Page 5309 - Week 14 - Thursday, 19 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Dr Orr went on to say:
Of gravest concern is the perception of the sale of governmental favours …
And he noted the danger that:
… if the sale of political favours is assimilated as an acceptable part of the ‘commerce’ of parties, then politics risks collapsing into a business, not a public service.
In a paper submitted to Australian Review of Public Affairs in September 2007, Carmen Lawrence wrote an extensive piece titled “Election 2007: campaign finance reform”. Ms Lawrence provides a very frank overview of the situation. She says:
What we have not achieved is a more equal distribution of the power to influence government decisions between elections; we cannot claim that all citizens enjoy an equal opportunity to participate in the political processes and decisions which affect their wellbeing and status.
Nor are all candidates and parties equally able to present their credentials and policies to the electorate, and some of this inequality derives from the way we fund political parties and election campaigns.
Ms Lawrence further notes:
Well-funded lobbying and campaign donations do more than reduce electoral competition; they also strip average voters of equality at the ballot box … Apart from the political inequality inherent in the system, the possibilities for corruption and influence peddling are real.
Ms Lawrence says much more, but her voice is only one amongst a host that raise concerns.
From my own personal perspective, I was disturbed on a trip to the United States where I was given a pointed insight into where unfettered funding arrangements can lead. I was told that there a candidate’s primary function was fund raising—not policy, not representation, but money. I was told it was a requirement that all candidates must raise a set figure for the campaign coffers, amounting to tens of thousands of dollars each and every week. I do not want the Australian system to end up in that place. I do not want a system that is an arms race that escalates at every election cycle. There is ample evidence that this is precisely where we are headed, and it is up to us to head it off.
It is important to recognise what the motion I have put forward today, the resultant committee and, we hope, eventual legislative reform are about, and what they are not about. Firstly, they are not about attacking a single side of politics or a group or a campaign financing model. I am well aware of the sniggers and jeers from those who wish to protect their vested interests, but this is simply not borne out by the overwhelming support for the concept that I have just outlined. As we have seen from just some of the sources I have cited today, it is not about Labor or Liberal or small or large jurisdictions. The debate currently going on around the country is not about the ACT or about our local issues specifically.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video