Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1938 ..
MR MOORE (Minister for Health, Housing and Community Services) (9.49): Quite a number of political commentators I have heard over the years have said that it is very respectable for somebody who stands for election to pull some 300 personal votes. That is a very respectable figure. Most people who stand for election pull some 160 personal votes. It can go much lower than that, but it averages something of that order.
I am sure all members have had somebody approach them and say, "I want to run. How do I go about it?" You can give them some clues. Perhaps sometimes you give them too many. I say to them, "When you are doing your funding, estimate the number of votes you think you can get. Then work out what the return will be from the Electoral Commission for those votes. Remember that you have to get 2 per cent of the vote. Work that out and you will have a good idea of the amount of money you should be spending on your campaign. If you have other money to put in, do it. But that lets you run. That gives you a reasonable chance to make a prediction on what you are going to do and gives you a chance to run."
You are removing that possibility. The numbers Ms Tucker quoted are really sobering. I am glad the Chief Minister is here. He should reconsider this very inequitable move. Hare-Clark is about letting ordinary people have a go, and public funding is about ensuring that people do it.
Why did he put 2 per cent in when we originally worked on this legislation? I referred to you, Mr Humphries, because you were so involved, as Ms Follett and I were, in dealing with the first Electoral Act. We worked so hard on it. We put the 2 per cent in for a reason. I now think it was a mistake, because people now want to change it to 4 per cent. We put it in as an administrative convenience. The administrative cost in paying $30 or $40 to somebody who got 30 or 40 votes was not worth it. I think we made a poor decision at that time.
If I had realised it would lead to somebody moving to put the threshold up, it would have been much better for the Electoral Commissioner to have to write out a cheque for a dollar to a person who got only their own vote. It is very sad that we are here this evening trying to put up what Mr Kaine has correctly described as another hurdle. We have to ask ourselves why.
This is not about protecting public money. We are talking of probably $10,000 to $15,000. It is not about the public purse. Mr Humphries, a prominent person who has been elected to the Assembly many times, got only 2.45 per cent himself, although some of his personal vote would have gone to Mrs Carnell, because of the way they ran their campaign. To get 4 per cent of the primary vote is a very significant challenge for anybody. By this move you are cutting off from public funding almost everybody other than those in a main party and maybe four or five people with a very high profile. You should reconsider this amendment, Mr Stanhope. I cannot understand your thinking in eliminating public support for everybody other than the major parties and a handful of other prominent people.
MR RUGENDYKE
(9.54): Once again, the deal has been done. The vote will be 10:5 on this. This is another example of how souls have been sold to get the cash cow. Once again Mr Kim Beazley has it right. The federal Labor leader, Kim Beazley, said the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .