Page 641 - Week 02 - Thursday, 19 February 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
On a number of occasions the Liberal Party member of the committee supported some of these initiatives in the committee process, and now we are seeing that not carried through. Rather than taking cheap shots at me, Mr Hanson might reflect on the discussions that have gone on in his own party room.
Proposed new clauses 4A and 4B negatived.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (4.46): The Greens will be opposing this clause. We cannot see any overwhelming evidence to suggest it is a good idea to allow incorporated associations to be set up to potentially circumvent expenditure caps on parties. That is what this clause will allow. This clause changes the definition of party groupings and removes associated entities from party expenditure caps and gives them the same cap as third-party campaigners and ungrouped candidates. So they are no longer included in the expenditure cap for a political party. Other clauses in this bill put the category of associated entities under the same expenditure cap as the third-party campaigners and ungrouped MLAs, and the Greens will be opposing these consequential amendments also.
An “associated entity” is defined under section 198 of the Electoral Act as an entity that:
(a) is controlled by one or more parties or MLAs;
(b) operates completely or to a significant extent for the benefit of one party or MLA.
If there were organisations that met the above criteria that engaged in election campaigns and expended significant amounts of money on election campaigns, why would you not want them included in the party grouping cap? The definition is very clear. It is very clear that these are entities controlled by parties or MLAs.
In removing this, we are actually making a farce of the expenditure cap. You can go out and set up as many associated entities as you want and just keep adding to expenditure capability. I simply do not understand why this would be allowed under this legislation. The two experts who presented to the Electoral Act committee agreed with this, and my understanding is that the Electoral Commissioner agrees. Speaking about the intention of “associated entities”, he said it is “to prevent parties and non-party MLAs from setting up legally separate but nevertheless closely related entities with the purpose of assisting the primary political entity”. He gave the examples of the ACT Labor Club and the 1973 Foundation as being the only two entities currently active in the ACT and also mentioned the previously active 250 Foundation. He said:
In the Commission’s view, if associated entities are not included within a party or non-party MLA grouping, it is arguable that this could be a vehicle for circumventing the cap on expenditure to an unacceptable extent.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video