Page 1428 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 6 May 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Mulcahy: I agree with your point.
MR STEFANIAK: Yes. What would be wrong if they just wanted to be like-minded independents on that issue, without having to form a party? What possible adverse effect can that have on democracy? That is an entirely reasonable proposition and it is something, I think, which people have been able to do and which has probably served our democracy well. All of us who have been here for a while could have disagreed with some of the things some of these like-minded independents might believe in, just as we disagree amongst ourselves on various policies that are put up here.
But it is a fundamental tenet of democracy that you enable as many people who want to stand to be able to stand and that you do not put needless obstacles in their path. But that is exactly what is occurring here. It is also a case of “if it ain’t broke, why try to fix it?” There is no real problem here. This is just an excuse, to make it harder for independents, and a blatant attack on independent candidates who are like-minded and who want to avail themselves of a very sensible provision in there which enhances our democracy and in no way detracts from it.
What the government is proposing here actually will detract from our democracy and I think it is really quite shameful. There is no need for it. The government is going to have to get used to the fact that it is certainly not going to have a majority here in the next Assembly, if it is even likely to be the government at all. All of us in major parties have had to manage with independents. Perhaps it is because it is something we do as a party better than you do that you have tried to restrict it. At any rate, it is quite shameful and an attack on democracy.
Given that we are not going to finalise this bill today, I would strongly urge you opposite to have a good rethink about this, because you are just making fools of yourselves with your blatant attack on our democratic system through that particular part of the bill, which is probably one of the most simple concepts for people outside who normally do not get terribly involved in the complexities and technicalities of electoral acts but who certainly can see an attack on a democratic system when they actually have one stare them in the face, such as this does. You do yourselves absolutely no service by putting up amendments such as this.
There are a number of other amendments here. I see the government has changed its mind on a couple, but there are a number of other amendments here which cause us concern and which I will be addressing further in the detail stage. One of those which we will not be supporting is a proposal to relax the disclosure requirements for associated entities as they relate to the sale of food and liquor and to amounts received through gambling. I notice you appear to have made a few amendments around some of these areas but not to that particular part of the amendments.
There are three guesses available as to the beneficiary of this amendment, and two of those guesses do not count. This is very much a self-serving cynical abuse of the privileged majority that this government now have and will not have next time that they seek to perpetrate it on the people of Canberra. Here we have a Labor Party in government using their majority to create an advantage for their major funding source, the Labor Club.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .