Page 2418 - Week 06 - Thursday, 10 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
which was suggested by the majority of the committee that reported and advised this Assembly, but to the tune of $120,000 if Ms Hunter’s amendments get up later.
Let us think about it. Suppose Joe Bloggs decides to put his hat in the ring and run as an independent candidate. If this all washes out the way that Ms Hunter wants it to today, Joe Bloggs, who stands in the seat of Ginninderra and runs against Ms Hunter and I, gets to spend on his election campaign the princely sum of $90,000. He puts his name on the ballot paper and he gives it a red-hot go. But any other organisation, including the HSU, the CFMEU, the AEU or any sort of organisation associated with the Liberal Party, like the 250 Club, if it continued—it does not exist anymore, but I use it as an example—could have been in this category. They can go out and campaign on behalf of the Liberal Party or the Labor Party, and the Conservation Foundation can go out and campaign on behalf of the Greens, to the tune of $120,000, and they never get to put their name on the ballot paper. But my constituent who wants to run against me and give it a red-hot go gets to spend $90,000.
In addition to that, using the example of the Liberal Party, the Liberal Party will have, effectively, a cap of $1,020,000 at the next election campaign if this legislation passes tonight. The Labor Party will have the same cap. But the Labor Party has a whole lot of affiliated unions, and each one of those will be able to go out and spend up to $120,000. If my legislation passed, it would be $30,000. If the government’s initial proposal passed, it would be $60,000. But if the Greens get up, it will be $120,000. There are, I think, at last count, 15 affiliated unions. You do the maths. That more than doubles the cap of the ALP. And then we will have a real arms race.
The Attorney-General can shake his head and be all indignant, but that is what it means. The attorney is going to be very tired of hearing me say this tonight, but what this means is that the Labor Party and its affiliated organisations can run a multimillion dollar campaign and circumvent the cap. That is what they have always wanted to do. They have been dragged kicking and screaming to the table. They only introduced their bill when they saw the recommendations of the committee and they saw that members of the committee were prepared to do the work. They thought, “Holy mackerel; we can’t afford for this to happen.” Since then they have introduced this bill, which has been roundly criticised. And they spent a whole lot of time—I do not know what they have been doing—lovey-doveying up to the Greens, because the Greens have changed their mind mightily over these issues.
The negotiations that I had in committee when we were putting together this committee inquiry and where we are today are light years apart. What the Greens agreed to as part of a tripartite committee they have walked away from if they do not support this amendment today.
This is the most important amendment that we have in here today. This is where the Assembly decides whether we have an arms race or we have authentic campaign finance reform. The question is up to the Greens and the Labor Party. Do you want to stop the arms race? Everyone has used the term. The attorney used it the other day. We want to stop the arms race. We were prepared to put legislation on the table that stopped the arms race. We are now at the really pointy end of this debate where they have to vote to stop the arms race. That is my challenge for them today: vote to stop
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video