Page 5579 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Nonetheless, I think that the evidence, the very empirical data, on what these kinds of brochures and materials cost is what set us towards the figure of $40,000 as being an appropriate threshold. In a sense, one could argue that any threshold is a little arbitrary. I know the government argued for a $100,000 threshold, but we have worked hard to come up with an answer based on the best evidence we could find. We looked at what we thought were the types of materials that should be covered by this kind of legislation. That is what we have based the $40,000 figure on.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Minister for Transport, Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Land and Property Services, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and Minister for the Arts and Heritage) (4:32): I too have amendments in relation to this issue that run in tandem. I have the views of both the mover and Mr Rattenbury in relation to the amendment before us. Mr Seselja’s threshold will prevail today. I had an amendment that the threshold be $50,000. Of course, we can all pick a number in relation to this but, at the end of the day, we have to decide on one. The government is pleased that the opposition and the Greens have agreed that a $20,000 threshold would have been unrealistic and would have impacted on the business of government. Certainly, $40,000 is a significant advance on that and I must say the government is grateful for that movement.
Consistent with the evidence which the Auditor-General, Ms Tu Pham, provided to the committee and consistent with the evidence which the Electoral Commissioner, Phil Green, provided to the committee and consistent with the evidence of Mr Rudder, the chief executive of the Australian advertising council, they all favoured a threshold of between $50,000 and $100,000. It is interesting that, when presented with expert evidence from the Auditor-General, the Electoral Commissioner and the head of the advertising council of Australia recommending a threshold of a minimum of $50,000, the proponents and supporters of this particular amendment ignore that advice and go for a significantly lower threshold of $40,000.
I will not move the amendment which the government proposes, but I want to get it on the record that we proposed a threshold of $50,000, which we believed to be more realistic. Having said that, as Mr Rattenbury has just indicated, I guess any of us could pick any number out of our hat in relation to this. The government is at least pleased that the threshold now will be $40,000, which we believe to be quite workable. The government will commit, of course, to work within that. We accept the reality of it. But, again, it is a number. I again go to the point which underlines perhaps some of the motivation for the legislation—that is, the expert advice which the committee received from the Auditor-General, the Electoral Commissioner and the advertising council of Australia has been ignored in this amendment for a lower threshold. Having said that, I am glad it is not $20,000.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (4.35): I am glad that the Chief Minister is glad that it is not $20,000. It is interesting that the man who stood here a few moments ago and said none of his government’s advertising has ever been political or you could construe it as political actually raises the threshold to avoid the very point that Mr Rattenbury makes. Mr Rattenbury said: “Here’s a brochure that goes out a couple of months
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video