Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]
| Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Electoral Act to require disclosure of all electoral expenditure of individual candidates by political parties before the Northern Territory elections. The Northern Territory has had a number of independents who have made a strong contribution to debate and reform over many years – nine in all. However, many requirements under the Electoral Act laws favour the major parties and often disadvantage independent candidates and independent members. For example, only incumbent independents and members have access to the electronic version of the electoral roll – this is just an example. It is not available to independent candidates, and hence does not allow them to access voters in the electorate they are standing for. Major parties are able to purchase electronic roll data for all electorates. The disclosure requirement for election spending often works in favour of major parties as they do not have to disclose spending on each individual candidate and their electorate. It is hidden in annual returns that require only a global figure for expenditure. There are no details of party expenditure supplied. Voters are swamped, as we know, by party advertising as well as advertising specific to their candidate, but parties are not required to separate this spending to show precisely how much they are spending on each seat. This, in effect, means the public is not informed, or is not made aware of how much a political party is spending on individual candidates or their electorates during an election campaign. This may not seem significant, but it goes against the principles of transparency and honesty in our democratic system. It also seems to suggest that parties are not complying with s 200 of the act, which says, ‘Details of all electoral expenditure must be disclosed’. This disclosure in party returns ends up as a one line total expenditure and, as I said, no further details are provided. S 199 definitions, however, states, ‘Electoral expenditure for an election means expenditure incurred whether or not during the election period on …’ and it lists what the expenditure entails, and I am referring to the current act:
(b) broadcasting an electoral advertisement during the election period; (c) displaying an electoral advertisement during the election period at a theatre or other place of entertainment; (d) producing an electoral advertisement that is published, broadcast or displayed as mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c); (e) producing any printed electoral matter which in part 13, division (1), subdivision (2) applies other than the material mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) that is published during the election period’. (f) producing and distributing electoral matter that is addressed to particular persons or organisations and is distributed during the election period; (g) carrying out an opinion poll or other research about the election during the election period.’ Now, if section 199 sets out all the details that must be disclosed, why does this not apply to political parties, but only to independents and individual candidates? The purpose of this amendment to s 200 is to insert 200(1)(A)(a) and (b) - Returns of Electoral Expenditure. The amendment states:
This amendment is to ensure all expenses, as set out and detailed as I have just done in s 119, are declared and not hidden in the annual returns registered by parties. The annual returns only require those parties to list in detail donations or monies received over $1500, and the total amount paid in expenditure during that financial year and any other outstanding debt. The Stuart by-election disclosure is the classic example of how expenditure is not detailed. You could be led to believe the current member for Stuart sitting in this House spent nothing on his campaign, as he passed in a nil return. I will refer to that return. Gary Cartwright, the independent, listed his expenditure, Anna Machado listed her donations and her expenditure, Karl Hampton - nil return. I seek leave to table that return. Leave granted. Mrs BRAHAM: The Northern Territory Electoral Commission, in its latest report yesterday, tabled in the House, made the comment:
I repeat that: … is not equitable for all candidates. The recommendation came from the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, and this may have been prompted from the many questions I have asked them. It has recommendation that the financial disclosure provisions be amended to set a specific Territory threshold and that the returns be redesigned so as to draw identical information from both endorsed and unendorsed candidates. It will be interesting to see whether the government actually takes up that recommendation. Referring back to that return of disclosure for the Stuart by-election, I notice that no returns have been received to date from the CLP candidates or another independent, who may have been a CLP candidate anyway. Despite the requirement that returns have to be submitted within 16 weeks of the end of the financial year, and despite section 215 of the current Electorate Act, that failure to provide financial disclosure return without reasonable excuse is an offence, with a penalty for a natural person up to 200 penalty points or imprisonment of up to 12 months and, for a body corporate, a penalty of up to 1000 units which is possibly $100 000. It will be interesting to see whether the so-called independent Electoral Commission enforces its act. However, I digress slightly from this amendment. This amendment I am proposing adds a new subsection specifically stating that reporting agents must provide a return stating details of all election expenditure that was authorised by the party and was specifically attributable to each of the party’s candidates for the election. What has prompted this amendment? Because, if it applies to all non-party candidates, then it should apply to all candidates. That is what our system is all about - equity. If government will not support this amendment then, perhaps, it is time they had a good hard look at their act and amend it to reflect what they really intend, and as recommended by the Electoral Commission report yesterday. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement. Debate adjourned. |