Page 990 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 19 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Under Mr Humphries's proposal, his foreshadowed amendments, I think a serious inconsistency is likely to occur. If Mr Humphries's scheme were to be adopted and the public funding scheme, which comes up later in the Bill, remains unchanged - that public funding scheme, as you know, is based on first preference votes, as it ought to be, in my view - it is possible that there would be some candidates who would get public funding but would not get their deposit back, and there would be other candidates who would have their deposits returned but would not get public funding. I think it is important that there be consistency between both of those schemes.
As an alternative, the Government's proposal does provide for consistency between both schemes - they are both based on the 2 per cent threshold. I believe that if the Government's proposals were adopted we would see both the deposit being returned and public funding going to those candidates who were arguably the more serious candidates, the more well-supported candidates by the community in their bid for public office. I do ask members to give serious thought to the consistency between those two schemes, and to the fairness of candidates being treated consistently by way of financial return as a result of their candidacy.
MR MOORE (9.17): Madam Speaker, this is another one of those questions of balance. There have been good arguments put by both sides. I was pleased to see the Government reduce their 4 per cent in the original Bill to 2 per cent, because that seems more equitable. But I must say that the proposal that Mr Humphries has put up, from the way he has explained it, is a much more attractive proposal than that put by the Government.
The Chief Minister argues for consistency. Consistency was one of the issues that Helen Szuty and I, in discussing this at length, were influenced by. In the end, as the balance goes, we felt that the equitable system that Mr Humphries had proposed for return of deposit was a stronger argument than the consistency argument. Whilst we will vote against the amendment put up by the Chief Minister, and then vote for Mr Humphries's position, I would like to indicate that I will be supporting the Government's amendment to take public funding to 2 per cent. Of course, the Liberals will oppose public funding altogether.
So there will not be consistency. I believe that the chances of a candidate having one and not the other are very slim. If that does happen, if the candidate gets no public funding but has their deposit returned, they are two different issues. If the opposite happens, that is the way it goes. Madam Speaker, I shall be opposing this amendment, but I indicate that I will be supporting Mr Humphries's amendment.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (9.19): Madam Speaker, there is a further serious flaw in Mr Humphries's foreshadowed amendment which I should point out to members. Mr Humphries's foreshadowed amendment does not provide for the return of deposit to candidates who have received at least 20 per cent of the quota but who are neither elected nor excluded, and that is possible. That is not a fair outcome.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .