeting. I found that a bit duplicitous. If I acceded to that request would I be accused again of gerrymandering by the Labour Party? It cannot have it every way. Having said all that, I hope to reflect on this matter further to see if we can get some political consensus on the idea of having fewer three-seat constituencies.
It is difficult to obtain consensus on this because I am sure that members of larger parties would have a different view. I am sure that all the political parties have done their own calculations on this, but it is interesting to note which parties would benefit if one was to opt for six and seven-seaters. Are they the parties people would like to see benefiting? Do Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, which are the largest parties, have a view on three-seaters and how would it suit them? I am ruling out this amendment on Committee Stage, but I will reflect on it further. I will also talk to other parties about it and we will see what we can do on Report Stage. That is all I can say at this stage.
I welcome the fact that the Minister will reflect on this matter. Does he have any advice against the Labour amendment? If it is possible, why not just do it? The commission was established as an independent body so it cannot be accused of being political. What is political, however, is if its terms of reference are limited. If one took an objective view, leaving aside the size of various parties, one should ask how best to cater for voters' rights and how one can maximise the intention behind proportional representation. The obvious way to do it is to move away from three-seat constituencies. Objectively therefore it is the best thing to do and the Minister should strongly consider that. The problem is that the commission is determined by its terms of reference. This is a way of setting out clearly that it is not desirable to have three-seat constituencies unless one has to. Obviously, one gets politics at a public meeting, but this is about what is the best objective decision. In that sense, if the Minister wants to do what is objectively right, the Labour amendment is one way of doing it.
I want to clarify the significance of what the Minister said about reflecting on this matter. Will he reflect on the point that the recommendations could be changed before the next election, or will he reflect on it the next time?
I am referring directly to the amendment. If the Deputy is referring to the constituency boundaries, they are set as they are now.
It does not matter then what the Minister reflects on.
It is about the terms of reference for the next boundary commission.
That is all right.
In reviewing constituencies over the years, we have asked the commission to take cognisance of county boundaries. My constituency of Kildare North is a four-seater, while Kildare South is a three-seater. I would not like to see parts of my constituency going back into Wicklow or Dublin West where they were before. It is better to have counties aligned to constituencies.
As regards the local election boundary review, we had a three-seater in west Sligo, which is the Enniscrone electoral area. That has been changed to a four-seater, so we have three four-seaters now rather than a three, four and five-seater. It is difficult to take cognisance of parishes, but the river runs through Ballisodare so half the village is in the Enniscrone electoral area, which is 30 miles from the centre, while the other half of the village is in the Ballymote electoral area, which is 20 miles from the other centre, in the other direction. Whatever about parishes, villages should definitely be left as units.
I agree with Deputy Scanlon. One can take an example that is much closer than Sligo. In my parish, Sandymount village has been split. That led to many of my political opponents going to a public meeting and accusing me of engaging in all sorts of behaviour. As Deputy Tuffy said, the terms of reference were clear. We told the boundary commission not to split areas, particularly villages. That was set out in the terms of reference. Deputy Tuffy is also right in saying that the boundary commission is not political. However, the people who make these things political are politicians who accuse the Minister of doing this and that. In 1997, it was a Labour Minister, Deputy Howlin, who decided that three-seater constituencies should continue. That was because it was difficult to get political consensus on this matter. On Committee Stage I cannot accept the amendment, but I will reflect on it for Report Stage. I will take cognisance of the remarks made by all Deputies.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 9 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 11, before section 10, to insert the following new section:
"PART 5A
10.—Section 13 of the Electoral Act 1992 is amended by the insertion of a new subsection (5) as follows:
"(5) (a) The marked copies of the register of voters in each constituency shall be made available for public inspection in the local authority offices and public libraries within the constituency to which the register relates.
(b) Any document under paragraph (a) shall, after a period of five years, be maintained in the national archives.” ”.
The amendment speaks for itself. It would be a useful exercise if marked copies of the register were available in each constituency, even for longer than a five-year period. In some elections the marked register was available on computer disk. It is a useful exercise for anybody, particularly public representatives, to know who votes. When lobby groups come to a public representative's office, it is useful to look up the register to see if they exercised their right to vote. If they did not, I treat them different from the people who did, irrespective of whom they voted for, and I tell them that. If the public record was available, one would be able to do that. It would encourage more people to vote if all public representatives dealt legitimately with people who exercised their right to vote, rather than paying too much heed to people who did not vote.
