Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I want to refer back to the minister informing the Senate that with respect to my earlier amendment, which has been voted on, which asked that annual returns which are illegible should not be accepted, he said it was not a matter capable of being resolved at law—and I knew it was. As the chair knows and as many members of the Senate know, in my portfolios and in my parliamentary work I deal with a great number of acts and regulations and other matters. So I went away and discovered a few examples of the word ‘legible’ being found in Commonwealth acts and regulations both under the previous Labor administration’s laws and under this government’s laws, including some of those for which the minister has had responsibility. I will name those acts I have found without going into the text because that would take up too much time.

‘Legible’ is used as a requirement in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991; the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, which is before us now; the Corporations Act 2001; the Referendum Machinery Provisions Act 1984; the Cheques Act 1986; the Navigation Act 1912; and the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976. Those are seven acts I have just picked out. On selected Commonwealth regulations, there is Senator Abetz’s and the government’s own favourite Workplace Relations Regulations 2006, which require among other things that records must be in a ‘legible form’ in the English language and be printed in ‘legible typescript’. There is also the Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990, the Australian Postal Corporation Regulations 1996, the Bankruptcy Regulations 1996, the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Regulations, the Interstate Road Transport Regulations 1986, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Occupational Health and Safety) Regulations 1993 and the Trademarks Regulations 1995.

The reason I bring this to the attention of the chamber is not because I think the minister would have advertently misled the Senate by claiming that ‘legible’ was not capable of legislative and judicial interpretation, because the government’s very own acts have put that into place, but because I thought it should be corrected. The amendment I moved was not moved for political partisan purposes; it was moved as a technical minor amendment designed to improve the way in which people who use the returns could avail themselves of the fact that those returns had been made. I was a little distressed that the shadow minister easily agreed with the minister’s approach.

Having made my point that my amendment was a very valid one which can be put into law on the basis of precedent and is capable of judicial interpretation, I am not so naive as to think the government will change its mind and support my amendment, so I am not going to ask for a recommitment. But I think that when someone like me who has been dealing with the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for 10 years says that there is a problem, generally speaking it is a genuine attempt to address a real issue and I felt it was dismissed somewhat lightly.