Page 1155 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES (1.16): Madam Speaker, I must say that I was pretty incredulous when the Chief Minister spoke about the need to prevent undue influence on politicians and to make sure that people - this is the interesting phrase - are not totally dependent on the special interest groups that fund them. I think the word "totally" is meant to indicate that there is already a large degree of dependence, and having public funding makes them not totally dependent on those groups.
It is undesirable for people to be beholden to anyone outside the Assembly, but I do not think that public funding has done anything at all to prevent that happening. If public funding were at the level of, say, $10 a vote, or $20 a vote, perhaps you might see political parties being able to say, "No, we will not take your money". The fact of life, Madam Speaker, is that political parties continue to take money from special interest groups. I have never heard of a party knocking back very much money, although it has happened from time to time. While they take money you can expect that there will be a certain obligation between the parties.
I might point out that my party was offered some money by certain people associated with the adult video industry prior to the 1989 election and we declined to accept that money. So it does happen sometimes. I note also that the Government was offered money and did not decline to accept the money. To suggest that there is not some kind of relationship of influence there is, quite frankly, a little bit hard to accept. Public funding has not changed that one iota. I would have thought that the mere appearance of money changing hands in those circumstances would create something that one would rather not have, and you should be able to rely on the fact of public funding to say, "Look, we are not going to accept money from the adult video industry in this case because the appearance would be that our vote in the Assembly might be influenced by accepting that money. Instead, we will rely on public funding to make sure that we are not seen to be influenced by the donation from the adult video industry". That was not what happened. The Government took the money anyway and, at the end of the day, voted in favour of retaining Canberra's adult video industry. I would have thought that if public funding made any difference it would have made a difference in that case, but it did not.
I think the argument needs to be posed: Why have a threshold for public funding? If a person is entitled to take part in a campaign and they are to be encouraged to take part in a campaign, why have a threshold? Why should an individual who gets 200 votes not be entitled to some reimbursement for the effort he or she put in to get those 200 votes?
Mr Kaine: Spoils to the victor.
MR HUMPHRIES: As Mr Kaine rightly puts it, it is all about spoils to the victor. It is about making sure that the right people get the right amount of money. That is what public funding is all about.
Mr Berry: Is anybody from the tobacco industry in the 500 Club?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .