Page 2452 - Week 06 - Thursday, 10 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
There is some concern in New South Wales as to whether these provisions are constitutional. A few people have been a bit hairy-chested in saying that they are going to contest the matter. Quite frankly, I would rather that New South Wales bore the cost of that legal challenge. There is three years to go before the New South Wales election. Someone may challenge between now and then and it would be resolved. If it were resolved in a way that was favourable to the New South Wales provisions, I would be happy to consider them. But I am not prepared to put our electoral laws at risk some 5½ months out from an election by putting forward provisions which may be open to constitutional challenge and would put the ACT—a very small jurisdiction—to a great deal of expense.
Quite frankly, if New South Wales wants to go down that path and test the waters constitutionally, I would be quite happy to sit back and watch the results. Then we can make up our mind on the basis of the views of the High Court. Conversely, if no-one decides that it is worth testing their hand in the High Court then it may be something that we can consider further down the track. I think that we run the risk that if someone wanted to contest it they would end up contesting it in the ACT because the ACT is closer to an election than New South Wales is. It would leave us in a very difficult position indeed. This is not to say that we are totally closed to the idea of third-party campaigners. We are just not prepared to take the risk in constitutional terms at this time.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development) (10.27): Madam Assistant Speaker, I foreshadow that I will be seeking your leave to have this question divided. The reason for that is that the government will be supporting part (2B) but not part (2A) of the amendment. The government does not agree that there should be the establishment of a federal election account. This is for the reasons that Mrs Dunne has already outlined. A federal election account is neither defined nor legislated for other than in this amendment. The government is of the view that the establishment of a federal election account is potentially beyond the power of the territory, as it would purport to regulate political activity beyond those associated with ACT elections. For that reason we do not support the provisions in part (2A). We will be supporting part (2B).
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Leader, ACT Greens) (10.28): The second part of the amendments I have put up is around limiting donations to individuals and excluding corporations. At the heart of this issue is the fact that democracy is not for sale and that democracy is owned by the people. That is the truest and most honest meaning of the word “democracy”. Politicians and those who engage in the political and public debate are there to serve the interests of the people and to do so with those intentions in mind. The formulation of policies by political parties and the votes of members of parliament must be beyond purchase and must be seen to be beyond purchase.
Limiting donations to individuals and excluding corporations is longstanding Greens policy. That is something we are very proud of. One important point to make is that this restriction on donations will not in any shape or form prevent organisations from
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video