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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Friday, 14 May 2004) . . Page.. 2054 ..

It is also the case that Independents and members of non-party groups are not necessarily the same. It would be hard to argue that Clover Moore and Brian Harradine are both Independents and therefore, if they ran in the same election, they should be grouped in the same column. Simply because candidates are Independents does not mean that they should not be able to distinguish themselves on the ballot paper.

I note that, if this bill were to proceed in its current form, Independents would be forced to be listed in the far right column of the ballot paper. The current Electoral Act does not insert the ungrouped column randomly like other groups. It has always been the final group on a ballot paper that generally reads from left to right. That would put Independents at an additional disadvantage. I understand that Mr Stefaniak will be moving amendments to ensure that non-party groups may remain on the ballot paper. As I have indicated, the Democrats support that.

I have prepared an amendment that deals with postal ballots. This issue was raised by the Electoral Commission in its report. It was not including specifically as a recommendation. However, it was included as a recommendation in the commission’s 1999 review of the Electoral Act. The main point of this amendment is to prevent political parties and candidates from having an inappropriate role in the conduct of an election. I will speak more to my amendment in the detail stage.

I understand that amendments are still being circulated and more issues are being put on the table as we speak tonight. They relate specifically to ballot groups and other issues and I will go into those in the detail stage.

Ms Tucker’s bill, the Electoral Amendment Bill 2002, seeks to insert a number of sections that were previously removed by former assemblies. The removal of these sections has not improved the accountability of political parties in the ACT. I think it is deplorable that the major parties in this place had previously amended the Electoral Act to suit their own purposes, rather than the need for an open and accountable political system.

Michael Moore pursued this protest in the past and Ms Tucker has carried on that pursuit. I hope that the major parties will realise that their first duty is to the people of the territory, not just to a political party. It is essential that the people of the territory trust their political system and the regulation of political parties, including the disclosure of political donations, is essential to maintaining that trust.

In my mind, the most important part of this bill is the closing of the loophole in the current act that allows a political party to be exempt from disclosing a political donation if the individual donation is less than $1,500. The result is that a party could receive multiple donations of under $1,500 from a business or a person and not have to disclose these amounts, even if they add up to more than $1,500. As long as all donations are individually less than $1,500, the fact that they may total many thousands of dollars is irrelevant for the purposes of disclosure. That is a major loophole in this act and undermines the intentions of the disclosure provisions. That is why the Democrats will be happy to support Ms Tucker’s bill as well.

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