Page 646 - Week 02 - Thursday, 19 February 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Amendment No 7 would result in a maximum expenditure cap of $500,000 for a party. For a party contesting all seats in an election, this would amount pro rata to $20,000 per candidate. That is one-third of what Mr Rattenbury thinks independent candidates should be allowed to spend. Apparently, independent candidates can spend $60,000, but party candidates can spend only $20,000.
We do not support this amendment; it is not a level playing field. It adds complexity, and there is no clear benefit or rationale for the change. The maximum expenditure cap of $1 million proposed by the government will be sufficient to prevent a significant increase in campaign expenditure because we are increasing the size of the electorate to 25 members. The government’s proposal, reflected in the bill, decreases how much can be spent per candidate for all candidates, whether they are in a big party, a smaller party or an independent. They are all treated the same.
Mr Rattenbury wants to see big parties spend even less than the proposed reduction in the bill but increase the amount that can be spent by smaller parties or independents. All that provides is an incentive for more small parties, but there is no clear rationale for that policy change. The government’s position is consistent with the one recommended by Mr Rattenbury and other members of the select committee, and we will not be supporting his amendment.
MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (5.06): I said in the in-principle speech that a number of the amendments being put forward by the Greens are tailored to suit the Greens, and I think this perhaps is the most stark of those. The explanation for it is not that there will be a change to the amount per candidate but that we should all aim to run fewer candidates.
As Mr Rattenbury would know, and as anyone would know, it is the form for the major parties—who will form government—to run the full suite of 25 candidates. That is expected. As Mr Corbell has outlined, the real effect of this would be to put a significant restriction on each individual candidate running for those party groupings. There would be a real incentive to set up candidates—the Corbell independents, the Gentlemen independents—to run as independents. You would then essentially run to a cap of $1.5 million under Mr Rattenbury’s rules. The system he is proposing would directly suit the Greens and it would hamper the running of campaigns for the major parties that are likely to form government.
We will not be supporting this amendment. It is aimed at limiting the ability of candidates in major parties to campaign and proportionately increasing the relative advantage of the Greens. As Mr Corbell pointed out, per capita, because of the increase in the size of the Assembly, there is already a significant reduction from $60,000 to $40,000 for party candidates regardless. In light of that, we will not be supporting this amendment.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (5.09): For the sake of clarity for members, I certainly was not suggesting a difference between $60,000 and $20,000 for members. Because of the way this act is constructed and the way it has come, the proposal for $60,000 was as a result of the fact that I felt I was going to lose this item. If we had
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video