The minister responsible for electoral law in the ACT said he had concerns about the ability of independent candidates standing in territory elections to profit from public funding arrangements, and the issue would be considered as part of a bill to be introduced by the end of the year.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Special Minister of State Chris Steel said there were "genuine issues" of whether the current public funding system - which pays $8.62 to parties and candidates for each eligible vote - met community expectations.
"I have a particular concern over [independent candidates], because it is quite possible to make a personal profit out of running for an election. I'm not sure that is in line with the objectives of the public funding system," Mr Steel told the Legislative Assembly.
The Assembly debated a motion brought by Deputy Opposition Leader Jeremy Hanson, which called on the ACT Greens to pay back an apparent profit the party made in public electoral funding at the 2020 territory election.
The Greens' spokesman on democracy, Andrew Braddock, said it was nonsensical for Mr Hanson to argue the Greens, a not-for-profit organisation, had posted a profit in the campaign.
"The Canberra Liberals pay for gimmicks like balloons, putting their faces on cars and road-side corflutes. It's not enough for Mr Hanson to put his face up once or twice on Hindmarsh Drive. He has to go and do it over and over, 20 times over," Mr Braddock said.
"The Greens employ local Canberrans to help coordinate our grassroots campaigns, and the salaries of these staff are not included in the disclosure requirements under the act, a very real cost of campaigning. I'd rather be investing in people - training them, having them work for a cause they're passionate about. These paid Greens staff then support our volunteers by doing the work of coordination and back office."
Mr Braddock also said the public funding did not need to be time limited, and campaign finance disclosures from the Greens covered the required period after January 1, 2020 in the lead-up to the October election, which meant spending on the Greens campaign in 2019 had not been disclosed.
"There is no implication or intent for the act to limit campaign activities or expenses to the reporting period. My campaign is an example of this. I was announced as a candidate on December 6, 2019. By 1 January, we had already had our photoshoots, designed and printed some initial materials, done some promotions on social media, recruited staff, started training volunteers and ensuring our neighbourhood teams were ready," he said.
MORE A.C.T. POLITICS NEWS:
No Greens ministers were present in the Assembly for the debate on the motion.
Mr Hanson accused the Greens of having a double standard on campaign financing, and pointed to the party's support of efforts to encourage companies to pay back JobKeeper if they posted a profit.
"It looks very much to me like the Greens have become the very capitalists that they complain about. This is very much the party of 'do as I say, not as I do'. These are the real estate moguls who complain about landlords while counting money from their tenants. They're the same party that complain about political donations and where they come from, but this is the party that at the federal election pocketed a $50,000 donation from the CFMEU," he said.
The justice and community safety committee's inquiry into the 2020 election recommended public electoral funding be capped so parties and candidates could not receive more than their disclosed campaign expenditure.
The ACT government noted the recommendation in its response to the committee's inquiry and said it would consider the change.
"Further consideration and analysis is required on the implications of this recommendation, as well as systems and/or processes required to support its implementation," the government's response said.
In its report on the 2020 election, the ACT Electoral Commission recommended the Electoral Act be changed to prevent parties from receiving more public funding than they spent on their campaigns.
Independent candidate Fiona Carrick was the only other candidate to post an apparent profit from public funding, receiving $32,613 based on her share of votes. Ms Carrick's campaign spent $13,693.
Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content:
- Bookmark canberratimes.com.au
- Download our app
- Make sure you are signed up for our breaking and regular headlines newsletters
- Follow us on Twitter
- Follow us on Instagram