|
Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [6.30 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Election Funding and Disclosures Amendment (Property Development Prohibition Bill) 2009 as we strongly support the need for comprehensive campaign finance reform. From day one the Leader of the Opposition said that transparency, honesty and accountability should be returned to government in this State. However, the Opposition argues that the legislation is piecemeal and far more is needed to achieve genuine reform. The Rees Government has taken only a small step when a revolution is required.
This bill creates the perception of doing something rather than making a meaningful change in this critical area. I support the Leader of the Opposition, who clearly articulated the problems with the bill, stating that it does not go far enough. The object of the bill is to prohibit political donations by people or corporations designated as property developers. We have heard concerns about the definition of property developers and that there are grey areas. Therefore, a whole-of-government response is required. Indeed, I raised this issue in my inaugural speech. The fact that this bill is before the Parliament is an acknowledgement that something in the past 14 years has gone astray. What that has meant in relation to issues in the realm of the Government such as planning, smoking, alcohol we just do not know. Since I have been a member of this House I have argued for reform.
However, I acknowledge that both sides of politics have received donations from areas and industries that have caused concern within the community and potentially removes objective assessment of legislation or reforms. The community has the perception that when particular groups or individuals fund a party it is difficult for politicians to make objective assessments. That perception problem must be addressed. The problem is across both sides of the political divide. I accept that there are many in this place who do not have a potential conflict; nevertheless, the perception remains and it is difficult to determine whether people are being influenced by donations. In my inaugural speech 2½ years ago I noted that donations were at a corrosive level in this State and that significant donation limits, combined with stronger public funding, can ensure that electors are properly informed and have confidence in the integrity of the electoral process.
I would argue that it has taken the Rees Government far too long to acknowledge that the system needs to be changed. Concerns with the bill are multiple. Identification of a single industry for the banning of donations could open up loopholes. The definition of a developer could be exploited. The changes are piecemeal. Further, the Rees Government has ignored the recommendations of last year's upper House inquiry, which was to ban all donations except those from Australian citizens; impose annual limits on the amount that individuals can donate; cap election campaign spending by candidates, parties and other groups; and restrict taxpayer-funded government advertising in the lead-up to an election. We should be debating those matters here today.
I acknowledge that the Premier stated he wants a review, a committee that moves towards full public funding. But we have had that committee. Despite the bill not going as far as I want, it is a start and partially the result of the upper House inquiry, which listened to experts and involved both sides of politics. We should accept the recommendations of that committee.
I place on record that my submission to the upper House inquiry suggested the need for holistic reform. I outlined five principles, the first being that campaigns should be fully publicly funded. I understand there are constitutional issues around that, but I do not back away from my position on that matter. In a perfect world I would like every member of Parliament in this place to be publicly funded and for no donations to be involved in members being elected. The second principle was that campaign spending should be capped. Third, compliance should be monitored and audited by the Australian Electoral Commission. Fourth, Ministers and members of Parliament in general should not fundraise because it detracts from what they have been elected to do. Finally, I submit that government advertising should be restricted.
Agreement must be reached on a public funding model. However, I do support an upper House inquiry. I put on record that we have a road map on which we could all agree and the inquiry could start tomorrow if both sides of politics had the political will. Indeed, the Opposition has signed up to it. I ask the Premier and the Government why they do not want to sign up to the recommendations of the upper House inquiry. With respect to a limit on campaign spending, I argue that $100,000 should be sufficient for any major party candidate. That amount should also be available to minor party candidates provided that they have 7 per cent or 7.5 per cent of the primary vote, or such level agreed to with the minor parties. It is vital that the community is fully informed about the policies. People must be informed about candidates, why they are standing for election and what their policies are. It costs almost $25,000 to prepare a simple letter to mail out to people in the electorate, so it is not a cheap process. The sum of $100,000 is a fair and reasonable amount for an individual candidate to communicate with the electorate to let electors get to know him or her.