As Deputy McCormack will be aware, the marked copies of the register are made available for inspection by the Clerk of the Dáil under section 131 of the Electoral Act 1992 for a period of six months after the election. At European and local elections, which are nowadays held at the same time and with the register documentation, the marked copies are retained by the local authority officer for public inspection over a similar period.
The effect of the amendment would be to require the marked registers to be available in both local authority offices and libraries, and with the extensive logistics that would be involved in this, one is talking about 6,000 documents from each election. They would be available for a period of five years as opposed to six months at present, and then they would have to be transferred to the National Archives instead of being destroyed. There is a fair amount of work involved.
At present, we accommodate the wishes of our elected representatives. The marked register is a valuable tool, and Deputy McCormack is correct in saying so.
The detailed arrangements for inspection of the registers arising from elections are in place and I am satisfied, having looked at the matter, that they are operating in a satisfactory manner. Given all of the issues that I have outlined, such as the custody, the transportation and the inspection of more than 6,000 marked registers, it is difficult to accept this amendment.
If it is working to have them available for six months, they should at least be available until the next time there is such an election, whether it be a Dáil election or local authority election. Six months is a very short period. Councillors and newly-elected representatives have much to do in the first six months after being elected apart from looking up the register. That opportunity should be available to people right up until the next time, as long as their mandate lasts, whether that be five years or a lesser period in some cases.
I cannot see how storing this would be a problem. We have stored larger items related to elections than electoral registers and it does not seem to have caused any bother.
I come back to the question of the administrative burden on the staff at local authority level. Even the Clerk of the Dáil will tell the Deputy that there is always a major problem following an election with all of these marked registers.
Most Deputies and councillors know that this marked register is available for six months. One can get a copy of it. Many Deputies avail of this. It is a useful tool. In particular, I recall one Deputy telling me of getting calls where a person stated that they would never vote for the Deputy again and that all the family had voted for him at the last election, only to look up the marked register to discover that none of them voted at all.
We all have had that experience.
That, I suppose, is the beauty of the marked register. To be serious for a moment, there would a significant burden here if one was to retain this for five years and then transport it off to the National Archives. We are facilitating Deputies and elected representatives as best we can and if they do not get their act together to get a copy of the marked register within a six month period, then they do not have very good organisational skills and one would wonder how they got elected in the first place.
Everybody who gets elected must have some skills. Some fellow told me when I came in here first that nobody comes in here unless they have something going for them.
In what form is the marked register retained in the archives?
It is not in the archives.
In what form?
It is a hard copy. I was interested to hear Deputy McCormack state that he was aware of a digital copy. I discussed this with my officials. Often I have wondered if we could get digital copies, by which I mean that the names could be marked off digitally. That is also a major undertaking but it might make sense. It is something we would look at. Perhaps the Electoral Commission could look at it. At present, as far as I am aware, what Deputies get is a hard copy, and that is how it is stored.
I understand it is a scanned version of the hard copy. It is not digitally marked. It is a scanned copy on a CD. That is available. I have seen it.
That is just a scanned copy. The beauty of having a real digital copy is that one can look up names. As far as I am aware, one cannot do that with a scanned copy.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 10 agreed to.
Sections 11 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
Amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputies Ciarán Lynch and Tuffy.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 20, before section 15, but in Part 5, to insert the following new section:
15.--Where a casual vacancy occurs in membership of the European Parliament for a member who was affiliated to a registered political party, and no candidate on the substitute list of the party concerned is willing or able to fill that vacancy, the vacancy shall be filled on the nomination of the registered political party concerned.".
The purpose of this amendment is to deal with the situation where a political party nominates a candidate for the European Parliament and that person is elected and has also nominated a list of substitute candidates. If there is a casual vacancy for that MEP's position, for example, if he or she were to resign, there is always the possibility that the named substitute candidates will not at that stage be interested in taking up the position of MEP. My understanding of this amendment is that there is a gap that needs to be filled that would allow the political party concerned to nominate an alternative person to replace the MEP. I would be interested in hearing the Minister's comments. Does the legislation already cater for this situation or is the Labour Party amendment needed?
Deputy Tuffy will be aware that a registered political party can nominate four individuals and a non-party candidate may nominate up to three persons to be replacement candidates to the constituency. That is more than enough. It would be quite strange if a party could not get one of those four persons to replace that individual. That is why there is that degree of latitude.
As an observer of the way politics works, I would say that in Ireland we are lucky in one sense in that candidates stand for election and are directly elected by the people. As Deputy Tuffy will be aware, other countries use what is known as a list system and often the list is selected by the party apparatchiks.
Deputy Tuffy proposes that the party would come along and select people. What one could find in that case is that the party apparatchiks come along and decide whereas with the system in place, as I certainly know from my own party, the party members must decide and people put their names forward. This involves an element of democracy in that at least the party members have decided on that list. If we eliminate that process, one leaves it up completely to the party leadership to come forward with a name. Therefore, one could have a situation arising where a person who was directly elected by the people cries off and then the party comes back as I outlined. I do not know whether that is good for democracy.
The amendment does not eliminate the current provision, but provides for a situation where none of the four replacement persons were willing or able to fill the vacancy.
As the Minister is aware, when a co-option arises on a council, the Labour Party, the Green Party and other parties hold selection conventions. Normal democratic procedures apply. The Minister is incorrect in respect of both of the points he made. The problem will not be eliminated because the substitute list will remain in place. If a vacancy arises and the Labour Party is obliged to choose a replacement candidate, it is obliged to hold a selection convention. I am quite sure the position is the same for the Green Party and other political parties. The Labour Party's rules preclude the leadership from choosing its own candidate and stipulate that a selection convention must be held.
When framing laws, we must always ensure that we make provision for every eventuality. It would not be that strange if, three years from now, four people who had been placed on the substitute list were elected to the Dáil. In the interim, such individuals might have obtained other employment or decided to leave politics. It is quite possible that any of these eventualities could come to pass. It could be the case that the Green Party or the Labour Party might each nominate four substitutes but when, for whatever reason, either party's MEP decided to step down, none of these individuals might be prepared to take up the position. What would happen if none of the people on the list wanted to become their party's MEP? In another European country the position would be filled according to the list system. What would happen under existing law here? There is a gap here and if it is not addressed, difficulties will arise.
The Minister indicated that parties may nominate four substitutes. If a party nominates three individuals to stand in the European elections and if all three are elected, does this mean that there will only be one substitute? My party had two candidates elected in some areas on the previous occasion and hopes to have all three elected in those areas next year. In my party's case — I am sure it is the same for others — if one candidate out of three is not elected in an area, he or she becomes first substitute. There would also be a further substitute.
As Deputy Tuffy stated, if two candidates are elected there might be only two substitutes remaining. What would be the position if one of the latter two individuals decided to join another political party? There is much discussion about this matter in certain circles at present because of the possibility that people who were elected as members of one political party may soon join others. If a person is on the list of substitutes of one party and subsequently leaves to join another, does that party have the right to remove his or her name from the list? What is the position? The Minister is smiling but parties may be obliged to take great risks if they appoint someone as a substitute and then he or she leaves and they are not permitted to remove their names from the lists of substitutes.
I remind the Opposition Deputies that Fine Gael and the Labour Party introduced this provision. They must recognise that fact.
That does not mean it cannot be improved upon.
I am always open to improvements. However, we should wait to see whether it improves the position.
Deputy Tuffy referred to the system that exists. The system is in place because voters have reference to the list. Voters will know the candidates but they can also examine the substitute list. If a Member of the Dáil dies, retires or leaves politics, a by-election must take place. In such circumstances, there is a direct vote. With regard to the European Parliament, the word "co-option" may not be the correct one to use — it certainly applies in respect of local authorities — but co-option is effectively what is involved. Voters can examine the list and see for whom they are voting. If Deputy McCormack was an MEP and decided to step down, the voters would know who was on the list of substitutes. It is fair from the point of view that it gives voters a real choice.
