“Forthwith” Means Forthwith

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27397, 9 July 1954, Page 10

“Forthwith” Means Forthwith

The Electoral Amendment Bill has been said to remove ambiguities in the law relating to by-elections caused by vacancies during the recess; but this claim is not made in the explanatory note attached to the bill, and with good reason. The ambiguities in the law seem to have existed only in the minds of legislators of both parties. The meaning of the word “ forthwith ” was the point of issue. The actual seriousness of this difficulty may be judged by one of the three so-called clarifying provisions, which does no more than insert one more “ forth“with”. On the principle that a thing is understood if it is said loud enough and often enough, the amendment has some case. Evidently, forthwith now means forthwith. The only material provision in the bill is a curious one that requires explanation. It gives the Clerk of Writs three weeks’ grace in issuing by-election writs, and provides that a writ may be delayed by six weeks by the government if it things this course necessary for “ special reasons ”. Possibly, the three weeks’ interval is sought because returning officers may be unable to complete proceedings in surprise by-elections within the statutory 50 days; but the interval seems unnecessarily long. No reason is apparent for the government’s new power of postponing a by-elec-tion for six weeks. This, with the normal seven weeks of by-election proceedings, means that a seat could be vacant for about 13 weeks. The reasons to justify this proposal must, indeed, be very “ special.” This provision, it should be noted, will apply to by-elections occurring during a Parliamentary session as well as to those during a recess; so the situation could arise in which Parliament may order the issue of a writ for a by-election and the government of the day may hold it uj> for six weeks. Though this

seems, in fact, to be the only way the provision could be used to avoid a by-election shortly before a General Election, it is difficult to imagine any government using this power to override a decision of the House of Representatives. To do so would be a political blunder. The Government should be pressed on the second reading to explain why it seeks this power, to define “special reasons”, and to say why such reasons are not written into the bill, as they should be.