Page 1153 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (1.07): Madam Speaker, I am speaking against Mr Humphries's amendments and, in doing so, addressing, as have all other speakers, the broader issues that are specifically contained in them. On the issue of public funding, as members know, the ACT Assembly elections in 1989 did have public funding, and the Commonwealth legislation continues to provide public funding for Federal elections. The scheme of public funding goes together with schemes for full disclosure of political donations and expenditure. The two are the two sides of the same coin.
The general intent behind that entire scheme is to minimise the potential for corruption in the political process. I would go further than to talk about corruption; I would talk also about undue influence. Madam Speaker, I believe that it would be most undesirable if members of this Assembly were to enter the place in some way beholden to their financial backers. I can say that I do not know who makes donations to the Australian Labor Party. I do not want to know. I do think that if there were to be members here who were under a financial obligation to some elements within our community - whether it was business or unions or whoever - that would be very undesirable, and that would, in fact, influence their behaviour in this Assembly. That is the general purpose behind public funding and full disclosure of donations - the intention of reducing - - -
Mr Kaine: The Labor Party does not take any money from anybody else because it gets public funding? Rubbish!
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, we were having a perfectly civilised debate until Mr Kaine butted in, and he continues to interject. Madam Speaker, that is the general intention behind the public funding and full disclosure schemes. It is to ensure that all parties and MLAs and candidates are not totally dependent on donations, and also, because there is a threshold involved in public funding, to ensure that even parties and candidates who attract a quite small proportion of the overall vote do not miss out on public funding where those schemes apply.
In response to concerns raised in general consultation, I am proposing to reduce that threshold from 4 per cent to 2 per cent of the formal vote. I believe that at the 2 per cent level we will still find genuine candidates - candidates who had a good shot at getting elected - receiving at least some public funding by way of recouping the expenses of their campaign. Madam Speaker, I accept that it is a matter for judgment. I am well aware that public funding is not generally applied in State and Territory level elections, but I do believe that we have the chance here to put in such a regime for the Territory and to take advantage of what have been seen to be advantages where such a scheme has applied.
Mr Humphries, and Mr Moore, I think, referred to proposals to cap public funding. I think there is something inequitable in that, in that only the most successful parties would be disadvantaged by capping. I also believe, Madam Speaker, that any party worth its salt would rapidly find a way around that and that the effect of capping may not be to reduce the pay-out under any public funding scheme. Madam Speaker, I oppose Mr Humphries's amendments, just as I will oppose his later amendments which have the effect of removing the public funding scheme and also of capping it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .