Page 1154 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON (1.12): The Chief Minister said that it would ensure that even candidates who receive a quite small percentage of the vote will not miss out on public funding. Of course, they will miss out on public funding because you have to get a certain percentage - it was 4 per cent; the Chief Minister proposes 2 per cent - before you get any public funding. My personal view - this is not shared by the majority of people - is that the voter should decide where their public funding percentage goes - whether it is $1 or 50c or whatever - and they can decide that by voting for somebody. Then, however many votes you get, if there is to be public funding - I disagree with that, along with the majority of people - it is proportional to the number of votes you get. What more democratic method is there to determine where public money should go than where the public direct?
What I think we should do about public funding of elections is prevent governments from using public funds up to elections for blatant electioneering by putting Ministers' photographs in advertisements for their departments and so on. That is where we would do a lot to reduce public funding. I will be looking with interest up to the next election to see what the Labor Party may do this time along those lines.
Mrs Grassby: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not see how that has anything to do with public funding. I think you are on the wrong track, Mr Stevenson.
MR STEVENSON: I am on the right track.
MS SZUTY (1.14): Like members of the Government and my colleague Mr Moore, I support the principle of public funding of elections. I note that Mr Humphries talked about the provisions available currently in New South Wales and for Commonwealth elections. We are talking here about the reimbursement of some electoral expenses after election campaigns have been concluded, and $180,000 is the figure that has been quoted in the debate today. Questions have been raised as to whether it is appropriate for even $180,000 to be spent to reimburse candidates who have had reasonable success in elections. I think it is a question of priorities, and, from what I have heard in the debate today, most of the members of this chamber think that it is a reasonable commitment to be made.
I also note, Madam Speaker, that public funding was not an issue which was described in the Australian Electoral Commission's referendum options description sheet. I think it is an issue on which this Assembly can come to a view in its own right. I believe that public funding enables fairness and equity for all groups in the election process. The Chief Minister mentioned that she is prepared to amend other provisions of this Bill to enable public funding to come in at a lower percentage of votes received - that is, at 2 per cent. That is a commendable amendment that we will get to a little bit later in the debate. Not only will public funding potentially advantage us as MLAs; it also will favour other people in the next election campaign. Other people, when considering standing for election, will be assured in some respects that some public funding will be available to them if they are reasonably successful during the election campaign. The Chief Minister also mentioned the very important question of the candidates of political parties and Independents not being beholden to other people in terms of their election to office. That is a very important principle with which my colleague Mr Moore and I agree. Public funding is an issue that we both support.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .