Page 1674 - Week 05 - Thursday, 8 May 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Although I intend to speak again in relation to some of the amendments—including, obviously, my own—I will take the opportunity to make some initial remarks on the government’s original bill. As I have said, many of the changes are relatively minor. I have no issue, for example, with requiring applications to register a political party that contain a living person’s name to be accompanied by a signed note from that person. Similarly, clause 15, which will allow the Electoral Commission to approve computer programs for either electronic voting or electronic counting, is a sensible measure. We hope that we are not beset with the problems that confronted the Republic of Ireland, which has a somewhat similar voting system to ours. It has now abandoned the electronic system, I understand, because of flaws that became evident. There do not seem to be similar difficulties in the ACT.
I do have some issues with the government’s intended changes to the requirements for postal voting. Whilst I recognise the point that postal votes may be more likely to be invalid than votes cast at pre-poll stations, and that we should be striving for as many valid votes as possible, I do not believe that making it more difficult to cast a postal vote was the correct way to address this problem. Surely, if the Electoral Commission is receiving a disproportionate amount of postal votes, the solution should be to make this process simpler to follow and more efficient. All that the government’s changes will do will be to make it more difficult for people who genuinely need to cast a postal vote to do so, and I will certainly be supporting the Greens’ amendment on this point.
In relation to both the government’s initial and subsequent changes to disclosure laws, I say at the outset that I am committed to openness and accountability. The reduction in the disclosure threshold to $1,000 to bring the ACT into line with the commonwealth is not something that I am particularly concerned about, although it was interesting that, when the disclosure levels went up under the previous federal government, the ACT was not so enthusiastic about lining up in tandem. Obviously, with a federal Labor government in power, it becomes a good idea to change the disclosure threshold. I have no problem with a $1,000 threshold.
Mr Corbell: It went up to $10,000.
MR MULCAHY: It did go up to $10,000; that is correct. But the principle seems to be that you want to be in line with the federal government when it suits. It is an additional burden on candidates and members, and obviously will result in some more work, but I do acknowledge the need for openness and accountability.
I do not believe that the knee-jerk calls we are hearing in other jurisdictions to end political donations are appropriate, and I am pleased that nobody in this place seems to be advocating anything quite along those lines. However, we are seeing something of a knee-jerk response of our own. There is a concerted push by the Greens—and I hope it will not be supported by anyone else in this place—to target the property development industry. Clearly, this is a result of the recent events in Wollongong, but it is not justified. There is no reason to target the property industry and put them on a higher pedestal than any other individual or group that is involved with government procurement or is the recipient of any government funding.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .