Page 2438 - Week 06 - Thursday, 10 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Related to these caps are the expenditure caps of third-party groups. The same two principles apply in that there are economies of scale that these groups miss out on and, secondly, they should be able to voice an opinion. The Greens have proposed a $120,000 cap on expenditure for these groups, as this is a better reflection of what it takes to run a campaign in the territory. That is why we are putting forward this amendment around caps.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (9.26): The Canberra Liberals are vehemently opposed to the multipliers that the Greens have proposed in this amendment. They are a radical departure from the deliberations of the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety, most particularly in the case of their approach to third-party campaigners. Third-party campaigners, according to the Greens’ proposal, would be awarded a fourfold increase in the cap over those recommendations of the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety. There has been no justification put forward for this—no justification at all.
The analysis works like this, and I have said this before: someone stands as an independent in my electorate, seeking to become a member for Ginninderra in the next Assembly, and by the Greens’ calculation they would get $90,000. But somebody who is not prepared to put their name on the ballot paper but who wants to participate in the electoral process gets to spend $120,000. So, if the Conservation Foundation, the CFMEU or, in the case of the person that Ms Hunter wants to deride, Mr Palmer, want to participate in the election campaign on whatever issue Mr Palmer or the CFMEU or the Conservation Foundation supports, but they do not put their name on the ballot paper, they get the privilege of being able to expend $120,000, whereas my constituent who wants to run against me can only spend $90,000.
This is fundamentally unjust—that someone who is prepared to put their name on the ballot paper, put their reputation on the line, put their life on hold, commit their families and their friends to months and months of hard work, gets a much lesser amount of money to play with than someone who is not prepared to put their reputation on the line and put some skin in the game.
This is fundamentally unjust. No rationale that can be justified has been put forward by the Greens for this and, when pressed—I have not been able to press Ms Hunter because Ms Hunter will not talk about these issues, but I pressed her staff on this—I was told, “Well, circumstances have changed.” I do not know how circumstances have changed. I do not know what those changed circumstances are. But we do know that it is about 5½ months to the next election. Whatever those changed circumstances are, they will be divulged in the next few months, so that if the Greens have done a deal with somebody it will be divulged.
If we see people out there campaigning furiously on green issues, on behalf of the Greens as a third party but without their name on the ballot paper, this will be obvious. It will be obvious for all to see. It will be obvious that they have done some dirty deal, because when we sat down across the table and negotiated the outcome in the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety, Ms Hunter was in favour of a cap that was half that afforded to people who were prepared to put their name on the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video