As far as I know, where vacancies arise they are filled from the list. If no list is supplied, if a replacement is neither willing nor able to take up the role or if the list is exhausted, it falls to the Dáil to resolve the matter by choosing a person from a replacement list in the relevant constituency.
Is the Dáil obliged to select that person from the party which lost the seat?
That is a matter for the Dáil to decide.
That is outrageous.
It is not outrageous.
Under that system, a Green Party member could become a Fianna Fáil MEP.
Political parties must resolve this problem within their own structures. There is something wrong if they cannot do so.
The Minister must give further consideration to this matter.
The Minister did not answer my question about the four——
I will call Deputy McCormack in a moment. Deputy Tuffy wishes to pursue a point.
I am not condemning the system, which is fine. If, however, a Green Party MEP vacated his or her seat and if the four substitutes were not willing or able to take up the position, is the Minister stating that it would be acceptable for Fianna Fáil, as the majority party in Government, to decide who should be the new MEP? Is he saying that a Fianna Fáil member could be nominated to replace a Green Party MEP in such circumstances? If Labour was in power and our leader held the position of Taoiseach, would it be correct for our party to nominate one of our members to replace a Green Party MEP? People who voted for a candidate from whatever party to become an MEP would want that individual to be replaced by a person from the same party.
I accept that the chances of what I am saying coming to pass might be slim. However, the strangest things can happen. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that an eventuality such as that to which I refer could occur and provision must be made in respect of it. As the Minister stated, the Dáil will fill the vacancy if a replacement cannot be found.
As a very last resort.
It happens.
When did it happen?
Is the Minister of the view that it would be correct for a Green Party MEP to be replaced by a member of the majority party in Government in circumstances such as those to which I refer? He would be screaming from the hilltops if that happened.
Let us face reality. A situation such as that to which the Deputy refers has never arisen.
That does not matter.
It is unlikely——
It is not unlikely.
It is unlikely, particularly when one considers the existence of the list of substitutes. In the unlikely circumstances that such an eventuality arose, a situation similar to that which obtains at local level would obtain. At council level, if a person dies, leaves or whatever, his or her party is allowed to fill the vacancy.
The party must be allowed to do so.
When I was a council member there was an agreement in place——
That is not the case in the——
——and it worked. It is unlikely that a situation such as that to which Deputy Tuffy refers will ever arise. As a result, I am reverting to the legislation put in place by Labour and Fine Gael.
The Minister stated that we introduced the legislation. From time to time, legislation relating to this matter is brought forward. We have identified a loophole in the legislation and we are asking that it be addressed. The Minister is a member of the Green Party and he must recognise that this provision does not favour smaller parties. Neither does it favour a party which is not in a majority in the Government.
I know of an example where one party, which did not win the seat, attempted to fill a council vacancy. I will not go into the details but it was possible. It is possible that a seat could be filled under this legislation by a party that did not win the seat. There is no point in saying it is unlikely. What seems unlikely can happen. The Minister said the chances are slim but these things could happen and he must provide for them in law. There was a loophole in the past and the Minister has an opportunity to close it. If he does not, he will regret it.
Will four substitutes be provided for along with the candidate nominated or will four names be provided in total?
Four substitutes for each party and three for non-party seats.
Where a party wins two of four seats, it will only have two substitutes and, therefore, there is merit in the amendment.
The number of substitutes is per candidate, not per party.
Are there four substitutes for each candidate nominated?
In addition to their candidates. Deputy Tuffy's amendment has not specified a timescale. Will it be left totally up to the party? Could the party, for example, allow this decision to lapse for weeks or months and not address it? That is why a list will be in place in order that someone can take over immediately. This needs to be added to the amendment.
I accept that. I will withdraw the amendment if the Minister will examine it again.
I am trying to take on board the comments made and to be reasonable. Will the amendment be tabled again on Report Stage?
Yes, in order that it can be discussed again. I will withdraw it now and I hope the Minister will re-examine the issue. I would be perfectly happy if he came up with his own amendment.
The amendment is not complete. The Deputy is empowering political parties to an inordinate degree and no boundaries are provided for. For example, will the person whom the party is empowered to nominate have a relationship with the constituency, given he or she will not have been elected? A number of aspects need to be teased out in greater detail.
