Procedure and House Affairs committee  The separation that's occurring is from the Chief Electoral Officer to the DPP, in essence. There's a rationale for that. That's been stated. My difficulty is more with turning the commissioner into someone who is highly subservient to an officer who himself or herself is appoint

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Yes.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I think his advice is valid. I should also add that I am happy to see that the bill addresses the abuse—and let me go back to my Trojan horse—that we experienced in the last election and that might become more serious in the future. At least, something is being done about it. Id

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I think this recommendation is valid. Given the level of detail in this bill, it could have been incorporated without adding too many lines to a text that is already very long and complex.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Once again, the commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer have practical experience. They have identified major shortcomings. Since I am not a lawyer, I do not want to comment on whether this issue is admissible in court, but the recommendation should be taken seriously, in my

Procedure and House Affairs committee  —so there's a little bit more room there. What is the reason for this? It has not been stated. It has not been justified.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I think it would be better to have more room to manoeuvre, more of an independent stature to the commissioner. You could have created a parallel office to the DPP. I'm not comfortable—

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Yes. So for a number of decades, until the legislation was tightened about 10 years ago, polling was not an election expense. The exemption that was agreed to initially became more important over time as the expenses grew, and that's why I use the image of the Trojan Horse. We h

Procedure and House Affairs committee  It might very well be time for a reassessment, but that hasn't occurred. A decision has just been taken. It's a bit of a rabbit out of a hat, if I can use a metaphor. I think a study on some of these things—it is 10 years after the act.... In fact, in the 2004 legislation there

Procedure and House Affairs committee  We have to draw a distinction between what political parties do through their own rules and what is done through the statute. The statute of course has a number of exemptions; for example, to take a very basic one, child care expenses for a candidate, or expenses for a disabled c

Procedure and House Affairs committee  It's in line with the spirit of them, but I have some problems with the modalities under the statute creating someone who is subservient to another office.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Well, I think the government is actually a political party, so there is a political party supporting it. But there's only one party supporting it, and it has a majority, and as we all know, it's possible to do things with a majority that wouldn't have been possible three years ag

Procedure and House Affairs committee  No, I didn't talk about that. I was talking about the governance and the reporting and that sort of thing. This is an area that other people have more expertise in than I do, but bearing in mind that the Chief Electoral Officer has raised it as a weakness in the act and that ther

Procedure and House Affairs committee  My understanding is that the exemption only applies to people who have given money previously. That in itself adds to the complication. My position on this is that there's no evidence this needs to be exempted from the Election Expenses Act. In the 1970s, after the initial act wa

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I'll be pleased to. I'll draw a distinction, though, between the support or otherwise of the Chief Electoral Officer and of other political parties. On the latter, for decades it was the tradition and I would say probably an unwritten rule that changes to the Elections Act, eve