Page 1148 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES (12.47): I think that my amendment r. lapses, given that we have accepted the Government's view on that residency requirement. I think the same might apply to amendments s. and t. I am not positive about that. The Government might let me have its view on that, but I think that my amendments r., s. and t. are all related to that question.
Ms Follett: I believe that that is the case.
MR HUMPHRIES: In that case I withdraw those amendments, and supplementary amendment e. at the same time.
MADAM SPEAKER: Right. What about amendments u. and v., Mr Humphries?
MR HUMPHRIES: No; they proceed, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: It is your turn then.
MR HUMPHRIES (12.47), by leave: I move together amendments u. and v., which are as follows:
u. Page 79, line 33, proposed new subsection 195(1) (definition of "gift", paragraph (a)), add at the end "or".
v. Page 79, line 34, proposed new subsection 195(1) (definition of "gift", paragraph (b)), omit the paragraph.
Madam Speaker, amendment u., and a large number of amendments which follow from that - I am not quite sure how many - deal with the question of public funding of elections. The Liberal Party's position on public funding of elections is quite well known and I think therefore, at this point, that it is appropriate to have that debate. There were a couple of arguments advanced, when public funding of political parties was first introduced in Australia, to support the view that there should be a public subsidy, a taxpayers' subsidy, to political parties and candidates who contest elections. One was that the measure was designed to increase participation in the political process by groups which did not have many resources, and to allow potentially popular but personally poor candidates to have the chance to take part in the political process. The second argument was that public funding would reduce the dependence by major political parties who regularly succeeded at elections on those special interest groups that have traditionally funded those parties.
I think it is perfectly clear that both of those objects have not been met by public funding in the places where it occurs. There is no evidence to support the view that more people have been able to take part in the political process because of access to public funding. It is possible that more people have been tempted by the prospect of being able to defray their costs, but there is no evidence that there has been any particularly great level of participation. The Government may consider the fact that 117 candidates stood at the first ACT election, where we had public funding, as evidence that more people are encouraged to participate under public funding. I suspect that that particular phenomenon
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .