Page 5350 - Week 14 - Thursday, 19 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (4.11): The Liberals will not be supporting Mr Corbell’s amendment, but we will happily support the Greens’ overall amendment. I will speak to both. In relation to Mr Corbell’s amendment for reference to the commonwealth’s green paper, Mr Corbell did make some good points in relation to the green paper, and I am sure that the committee will reference that green paper in their inquiry. It is an important body of work. But it is not the only body of work. My only concern with referencing one particular paper in this process would be that it would in some way elevate it above all other contributions to the debate.
This will be a wide-ranging inquiry and I would certainly say, on behalf of the Canberra Liberals, that we would want to see the committee examining this green paper and looking at what is coming out of the commonwealth process—there is no doubt about that—but we do not see a need to actually include that in the formal terms of reference. For that reason, we will not be supporting Mr Corbell’s amendment, as much as it may well be well intentioned.
In relation to the Greens’ amendment, in the end we took the view that it was worthy of a select committee. We still believe that. But in the end what we need is an inquiry that includes all the parties, that has broad terms of reference. That is what we are getting today, and I am very pleased with that. So we have no dramas with it. I think there are a couple of wording changes in some areas, but they are relatively minor. We are now looking at a fairly broad-ranging inquiry.
It is important that the committee has the proper time to consider this issue. It is a complex issue in some ways. It is an issue that will take some time to look at. Without trying to determine the terms of reference or the reporting time frame, to see something from the committee between the middle and the second half of next year would be good, with a view to bringing something back to the Assembly. That would certainly be our hope for what the committee could do.
In relation to some of Mr Corbell’s comments, it is important that what we get out of this is something that is not aimed at any one particular party, either for benefit or disadvantage. In the reforms that Mr Corbell referred to in terms of lowering the threshold, and some special clauses requiring certain organisations to disclose their members and their contributions but not other organisations, I think there is no doubt that that was aimed at the Labor Party, to the Labor Party’s advantage while they still have a majority. There is no doubt about that.
This will be a tripartisan issue. Hopefully, we can get a consensus report out of this committee, with a view to bringing something back to the Assembly. That would be our hope for it: that we see reform that is long lasting and that is not in any way designed to knobble one party or to advantage one party in particular but one that would be about improving democracy here in the territory. This is not just about now; this is an opportunity for the next 10, 15, 20 and 30 years, because fortunes will change—things go up and down—in terms of fundraising and electoral fortunes.
What we want is a robust system that allows democracy to thrive in the best possible way. It is complex. It is not easy. But that would be my hope from this committee
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video