A loophole in the ACT's campaign finance laws that let the CFMEU almost double its spending in last year's poll should be closed before the 2020 election, a committee has urged.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
The report from a Legislative Assembly inquiry into the 2016 election has recommended the laws covering third party election spending be tightened to stop unions and business groups using multiple legal entities to circumvent the territory's $40,000 spending cap.
It follows reports showing the CFMEU appeared to circumvent the cap by spending $35,000 during the campaign, plus a further $38,000 through its training arm, Creative Safety Initiatives.
While both major parties originally voted for the change, the opposition is now pushing to close the loophole, a position the ACT Greens are likely to support despite Labor MLAs opposing it.
The loophole was created after a 2015 inquiry into the Electoral Act, which removed a rule against third parties acting "in concert" during campaigns, a move the government claimed was due to concerns it could be challenged in court.
But at hearings in July this year, acting electoral commissioner Ro Spence told the committee he was "not entirely sure if that was the reason it was removed", but it was removed "at a similar time as those discussions were ongoing".
Asked by Liberals' whip Andrew Wall if he was concerned the loophole undermined expenditure caps, Mr Spence said that "it certainly provides for the ability to create multiple separate legal entities which, of themselves, would have a $40,000 expenditure cap".
During the same hearing, Liberals secretary Arthur Potter said the party hoped the committee would "have a good look at this" as it was "an area that I think is open to abuse".
"There have been some reports in the media that this tactic was used at the last election," he said.
"I do not know details of that, but it seems that if there is a little loophole there and if people have gotten away with that, they will look to exploit that at the next elections."
While the committee recommended the relevant provisions in the Electoral Act be tightened before January 2020, it also noted that "government members of the committee were not of the view [it] need to be reviewed".
Asked why she and other Labor MLAs opposed the review, committee chair Bec Cody said only that "the committee received no evidence that the law was being circumvented".
Mr Wall said the opposition supported closing such loopholes and that the purpose of expenditure caps was to make election campaigns "a level playing field".
"Instead, during the 2016 election we saw third party campaigners such as trade unions using multiple corporate entities to circumvent expenditure caps," he said.
"These actions are not in the spirit of an expenditure cap, and need to be addressed.
"The ball is now in the Government's court and the Opposition will pay close attention to how the Government responds to the Committee's recommendations."
Greens MLA Caroline Le Couteur said the minor party, in line with leader Shane Rattenbury's concerns in 2015 that the loophole "makes a mockery of the expenditure cap", also backed closing the loophole.
But she said she would be concerned if the recommended changes might impact other community groups and the Greens would need to see proposed legislation before reaching an official position.
