Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1939 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

Commonwealth laws had flaws and faults. We are once again replicating those flaws. This is not on the recommendation of the Electoral Commissioner.

Mr Kaine: This is not a flaw; it is a major boo-boo.

MR RUGENDYKE: Yes. Kim Beazley had it right. It is not too late, Bill.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Attorney-General) (9.55): When the Liberal Party indicated it would be supporting some of Mr Stanhope's amendments and vice versa, we did so on the basis of consistency with what occurs federally and in every other state and territory. I can remember a time not all that long ago when no-one got electoral funding. Maybe that is a preferable thing. Why should the public refund anyone for money spent on electoral campaigns. Conversely-Mr Moore raised a good point-why on earth should everyone not get funding, even if you have to send out cheques for as little as a dollar? That may well be a better thing down the track. But at present every other state and territory has 4 per cent.

I do not think this is going to stop anyone standing for election. I wonder how many people who stand for election say, "I cannot do that, because I might get only 1, 2 or 3 per cent, and I will not get enough money back." Does that stop people standing for election? I do not think so. In this house, the major parties spend a hell of a lot more than they get back. Mr Osborne's group spent a lot less on their campaign. You wrote a press release about it, didn't you? You got back a lot more money than you spent. Good on you. That is great. I cannot think of too many people who have said, "We are not going to stand for election, because, oh dear, we might not get any money back." This is about consistency. I think that is important in a matter like this. There is no reason why we should not be consistent with the rest of Australia.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health, Housing and Community Services) (9.57): I table for circulation an amendment to Mr Stanhope's amendment No 3. It will omit 4 per cent wherever it appears and insert 0 per cent. That will be a much fairer way to go.

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: That will have other implications, Mr Moore.

MR MOORE: It will have other implications, Mr Deputy Speaker. It will mean that the eligible votes cast in a candidate's favour will have to be at least 0 per cent. In other words, anybody who stands will be able to get funding from the Electoral Commission. It is a bit inconvenient for the Electoral Commission when somebody has only one or two votes, but a cheque for $2 going out is not a disaster compared to what we have here. Mr Stefaniak said that he will consider it. If you consider it, let us be sensible about it and let us get a reasonable outcome, a much better outcome than we see here.

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Moore, you are effectively moving three amendments here, because there are other implications. You will need leave to do that.

MR MOORE: I seek leave to move my amendment.

Leave granted.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .