Page 1597 - Week 04 - Thursday, 29 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
received significant donations from property developers. Should we be questioning the motives for their opposition to the new lease variation charge? Whether or not anyone has acted genuinely because of their policy view or on the basis of their financial interests is not really the question. The fact that a legitimate perception can exist demonstrates that there is a problem. The only way to deal with that problem is to limit the money that parties can receive in donations.
On the expenditure side of things, it is clear that the amount of money being spent by local parties continues to grow. In fact, in the last 10 years the amount of money spent has more than doubled, and if you compare amounts spent proportionate to the number of seats and population, you can see that we are very big spenders. This is not good for democracy. We should be limiting the amount the parties can spend. I would draw members’ attention to page 33 of the Elections ACT submission to the JACS committee inquiry, which has a graph that shows just how dramatic the increase in political expenditure has been over the last couple of elections.
Often in these debates the point is made that it would be preferable to regulate at the national level. Certainly the Greens agree and have been actively advocating for national reforms. However, this should not be used as a reason not to act at the local level. There is certainly much that can be done to protect our democracy, even in the absence of federal reforms. Other jurisdictions have shown that state-based regulation can work effectively. The Greens are very confident that such regulation can equally work for the territory.
That brings me to the issue of the constitutional limitations. As all members are aware, the High Court has found that the constitution creates a limitation on the legislative power of parliaments to restrict political communication. This is a very distinct protection from a constitutional right to free speech. The key point to remember is that laws will be valid if they are reasonable and appropriate to our system of representative and responsible government.
We all need to be particularly mindful of this when we set the respective caps on donations and expenditure for the ACT. The Greens agree there certainly need to be caps, but we need to be very careful about the level that we set them at. I think this is the greatest challenge for us in this area, and probably we need to give the greatest regard to the constitutional limitations.
I would also like to make the point that I think it is very dangerous to equate money with free speech. I would draw everyone’s attention to the situation in the US following the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court there. In that case the court basically said that corporations have the right to give as much money as they like to political parties, which I believe has had a very negative impact on their democracy.
Turning to the comments in the scrutiny of bills report, the committee covered the constitutional issues and also raised the additional issue of the human rights impacts of the bill. The Greens are confident the proposals in the bill are consistent with the Human Rights Act protections. I would again say that, as in the constitutional context, great caution should be exercised in considering the ability to spend money in the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video