Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]
| The purpose of this bill is to amend the Electoral Act in two areas: first, to allow for ballot paper position draws to be conducted at sites determined by the Electoral Commission; and secondly, to equalise the threshold for which election candidates can accept anonymous gifts. In a small jurisdiction, Northern Territory politicians and election candidates are probably more open to scrutiny than their interstate counterparts. People are much more likely to see a Territory politician out and about than they would a federal or state minister. They rub shoulders with politicians in the streets, in the markets, stop and talk to us in the mall and even consider throwing their hats in the ring as a candidate. It is important that our electoral system matches this openness by encouraging people to participate as much as possible and the amendments in this bill reflect that openness. I will now turn to the details of the bill. Might I say that these are common sense amendments. The first part amends the site where the Electoral Commission can conduct the draw for candidates’ positions on a ballot paper. At the moment the Electoral Act requires the Electoral Commission to undertake this draw in their Darwin office. While this may be appropriate for Top End seats, it discriminates against electorates outside Darwin. Constituents of that electorate, local media and even the candidate themselves have to travel to Darwin if they wish to be present at the draw and the by-election in Greatorex we had recently was a classic example. The draws on the ballot paper were done in Darwin whereas common sense would say they should have been done in Alice Springs. Madam Speaker, I have a long history of trying to pull down the Berrimah line. Conducting non-Darwin electoral draws in Darwin is simply unfair and discourages people in regions from participating in this important part of the electoral process. I am very pleased to see the Electoral Commission agrees with me. In their recent report on the 2005 General Election, the Commission wrote on page 36:
Recommendation 10 of their report states:
My amendment simply implements this recommendation by allowing the Electoral Commission to choose the site of the draw most suitable to the electorate involved; a common sense amendment and one members should be able to support. The second part of the bill refers to the threshold amount of gifts that can be given anonymously to candidates during an election. This bill makes changes to the monetary amount in three sections of the act, sections 191, 193 and 197. At the moment section 191 requires a candidate’s reporting agent to provide the Electoral Commission with details of gifts given to a candidate in an election. This information must include the name and address of each donor, along with other details of the gift. However, the name and address, date and amount is not required if the total amount of their gift, or gifts if they have made more than one to the same candidate, is less than $200. Section 193 concerns a donor who makes the gift to a candidate in an election. If the total amount of their gift or gifts is $200 or more, they must inform the Electoral Commission of their name, address, amount of the gift and date it was gifted. Section 197 concerns registered parties or candidates receiving the anonymous gifts. For registered parties, and this is where it seems unfair, they must not accept a gift to the value of $1000 or more unless the receiver knows the name and address of the donor. For candidates not with registered parties, the same information is required, except the prescribed amount is far less, $200. So these three sections are saying that only anonymous gifts of less than $200 can be given to a non-party candidate. For all these sections, the bill increases the amount to $1000, which is the same as registered party candidates. Madam Speaker, at the moment the act discriminates against non-party candidates. Registered parties, large or small, do have substantial resources, particularly those which federal inflictions. Why should parties be able to receive anonymous gifts up to $1000 when Independents or non-party candidates can only accept gifts anonymously if they are less than $200? Independents play a vital part in a political system. I might say that again so you all hear it, Independents play a vital part in our political system. There are numerous examples of the legislation that the government has implemented on the bills or policies that I have proposed, or as the other member in this House has proposed. Just yesterday, for instance, we saw the government pass the Bail Amendment Act, which was basically based on a bill that I had introduced previously. Saying that, we have the confirmation from Peter Murphy, who was also an advisor for the CLP government. He recently said on Stateline, ‘I think the era of Independent politicians in the Territory has really arrived. You have got Loraine Braham and Gerry Wood in the Top End, and between the two of them, they are far more effective than the official opposition that the CLP is’. Madam Speaker, you could not get a finer endorsement. Mr Henderson: Can you say that again, I missed that? Can you read that quote again? Members interjecting. Madam SPEAKER: Order! Mrs BRAHAM: ‘I think the era of Independent politicians in the Territory has really arrived. You have got Loraine Braham and Gerry Wood in the Top End, and between the two of them, they are far more effective than the official opposition that the CLP is’. Members interjecting. Mrs BRAHAM: As further support to these amendments, the federal government recently changed the Commonwealth Electoral Act to increase the disclosure threshold from $1500 to $10 000. Now, I am certainly not suggesting the higher amount, but it does show there are moves to increase the threshold of anonymous donations. Again, I refer to the Electoral Commission’s report, which mentions these changes to the Commonwealth legislation and recommends amendment to the Financial Disclosure Provisions, and I quote the report on page 38, ‘Any new customised arrangement should draw consistent information from both endorsed and unendorsed candidates’. All I am asking is that non-party candidates be subject to the same conditions and be given the same rights as those from registered parties. Madam Speaker, our nation takes pride in our democratic ideals. It is important that our electoral processes allow the public every opportunity to participate. This may be standing as a candidate, or providing financial assistance to someone they support as a candidate, but sometimes process can frustrate this participation. Drawing ballot positions thousands of kilometres away can be frustrating to locals. Not being able to give a substantial anonymous donation can be another. The amendments in this bill aim to overcome this frustration by very simple changes that do not undermine or threaten the electoral process. Indeed, as the independent Electoral Commission recommendations suggest, these simple changes aim to make the process equitable for everyone. Madam Speaker, I have also introduced changes and will be debating another amendment concerning the Financial Disclosure Provisions requiring party returns to be categorised in the same way as required to be submitted by unendorsed candidates. These changes complement each other in ensuring equity in the Northern Territory’s Electoral Act and system. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and I table a copy of the explanatory statement. Debate adjourned. |