I am willing to withdraw the amendment on the basis it will give the Minister an opportunity to examine those issues. He should examine also what happens in other countries. Is the list ever exhausted in countries that use this system? Under this section, the lists will be exhausted if the four substitutes do not want to take the seat or are unable to do so. Perhaps the Minister will examine how this is provided for in other countries. If the list is endless, the party determines who takes the seat. People vote for political parties and not just candidates. That is part of their decision.
It is not the intention to disenfranchise people. It would be unthinkable for a party with an elected member to find itself in the extreme circumstances foreseen by the Deputy without a political representative. That is not my thinking. We are trying to arrive at a scenario where everything can operate smoothly and democratically.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 20, before section 15, but in Part 6, to insert the following new section:
15.—It shall be a function of each local authority to prepare and make available accurate and up to date maps of the local electoral areas within the functional area of the authority.".
I received a complaint that a number of local authorities do not keep their maps for local electoral areas up to date. The amendment seeks to put an onus on them to keep them updated in order that it is clear which estates come within an electoral area. I do not know whether this is covered elsewhere in the legislation but I propose that this should be spelled out as a responsibility of local authorities.
Does the amendment relate to town council as well as county council electoral areas? During the previous local elections in my county, unfortunately, people on one side of the road on an estate were in the town council electoral area and those on the other side were not. Councillors of all persuasions requested the local authority to review the boundaries. Three years ago a person was appointed to examine the three urban council boundaries and the recommendations are still not in place. We are going into a local election with the same boundaries in place, which is crazy. If maps are produced for local authority areas, will they be produced for town council areas?
The issue raised by Deputy Brady is separate from the maps issue. Maps are available for illustrative purposes only and they do not have a legal basis. However, I agree they are of enormous benefit to the candidates and the public also could benefit. I propose on foot of the amendment to write to local authorities requesting them to produce and make available maps of the local electoral areas relevant to their functional area. I hope the committee will agree this is the appropriate way forward. I also hope the maps will be available on the Internet in order that they can be printed.
The problem with that is my local authority says it uses OSI maps which are copyrighted. Officials say they are precluded under the Copyright Acts to supply the maps free of charge.
The OSI maps are complex and they detail houses and so on. I assume the Deputy is referring to the boundaries of electoral areas on maps, which would be helpful. There are areas where one stretch of the road, as highlighted by Deputy Brady, is in one electoral area and the other side of the road is in another. The maps will be detailed but they will not be of the quality described by the Chairman.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 15 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendment No. 6 is consequential on amendment No. 5 and both may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 29, before the Schedule, but in Part 6, to insert the following new section:
20.—(1) The Local Elections Regulations shall have statutory effect as if they were an Act of the Oireachtas.
(2) If subsection (1) would, but for this subsection, conflict with a constitutional right of any person, the operation of subsection (1) shall be subject to such limitation as is necessary to secure that it does not so conflict but shall otherwise be of full force and effect.”.
This amendment provides that the Local Elections Regulations 1995 shall have statutory effect as if they were Acts of the Oireachtas. The conduct of local elections is governed largely by secondary rather than primary legislation, unlike other elections.
Accordingly, section 15 of the Bill makes required amendments to local nomination procedures by substituting new articles into the local election regulations. The Attorney General has reviewed the text in this part of the Bill, in light of developments in the law, relating to the use of primary and secondary legislation. This has been necessary because it is now clear that under our constitutional law, secondary legislation must be appropriately grounded in and circumscribed by authority given by the Oireachtas in primary legislation.
While the relevant primary legislation we are discussing, section 27 of the Local Government Act 2001, is framed in quite wide terms, the Attorney General has advised that it would be desirable to provide in the Bill that the regulations under the section shall have statutory effect, as if they were an Act of the Oireachtas. Therefore, the proposed amendment does this by inserting a new section 20 in the Bill. In terms of the text of the amendment, the new section 20(1) confirms that the Local Elections Regulations 1995 shall have statutory effect as if they were an Act of the Oireachtas.
