Electoral Amendment Bill 2533
Posted by Administrator (admin) on Sep 10 2008
2008 >>

Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (2.30 pm):

The Electoral Amendment Bill 2008, introduced into this parliament by the Premier, shows the commitment of the Bligh government to openness and transparency and the democratic process. The bill largely reflects the provisions relating to disclosure that were contained in the Rudd government’s bill that so frightened the Liberal and National parties in the federal parliament that they sent the bill to a Senate committee to ensure it will not be considered before June 2009.

On the other hand, the Bligh government is so committed to ensuring the new provisions apply as soon as possible that this bill has been moved up the Notice Paper to facilitate early passage. The commencement date of the bill is 1 July 2008. The new reporting requirements and disclosure provisions will apply from that date. The transitional provisions in clause 8 of the bill provide that where the act requires a person to disclose a donation within 13 days of commencement they will not contravene the act provided they do what is required within 28 days of commencement. The first substantial amendment to the act is a requirement for six-monthly reporting. Previously the act provided for financial disclosure for elections and annually by political parties and candidates. By requiring six-monthly disclosure this will allow more ongoing and comprehensive scrutiny of political parties, particularly between elections.

The bill also provides a definition of election funding based on the definition contained in the Commonwealth bill. The new definition is an exhaustive list of the categories of electoral expenditure
that can be the subject of a claim for electoral funding. It includes the cost of publishing or displaying an advertisement in a wide variety of media and also the costs of production and distribution of the advertising. This is the main category covered. Opinion polls carried out during the election period are
also covered. The new definition of reporting period in this section refers to the current annual reporting period but also imposes a requirement for six-monthly reporting in addition to this.

Clause 12 of the bill is one of the major improvements in relation to the public funding of election expenditure. It directly links the public funding of elections with verified election expenditure claimed and accepted by the Electoral Commissioner. As the Premier said when she announced these proposed changes to the disclosure regime on 30 April in this House, the intention is to—

... tie the election funding to reported and verified electoral expenditure directly incurred by a candidate or a party, with evidence of that expenditure for an election to stop any candidate making a financial gain from the electoral funding system. That is to stop the accusations that we are now seeing in the public arena against One Nation and the Pauline Hanson party.

These amendments mean that once the threshold is reached, and that threshold is at least four per cent of the vote, then a registered political party can only claim funding for the lesser amount of
either the amount that they could receive based on the formula for first preference votes received or the actual expenditure that has been claimed and accepted by the Electoral Commissioner. Similar
provisions apply to candidates not endorsed by a political party, limiting their ability to claim public funding to the lesser amount of either that calculated based on the formula for first preference votes or the actual expenditure claimed and accepted by the Electoral Commissioner. Again they must first reach the threshold of at least four per cent of the vote.

Political parties and candidates who make a claim for electoral funding will have to show how they are entitled to make the claim. They will have to provide sufficient information on the type of
expenditure, how it was incurred and, in some cases, provide supporting documentation to ensure that the Electoral Commissioner is satisfied of the eligibility of their claim and that it fits within the definition of electoral expenditure under the act. The Electoral Commissioner is charged with deciding whether a claim satisfies the requirements for receiving public funding. If the commissioner decides that all or part of a claim is not eligible, the person or party who makes the claim has 28 days to ask the commissioner to reconsider the claim and must put in writing the reasons for asking for the reconsideration.


Clause 16 of the bill provides that a claim for funding can be paid even if the candidate dies—as opposed to voting. The same requirements operate, however, in relation to receiving at least four per cent of the vote and the need for proof of actual expenditure. The claim can, if necessary, be made by the candidate’s legal personal representative. It also allows the Electoral Commissioner to recover any amount of overpayment if a claim is accepted but the commissioner later becomes aware that the claim or some part of the claim should not have been accepted. The threshold for the disclosure of gifts by a person to a political party is reduced from $1,500 to $1,000 to bring the Queensland act into line with what is proposed by the Commonwealth bill. The threshold applies to one or more related parties to prevent a person giving an amount less than $1,000 to a number of branches or other entities of a political party thereby not falling within that provision. All
donations to related parties are treated as donations to the single political party. It also makes it clear that the intention of a gift is to benefit a political party. Even if given to another person the gift must be disclosed. This prevents a donor using intermediaries to avoid the requirement for disclosure.

Clause 20 is exclusive to Queensland and is not contained in the Commonwealth bill. It provides for reporting of large gifts—that is, gifts of over $100,000—within a six-month reporting period. Once
gifts to a particular party total $100,000 within a six-month period the person making the gift and the party receiving it are required to report this to the Electoral Commissioner within 14 days. This
requirement will lead to improved transparency and accountability of donors to political parties. Large donations of over $100,000 should be subject to public scrutiny because people are entitled to know
whether there is any political party indebted to any particular donor to that extent. It is an important part of the democratic process that people are able to make informed decisions about who they want to govern them. It may determine who may influence the party or, as with the Liberal National Party, who may own the party, as is the case with Clive Palmer. We might well ask what influence we can expect Clive Palmer to wield over the new Liberal
National Party. There are probably several correct answers to this question.

The most obvious one is:
one hell of a lot of influence—much more influence than most people would realise and much more influence than anyone in the Liberal National Party will ever be prepared to admit. There is one thing we
can reasonably be sure of: Clive Palmer will have a hands-on relationship with the new Liberal National Party. He will not be afraid to exert the influence that he believes his financial support for the party has entitled him to. He actually set out to buy the National Party but he has actually got the Liberals as well. He has a two-for-one deal.

Mr Hinchliffe: It sounds like a deal at KFC.

Mr LAWLOR: It is something similar actually. We could reasonable expect a Liberal National Party government to bend over backwards to please and satisfy Clive Palmer—to make sure, for
example, that mining oil developments will take precedence over any other environmental considerations. We could expect, for example, that the Liberal National Party in government, perish the
thought, would immediately reverse the Bligh government’s decision last month to place a 20-year moratorium on development of the McFarlane shale oil deposit near Proserpine in the Whitsunday
region.

Will Clive Palmer require the ditching of the new mining industry health and safety levy? Our new levy will boost the safety services in the state’s mine safety watchdog, the Mines Inspectorate. We are
asking for $26 million from an industry worth $26 billion to Queensland. Taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for these vital safety services. The member for Callide has already queried this levy. If Clive Palmer was to get his way and exert his influence, as I am sure he would, it would be struck out and
Queensland’s reputation as one of the safest places for mining in the world could suffer a serious setback.

Will Clive Palmer reverse our decision to ship coal out of the Mackay port through growing residential areas—that is, open up a port that was not built to ship coal? Will he declare open slather on
uranium mining and will he support building nuclear power plants here in Queensland? Is this what the people of Queensland can look forward to if ever the Liberal National Party was elected to office and Clive Palmer was influencing its policies and decisions? With the advent of people like Mr Palmer we more than ever need transparency with reporting processes, and that will be provided by this bill, which I commend to the House.

Last changed: [PUBLISHED_DATE] at 2:27 AM