Milorad Pupovac of the SDSS recalled that the Constitutional Law guaranteed proportional representation to minorities in town and municipal councils, as well as in local governments.
Minority representation has so far been ensured through representative bodies, but in local governments it has depended on whether minority representatives have managed to enter local governments by forming coalitions with parties, Pupovac warned, stressing that political deals must not be a condition for the implementation of laws.
The SDSS therefore urges that elections not be held in towns and municipalities which have not ensured minority representation in their councils and governments and will make its support to the bill conditional on the adoption of such an amendment.
Pupovac dismissed the proposal that elections in those units be organised in line with the existing legislation, i.e. that minority representation be ensured through additional elections.
The bill was supported by opposition parties, which objected that it was being adopted less than two months before local elections.
The Croatian People's Party (HNS) and the Social Democratic Party (SDP) suggested banning by law making changes to election rules less than a year before local elections.
They welcomed the government's decision to give up on a proposal under which candidates heading election lists do not have to be candidates for mayors, municipal heads and county prefects.
Zlatko Kramaric of the Social-Liberal Party/Liberal Party/Democratic Centre club of deputies expressed regret over the fact that the HDZ had given up its election promise about direct election of mayors, municipal heads and county prefects.
Emil Tomljanovic of the ruling Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) responded by saying that the introduction of direct election required a comprehensive analysis of constitutional regulations, including changes to the Constitution, which he said could not be done in haste.
Parliamentary parties supported in principle a government bill on distraint, which is aimed at facilitating the work of courts and simplifying the procedure of distraint, but some opposition parties said that the bill actually made that procedure more difficult.
Most opposition benches objected to the fact that the bill no longer treated workers as privileged creditors.