Senate debates

Monday, 19 June 2006

Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2006

In Committee

7:33 pm

Photo of Eric AbetzEric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Hansard source

I thought I had answered that prior to the dinner break. Senator Ludwig provided two examples to us: one was a Canadian one, based on their bill of rights, and the other was a UK situation based on a protocol in relation to the European Union that I accept I am not fully acquainted with. The answer in relation to both of those was that if countries have a bill of rights or a constitution, or have signed up to certain documents, then—if you believe in the rule of law, as I happen to do—they have to abide by them. In Australia we do not have a bill of rights such as the one which is now interpreted in this interesting way by the Supreme Court of Canada, or a protocol such as exists in the European Union. I might add that the United Kingdom government fought against the interpretation put on that protocol by the equivalent of the European court.

In relation to any international treaties we might be signatory to—that is article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. While I do not have the exact wording in my mind, the wording is to the effect that you should not arbitrarily or unreasonably withhold the vote from anybody. I would have thought if this parliament has duly considered a provision for legislation and legislated accordingly then it is not for others around the world to suggest whether our legislation is reasonable or unreasonable or arbitrary, given that we do of course have restrictions on people’s franchise in relation to the age of 18 and in relation to their mental capacities.

Comments

No comments