Page 1163 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
k. Page 85, lines 5 to 9, proposed new subsection 204(7), omit the subsection, substitute the following subsection:
"(7) The total amount payable under this section in respect of a candidate, party or non-party group in an election shall not exceed the electoral expenditure incurred in relation to the election by or with the authority of the candidate, party or group.".
The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the amounts payable under the election funding scheme do not actually exceed the electoral expenditure that has been incurred, but this part has to include in it the non-party groups.
Amendments agreed to.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (1.44), by leave: Madam Speaker, I move together Government amendments Nos 60 and 61. They are as follows:
60. Page 85, line 13, proposed new subsection 205(1), omit "4%", substitute "2%".
61. Page 85, line 17, proposed new subsection 205(2), omit "4%", substitute "2%".
These amendments to proposed new subsections 205(1) and (2) lower the threshold for receipt of public funding from 4 per cent to 2 per cent of formal first preference votes. We have discussed the general intention of this scheme previously. The Bill, as it stands, includes the 4 per cent figure because that is what is in the Commonwealth Bill. After consultation with other MLAs, I have been persuaded that the lower figure, 2 per cent, is a more realistic threshold. Hence, I propose that to the Assembly.
MR MOORE (1.45): Madam Speaker, just to round up the debate on public funding, the threshold is being lowered so that the real purpose of public funding, as far as I am concerned, is dealt with in an appropriate way. Mr Humphries raised the issue before when he said, "Why have any threshold at all?". Administratively, we would be asking people to account for $2 here and $5 there. Remember that first ballot-paper when we did have people with just a handful of votes. Really, the imposition on them is not that significant. The intention is to deal with an imposition. A level of 2 per cent is reasonable to deal with what becomes a real financial imposition.
MR STEVENSON (1.46): Madam Speaker, I agree that 4 per cent is too high. I do not think it should be any per cent. Once again I say that the voter should be able to direct where their percentage of public funding goes. However, as I mentioned, the majority of people are against public funding. I said that I will vote for the least amount of public funding; so I will vote to keep the level at 4 per cent, not to drop it to 2 per cent.
Amendments agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .