Page 644 - Week 02 - Thursday, 19 February 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (4.57): I will be opposing this clause, as discussed earlier.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 13, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 14.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (4.58): I move amendment No 6 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 665].
This amendment relates to the changes in the expenditure cap. The committee report indicates my support for the $40,000 expenditure cap for MLAs at the election. However, I did so in the context of reducing the maximum party cap to $500,000. I have to admit that it has become clear that the other parties will not support a reduction in the cumulative party cap, and I have had to revisit this question with an eye to not disproportionately disadvantaging ungrouped independent candidates.
My amendment restores the expenditure caps for ungrouped candidates and third-party campaigners to $60,000. I made some remarks during the in-principle stage about the fact that big parties will gain significant financial efficiencies running campaigns for 25 people or even 15, as some parties may do. Those efficiencies will not translate equally to somebody running as an independent in the ungrouped column.
Even for a party of two candidates, there is already an efficiency saving in the sense that they will have a cap of $80,000 and obviously some shared campaigning tools and the like. It is appropriate that we recalibrate this to ensure that there is not a disproportionate impact on those who run as ungrouped candidates.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Health, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Capital Metro) (5.00): Amendment No 6 would increase the expenditure cap for independent candidates and result in third-party campaigners enjoying a higher expenditure cap than some MLAs. The government does not support this amendment. The amendment would increase complexity and also the influence of third-party campaigners. There does not appear, in the government’s view, to be any good case for treating different entities in elections differently when it comes to how much they can spend in an election campaign. The government will not support the amendment.
MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (5.00): We will not be supporting the Greens’ amendment. In essence, the case that has been put forward, as Mr Corbell alluded to, is that if you are an independent candidate you get a certain provision but if you happen to be in the Labor Party, the Liberal Party or perhaps the Greens you are treated differently. If you are a candidate, you are a candidate and the rules should be the same.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video