Subsection (2) states that the provision in subsection (1) that the regulations have statutory effect does not take away from the constitutional rights of any person. This is a standard provision in legislation of this nature, which ensures that the confirming provisions are not to operate in such a way that they would infringe any person's constitutional rights. Otherwise, the confirmation is to be of full effect.
The amendment will definitively secure the legal framework governing the new nomination procedures set out in section 15 of the Bill and, on a wider basis, bring full legal certainty to the local elections code as a whole. I wish to emphasise that the amendment does not change the substance of the proposed new nominations procedures at local elections and is designed solely to underpin more fully the legal framework for these and other aspects of local elections.
Furthermore, the amendment we are making to the Bill has the added benefit that any future amendment of the regulations will have to be done by way of primary legislation and be fully debated in the Houses of the Oireachtas. As a consequence of this amendment, the Long Title of the Bill is also being revised.
I am somewhat concerned about this amendment. Why can the Minister not just enact the regulations as a Bill? Why can he not introduce legislation that would include what is in the local elections regulations and enact that? Would that not be the proper way of doing it? If not, could he not incorporate the regulations into this Bill? Another alternative would be to introduce the Bill before us without amending the local elections regulations. Why is it not possible to have this Bill as legislation in itself?
I am concerned at this method of dealing with legislation. Instead of introducing, passing and enacting legislation, the Minister is saying some regulations will have statutory effect, as if they were legislation. This seems a strange way to deal with the issue. This is reflected in the fact that the Minister then introduces a disclaimer, which provides that one's constitutional rights are not affected, but if they are in any way affected the regulation would not have force. The fact this disclaimer must be included seems a strange way of dealing with the matter.
I am concerned with regard to precedence. Is this the only way the Minister can deal with it or could he go about it in the way I have suggested, namely, through new legislation as opposed to giving statutory effect to the regulations? Has this ever been done in other legislation? Is it common practice or is this the first time?
We are doing this is on the advice of the Attorney General who is a precise individual and has said over and over again that he does not favour the practice. Most Ministers would say they prefer to do things by way of regulation, because it is very handy. However, the Attorney General is more and more inclined to say that if there is any doubt it should be left out and done by way of primary legislation. I would think the way the attorney proposes is in the best interest of the Opposition because it provides the opportunity for greater scrutiny, debate and clarity. This is what the Attorney General is trying to achieve here. He is trying to get greater clarity in the situation and to bring it into compliance with what are seen now as constitutional obligations. That is all he is doing.
I would have thought that the Attorney General was advising that this was to ensure the measure stands up. He wants to ensure there is no flaw.
Exactly, he wants it to be precise.
It seems a strange way to go about it. Why not enact it as legislation in its entirety? Why not introduce a Bill that has the same wording as the regulations and enact it or include it as part of this legislation, or why not introduce this part of the legislation on its own without referring to the regulations? If it is better that it is brought in by way of legislation, why not go the whole hog and make it legislation rather than saying it is as if it was legislation?
To put it simply, one cannot ignore what has gone before. All of the legislative procedures that have gone before are by way of regulation. Therefore, we have a corpus of what we might call secondary legislation by way of regulation. The Attorney General must take account of that and that is the reason he advises we do it this way.
Is the Attorney General doing it this way because we have put local government into the Constitution? Why does he feel it is a constitutional issue and he must deal with it this way? Is it because, subsequent to other local election regulations, the constitutional amendment was passed?
It goes back to what I stated earlier, namely, that all the legislation is by way of secondary legislation or regulation. The Attorney General has looked at it and has said this is the best way of doing it. I am not the person to second-guess his advice, as much as I might like to on occasion. He knows what is the most secure way of doing it and it is clear. He has not given us a wrong steer to date.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
TITLE.
Amendment No. 6 in the name of the Minister has already been discussed with amendment No. 5.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 3, lines 11 to 14, to delete all words from and including ", THE" in line 11 down to and including "MATTERS." in line 14 and substitute the following:
"AND CERTAIN OTHER ENACTMENTS, TO AMEND AND GIVE STATUTORY EFFECT TO THE LOCAL ELECTIONS REGULATIONS 1995 AND TO PROVIDE FOR RELATED MATTERS.".
Title agreed to.
I thank the Minister, his officials and committee members for their attendance today.
Bill reported with amendments.