Page 281 - Week 01 - Thursday, 10 February 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The move towards a best practice public funding model by the ACT Labor government was never intended as a means for parties or candidates to make a profit.
It was never intended as that. The Greens have found a loophole. That was never the intent.
This appears to provide a situation in which some parties run with the intent of making a profit so that they can then funnel this money into other campaigns, such as the federal election or to other campaigns in other states.
And the secretary of the Labor Party says:
This practice does not meet community expectations.
I agree with that. I agree that this does not meet community expectations. I think pretty much every taxpayer that is not currently celebrating in the new office in Braddon would agree that profiteering out of this loophole in the law does not meet community expectations.
That is what the secretary of the Labor Party wrote. That is what the grassroots of the Labor Party think. Is it what the members in here think? We know that the Labor Party have come into the inquiry at grassroots level and said, “This does not meet community expectations.” So it is a bit of an ethical test, one would say, for the Labor Party members in here. Are they going to say, “Yes; we stand by our secretary of the Labor Party. Solidarity, Comrade! We agree with you that it doesn’t meet community expectations. We’ll support this”? Or are they going to say, “Don’t worry. We’ve got your back. We’ll cover for you. We’ll let this all go away because we have a sweetheart deal going on in this place between the Greens and the Labor Party”?
It is an ethical test, and we will see how they come up. In the evidence to the committee, the Liberal Party representative stated:
… to happily take an additional $200,000 or thereabouts from ratepayers, I think, is completely inappropriate and something that should be seriously considered, moving forward. I would have thought and hoped that the political party that was in that position would not accept an amount that would get to a point where they were turning a profit.
Hear, hear! The JACS committee recommended that the Electoral Act be amended to limit the amount of public funding received by a party or a candidate not to exceed the amount of electoral expenditure incurred. The ACT government response agreed that the public funding “should not necessarily provide individuals with an opportunity to gain profit”. The government says this is not about allowing people to make a profit—exactly what the Greens did. The intent of the law, the intent of the Electoral Act, is not for parties to make a profit, just like the Greens did.
Let us see how the Greens go with what is an ethical test. They are always talking about ethics in this place. Let us see if they are on the side of ACT taxpayers or not.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video