With respect to monitoring compliance, I believe the Australian Electoral Commission should monitor the system. Concern has been expressed about third party endorsements. The Australian Electoral Commission could undertake the audits to ensure compliance by all candidates. Anyone who tries to circumvent the rules will be caught. Under a publicly funded campaign the use of third parties will not be permitted. This will enable government to move forward with infrastructure, health, education, environment, public transport, rather than debating how to raise funds to win election campaigns. Indeed, the distraction of fundraising is a critical point.
I regard election fundraising as a big distraction for the Ministers of this State, the shadow Ministers and other members of Parliament. There is an industry required to raise funds. I reiterate that raising funds in isolation should not imply that every member in this House is in some way, shape or form participating in an activity that is anything beyond the democratic process as it was intended. However, there is no doubt that there is a perception and the potential, through that process, to get some conflict or a lack of objectivity in relation to issues raised. That is really what we are fighting for. At the same time, time spent not undertaking those activities is an opportunity for Ministers, shadow Ministers and other members of Parliament to collectively participate in researching and getting involved in the policy matters that are needed to take this State forward. All of us are tired of New South Wales languishing with regard to every issue. Yet we have the shackles of these sorts of processes, particularly in relation to the endless fundraising cycle, that take us away from the critical gain.
I believe there should be restrictions on government advertising. The Premier wants to move towards a publicly funded model where there is an inbuilt financing method—restricting government advertising. According to Nielsen Media Research, during 2006 the New South Wales Government spent $75 million to $80 million on government advertising. The year before, spending on government advertising was greater than that. I understand that in the year before the last State election the Government spent $110 million on placing advertisements. Just half of that $110 million would well and truly pay for funding an election campaign. That is where the odds should be. I believe that in the last six months before an election there should be no government advertising whatsoever. I well remember Jack Thompson putting on his boots and telling us what a great job the Iemma Government was doing and was going to do. Jack Thompson is allowed to have his opinion and is allowed to endorse whatever he likes. However, at that time Jack Thompson, through government-funded advertising, was engaging in nothing more than an election spiel on behalf of the Iemma Government.
That is simply a waste of public funds. Such funding should be used for the purposes of this State, rather than on promoting a government—of whatever persuasion. I am not trying to excuse our side of politics in relation to that. That is an issue that is fairly attributed back to our side of politics as well. It is time we moved forward and rose above that, and said we are not going to use the public purse to fund personal election victories for a government but we are going to use those funds for a publicly funded election.
I endorse the action taken by the Leader of the Opposition and support his call for the Premier to implement the bipartisan recommendations of the Legislative Council inquiry. The Leader of the Opposition announced that a Liberals-Nationals government would ban so-called success fees paid to lobbyists who deal with the State Government. Again, that is a culture that needs to change. I urge the Rees Government to adopt that Coalition proposal as a priority. I have heard talk about it, but on my understanding at this point we do not have any firm action in relation to that.
I urge the Government to adopt the Liberal-Nationals whole-of-system approach to campaign finance reform. However, it should not do so in a piecemeal fashion. The Government has an opportunity to change the way this State is governed from the date these reforms are introduced forever more. However, doing so in a piecemeal fashion is open to attack. We have heard many reasons why the legislation will struggle. The legislation simply tinkers around the edges of a whole-of-government and whole-of-system approach to campaign finance reform.
If we are to restore the public's faith in the democratic process and put an end to the potential to buy legislative outcomes we need significant changes to the current system. Tinkering around the edges is not sufficient. I believe the upper House inquiry recommendations—or, indeed, my personal recommendations—will do it. In conclusion, I urge all members to work once and for all to improve the governing of this State. If we work across political boundaries there is hope that legislation from the day of reform is done in the best interests of the State and merits of the policy, rather than just being about seeking election outcomes.
Like many announcements from the Rees Government, I believe this legislation is a small tinkering step that falls short of what is required to truly take this State forward. As a member of Parliament who from his maiden speech has articulated and strongly pushed for campaign finance reform in this State, I urge the Premier to deliver on his words and not use this as simply a chance for a political stunt but to generally reform the way this State is governed.
|
