Page 1540 - Week 06 - Thursday, 2 July 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the select committee looking into the last election observed when we went to Tasmania. We were impressed with that.
For the sake of having these on record I will go through quickly some of the other amendments I have had drafted and hope to move when we next debate electoral matters. These will establish a truth in political advertising process to be administered by the Electoral Commissioner, and I understand there is in-principle support for this provision. However, I understand there is potential concern about constitutional issues for such a scheme, although I note it has been operating for decades in South Australia, as well as more recently in the Northern Territory, which further upheld the constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court in 1995.
Given that there have been a number of cases relating to the High Court’s implied freedom of political communications in the intervening years, we have agreed to hit the pause button on this. Nevertheless, if it turns out that one of the few rights that our constitution enshrines or at least implies means that politicians can actually lie about matters of fact without any consequences then we have bigger problems than my amendment. I look forward to debating this amendment later in July and hope it will still be able to be implemented in the ACT in time for the upcoming election.
Secondly, I turn to banning electoral roadside advertising. I do not think the people of Canberra like these ads, and the corflute wars that break out between the parties are a childish waste of time and resources. However, I understand that neither Labor nor the Liberals have any interest in passing this. Nonetheless, I will adjust my existing amendment so that it will take effect in time for the 2024 election, which will mean that any corflutes which have presumably already been planned and printed for this October’s election can still distract motorists for this election.
Thirdly, I turn to introducing an administrative cap on payments to parties the equivalent of five times the maximum amount payable per MLA. Few people would know and many might be surprised to learn that political parties in the ACT are given an administrative payout for each MLA which must be used to run the non-Assembly party office. It is a generous payment, and I would like to see the limit a lot closer to that required to manage party administration.
Originally it was put into legislation to cover the additional party administration and accounting costs of managing the additional bank account required for separate ACT election funds, rather than general party funds, to better allow auditing of ACT election funds. However, it is very clear that the cost of an account does not go up proportionately to the amount of funds going through the account nor the number of MLAs. My proposed cap considers the cost of an accountant and should be ample for any parties’ accounting administration.
Fourthly, I turn to introducing a higher expenditure cap of $60,000 for non-party candidates. This is designed to overcome the relative disadvantages that independents have when competing against the combined electoral expenditure of large parties who can get better bulk deals for things like printing and materials. It is highly unlikely that this limit will be reached by most or possibly any independent, but as a matter of principle I do not think independent candidates should be disadvantaged by what is, in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video