Page 5349 - Week 14 - Thursday, 19 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
perhaps the most complete examination of issues around campaign finance reform that has been done anywhere in Australia. Indeed, it is a report and an options paper that looks at the regulatory structure for campaign finance in each Australian jurisdiction. Much of the work of the committee will be informed by this type of analysis, and I see no difficulty in having it incorporated in the way I suggest into this motion.
I acknowledge that the commonwealth government is not the only Australian government that is considering electoral reform or which is contributing to the current public debate. I understand that the Greens are concerned that by making reference to the commonwealth paper this will limit or in some way restrict the work of the standing committee. I do not believe that is the case. The broad terms of reference are set out there, and they remain, but it is important to ensure that the committee have specific regard to such a body of work as the commonwealth green paper.
Another important issue for members to consider is that ACT electoral funding laws to a large degree have traditionally corresponded with the laws of the commonwealth in this area. There are distinct advantages in taking into account the desirability or otherwise of consistency between the ACT and the commonwealth in relation to electoral funding laws. To do so would mean that we can continue to maintain a strong level of consistency between both jurisdictions. This allows for ease of reporting, reduces confusion and the possibility of errors being made by political parties and other participants in the political process when it comes to reporting, and it has a practical implication of potentially reducing the burden on ACT resources in implementing and managing a system that does not hold at least some level of consistency with the commonwealth.
I raise this point simply to say that there are issues around implementation that should always be given regard to. They should not be the driver of the debate; they should not be the primary consideration, but they should be a consideration. In a small jurisdiction with a small electoral commission, an overly onerous, complex, complicated or divergent scheme from the commonwealth does impose additional costs on the territory and it is something that should be given regard to. As I have just said, it also opens up the prospect of confusion in the reporting regimes, particularly where people make donations to all three political parties, for example, represented in this place, at both the federal level and at the territory level. Different reporting regimes, if they are widely divergent, can lead to confusion.
The final point I would like to make is that this proposal for investigation is a worthwhile one. It is one that the government will willingly engage in. We have previously made changes to the electoral laws of our own volition in relation to thresholds for reporting; for example, with disclosure of donations the disclosure thresholds were lowered by me as the responsible minister, if I recall correctly, approximately a year ago. These reforms reduced the threshold at which donations must be disclosed, and we maintain a strong interest in an equitable, efficient, transparent and fair mechanism for dealing with campaign finance, dealing with the issue of donations and dealing with the issue of campaign expenditure.
I commend my amendment to members. It simply reasserts the importance of consideration being given to the commonwealth’s green paper as well as to the broad range of other issues that I am sure the committee will have regard to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video