Page 5307 - Week 14 - Thursday, 19 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This is a debate that is currently being had around the country. The federal and New South Wales governments are currently debating this very topic. Even Labor in other jurisdictions, across states and at the federal level, realise the importance of this reform and realise that the time has come to have this discussion.
First, I would like to put forward the case for why reform is necessary. I believe there to be both substantial and compelling indications that reform is required across all levels of Australian government, from local and state levels to the entire federal system. As I indicated, I am not alone in this view. The federal Labor Party is in the process right now of investigating campaign finance reform. One paper, from which I will be suggesting that the committee take some guidance, has already been published. Another paper is open for submissions, even as we take our own steps in our parliament here today.
It is a call for reform that is not limited to one party or to one parliament. Both Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull have called for reform at a federal level. Both Nathan Rees and Barry O’Farrell have called for reform in our biggest state and closest neighbour, New South Wales. We cannot be isolated as an island of outdated thinking and ossified policy. We must accept that reform is required now, just as it has been required in the past.
One of the interesting things I discovered when researching this topic, and of particular interest to those who seek to deny or decry the need for change, is that reviewing campaign finance when its political influence outweighs the public benefit is not a new concept at all. Throughout history, those who have sought justice in democracy have also fought for equality, transparency and responsibility in financing the campaigns of those seeking to control the highest offices in power. Those high offices demand that the high democratic principles upon which our system of government is based are not corrupted by turning success in government into a competition for cash.
This issue is canvassed in some detail in the electoral reform green paper Donations, funding and expenditure of December 2008, published by the federal government. It notes that the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902 contained a limit on candidates’ electoral expenses of £250 for a Senate candidate and £100 for a House of Representatives candidate and required candidates to lodge returns detailing their expenses. It goes on to say:
The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 added a requirement for newspaper proprietors, and for ‘every trade union … organisation, association, league or body of persons’ incurring expenses on behalf of, or in the interests of, any candidate or political party, to lodge returns detailing their expenses.
The issue was revisited again in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1946, increasing the caps on electoral expenses to £500 for a Senate candidate and £250 for the House of Representatives. In 1966, it was revised again to $1,000 for a Senate candidate and $500 for a House of Reps candidate. The point the paper makes is that campaign financing is an issue this democracy has had to deal with throughout its entire history. It is not just about now, and it is not just about the ACT.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video