Page 870 - Week 03 - Thursday, 14 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, I urge members to consider how this is done in Tasmania and to realise that with Robson rotation the intention of the system is to give people the opportunity to choose from individuals on the ticket. I believe that Canberrans are intelligent enough to be able to do that. The introduction of how-to-vote cards is much more likely to cause you and your party confusion than to cause other people confusion. The result of that will be seen when we vote on that issue.
Dennis Stevenson put one of his broad polls on my desk a little while ago. He was kind enough to hand it out. I will be disappointed if the media gives it any real attention because doing so gives it credibility, and I have some concern about that. When he asked his question about ticket voting, one has to wonder about all the questions he did not ask. He said that the referendum was a fraud because there was a question that was not asked, so what is left? Madam Speaker, the other issue that has been sorted out at this stage is the four-year or three-year term issue. I was prepared to put it to a referendum. The Government believes that that is not necessary. It has been agreed that an amendment will take place that will provide that we continue with three-year terms.
A series of other issues have been dealt with and I think that the most important of them is public funding. Madam Speaker, I support public funding in elections for a number of reasons. First of all, it allows people who simply cannot afford the money the opportunity to stand for public office. It certainly will remove the worst possible case scenario, the situation you have in the United States where somebody who decides to run for public office must find a great deal of money and therefore they invariably do not represent those who are less well off in that community. Secondly, I think public funding is also an issue in terms of prevention of fraud and corruption, which is very important. Nobody needs to be dependent on major donations in order to be elected. So it seems to me, Madam Speaker, that the issue of public funding is very important.
In the amendments presented by Gary Humphries there is provision for capping public funding at $40,000. When that was initially suggested during my discussions with the Liberals, Madam Speaker, I must say I was very attracted to the idea. I could see some merit in it. On reflection, after discussion with other members, it seems to me that it will be an issue that is very easily got around. One of the ways for a party to get around it, for example, believing that they would wind up with more than $40,000 in public funding, would be simply to call themselves Liberal Party 1, 2 and 3 or Labor Party 1, 2 or 3 for each electorate.
Mr Humphries: We would never do that.
MR MOORE: A Liberal Party member has interjected, saying that they certainly would not do that. Madam Speaker, it would be beyond me ever to suggest that. I said that as an example and I was trying to be even-handed by pointing the finger at both parties. This is an amendment to be put up by the Liberal Party, so I suspect that that is the case. Madam Speaker, it seems to me that any law that is so easily circumvented ought not to be part and parcel of our legislation and, therefore, I am reluctant to support it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .