Page 1234 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 30 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I am happy to place on the record here and now that I, as a member of the Labor Party, think that this is wrong. It is important that you have public scrutiny of the major donations that go through so that you can actually say where the money is coming from when you go to the polls. I do not want to see the system that occurs overseas where we do not know who is actually donating to the major political parties. I do not want to see that happen. In the Canberra Times of 27 March 2006, political lecturer Norm Kelly wrote:
The Government has also argued that a higher disclosure threshold would encourage more people to take part in the political process. This argument is nonsensical, as there is no reason why this target group of people should not be contributing under the existing system. Unless, of course, they believe that they have something to gain, such as political favours, from making larger contributions.
Those contributions would be made without the scrutiny of public disclosure. A loophole in the law means that because of the structure of some Australian political parties a donor could give $10,000 to each of the party’s state, territory and federal bodies, a total of $90,000 a year, and still remain anonymous.
Increasing tax deductibility for political donations from $100 to $1,500 will also have a major effect on the electoral system. The government estimates that this additional tax relief to political donors will cost the Australian taxpayers $22.5 million over the next four years. Surely there are far better things the Howard government could be spending taxpayers’ money on, such as health, education, roads and the environment. I am sure there are plenty more that we could think of.
At the 2005-06 annual report hearings held in November last year, the ACT Electoral Commissioner, Mr Phil Green, told the legal affairs committee that the Howard government’s electoral reforms will impact the ACT in a number of ways, including the way the Electoral Act is structured, and that the Assembly will have to amend the act to stop this from happening. Mr Green went on to say:
Typically, hundreds of thousands of people take advantage of that week to update their enrolment or to enrol for the very first time. Because the Commonwealth is cutting that period short, there will be no doubt some people will miss out who would otherwise have corrected their enrolment. The fact that our election is a year after the Commonwealth election will mean, quite possibly, that our roll will not be in as good a shape as it might have been if people were correctly enrolled after the Commonwealth election.
If Australia had fixed election dates at a federal level, perhaps the impact would not be so great. But there is no doubt that the lack of fixed terms, in conjunction with the early closing of the electoral roll, creates the potential to damage democracy. These changes represent a backward step in terms of political equality and an inclusive political nation.
There is little doubt these reforms will have far-reaching consequences not only for the people of the ACT but for all Australians. I believe we need to protest against these laws. That is why this motion requests the Chief Minister to officially write to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .