Page 3892 - Week 10 - Thursday, 27 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
development costs are to be included in the threshold of $40,000, this low threshold seems to indicate that other members of the committee sought to capture as much advertising as possible without consideration to the usefulness of this exercise. The threshold was also raised at public hearings, with most commentary saying $20,000 was too low and suggesting a range of between $50,000 and $100,000 as a more appropriate threshold. As the Auditor-General said:
I think something between $50,000 and $100,000 could be more reasonable.
The Electoral Commissioner went on to say that “somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000 feels right intuitively”. The Democratic Audit said:
It looked low to me. The drafters did not give you an indication of why they pitched on that amount?
The Democratic Audit went on to say:
But there was some sort of analysis undertaken before the number was arrived at. The issue I am raising, and essentially it was raised by the Auditor-General, is: if you are going to pick a number, you need to be able to substantiate why you have picked that number, what happens above and below that number. So it should be a properly documented number. If it is confidential then it seems to me that the rationale is not transparent. There should be a transparent rationale.
The Democratic Audit also added:
… but I do not understand what the reasons are or whether there is any sort of transparent research that has been conducted around that.
That is, the figure of threshold. I suggested to the committee a range of between $50,000 and $80,000 as a more appropriate threshold, based on evidence given through the committee process and on information on hand. I ask: where did this arbitrary figure of $20,000 come from, given the comments by the Auditor-General, the Electoral Commissioner and the Democratic Audit? I can only assume that Mr Seselja’s vision was simply: “Well, let’s just get them all, and let’s hope the Auditor-General can sort them out.” There must have been a turn of his luck when the Auditor-General came to the hearing and made it quite clear that she was not interested in being part of this process. Not only did she not agree with the threshold but also she did not agree to her involvement in the process. I quote:
To be independent, and to be seen as independent, the Audit office should not be involved in this.
The committee also supported the Auditor-General in not wanting to be part of this process, and indeed recommended that an independent panel undertake that function.
I do not support recommendation 13—that territory-owned corporations be covered by the proposed legislative framework for campaign advertising. Madam Assistant Speaker and those opposite, TOCs are companies. They are governed by a board. They are covered by the Corporations Act and they do not report to a minister. In short, they are not a government agency. I do not support the inclusion of TOCs. This
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .