Page 634 - Week 02 - Thursday, 19 February 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The package of amendments to campaign financing contained within this bill ensures a transparent and accountable electoral system. Restricting the amount that may be spent on election campaigns, together with an increase in public funding and robust reporting requirements, is a balanced approach in maintaining the rights of candidates, campaigners and ordinary citizens.
This deliberate policy decision by the government is a result of increasing evidence from New South Wales that prohibitions and limitations on donations have not worked, instead leading to nefarious schemes to circumvent the law, as well as challenges to their constitutionality in the High Court. As I have mentioned previously, there is currently a High Court challenge afoot proposing to strike down as invalid provisions that cap donations or prohibit donations in New South Wales.
It is against this policy background that the government’s package of amendments has been developed. The government is confident that the bill strikes the right balance of maintaining a strong system while facilitating the participation of voters and other people and entities in the political process. The government considers that the best way to avoid the risk of corruption is to have a robust and transparent system of disclosure, supported by partial public funding and caps on how much can be spent in election campaigns.
It is interesting to note the public opposition by the Greens to the removal of donation caps, particularly in light of their receipt of large political donations in recent years, both nationally and locally. Their acceptance of $1.6 million from the founder of wotif.com in the lead-up to the 2010 federal election campaign is well known. It remains the largest single private donation ever made to a political party in Australia. If Mr Rattenbury’s concerns about large donations are to be taken at face value, perhaps he could explain what influence was wielded by such a massive donation to the Greens party in 2010.
On a local level, the Greens were happy to receive $50,000 from the ACT division of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union before the last federal election, and they received $12,000 from the same union before the most recent ACT election. These are significant donations willingly accepted by the ACT Greens party.
I would like to now turn to the key amendments contained in the bill. As recommended by the select committee, the bill repeals section 205I(4) of the act, which prohibits gifts being accepted in respect of territory elections from people other than individuals enrolled to vote in the ACT. This section is likely to be constitutionally invalid, as it is very similar, if not the same in effect, to the provisions that were determined to be invalid by the High Court in Unions NSW v New South Wales.
The bill also amends provisions of the act that deal with the aggregation of electoral expenditure for the purposes of determining aggregation caps. In 2013 similar provisions were held to be constitutionally invalid by the High Court. Consequently, in order to avoid uncertainty about the validity of these provisions, the bill amends the aggregation aspects of sections 205F and 205G. It also repeals section 205H, which aggregates the expenditure of a third-party campaigner acting in concert with others.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video