Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1936 ..

Clauses 20 to 25, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 25A.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (9.41): I move amendment 3 circulated in my name to insert a new clause 25A in the bill [see schedule 6, part 1, at page 1990].

This proposal is to raise the threshold for public funding for candidates in ACT elections from the current 2 per cent to 4 per cent. This is another opportunity for members of the Assembly to stamp out those frivolous candidates we see. We are incredibly keen to ensure they do not sully the system.

This amendment reflects very much the situation in other electorates, certainly in the Commonwealth. I do not think it is too much to expect that a candidate who seeks election should attract a reasonable level of support before they attract public funding. This is a way of ensuring that we maintain the integrity of the system. The current 2 per cent is very low. It is not reflective of the circumstance in other electorates. We have a significantly large electorate. I have heard it suggested in debate around these provisions, that because the ACT is a small jurisdiction it is appropriate that we have an incredibly low threshold. In fact, Molonglo is a very large electorate. Molonglo is far larger than the average House of Representative seat. Even the seats of Ginninderra and Brindabella are large in the context of the quotas that many people seeking election to the Senate face in some states.

This amendment is very similar to the amendment I moved seeking to raise the level of support for a nomination from two to 50. It is in exactly the same vein. It is designed to ensure that we maintain some consistency across jurisdictions; that we seek to maintain some integrity in the parliament; that we discourage frivolous abuse of the political process just for a lark. It is not much to expect a serious candidate to obtain 4 per cent of the vote. That would at least concentrate the minds of those thinking about pursuing a nomination, and it would ensure that they take the matter seriously and not abuse it.

MS TUCKER (9.44): The Greens will not be supporting Mr Stanhope's amendment. We do not support the change in the threshold for election funding for a party or Independent candidate from 2 per cent to 4 per cent. Funding of election campaigns is a major issue for small parties and Independents. The public funding of election campaigns was introduced for the specific purpose of levelling the playing field between well-resourced and under-resourced candidates. We know that the major parties get huge amounts of corporate donations and have the resources to fund extensive advertising campaigns.

I am aware that a 4 per cent threshold applies for federal elections, but we should not automatically apply the same rules as apply to federal elections, because the electoral systems are quite different. It should be noted that under our Hare-Clark electoral system, with its multimember electorates, it is quite hard for minor candidates to get over 2 per cent, because there are so many other candidates competing for votes.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .