❓ The Minister acknowledges the influence of union and business funding on political parties and expresses personal support for capping private donations, but raises constitutional concerns regarding restrictions on political donations due to free speech implications.
AnsweredQoN 1272Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill. (1) Is the minister aware of the extent of union and business funding provided to political parties and has any research been conducted on how this Bill might influence this funding? (2) If the minister intends to reduce the dependence of political parties on donations from unions and big business, will he agree to consider a formula for limiting non-public or private donations or to place a cap on donations from unions and big business? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) I have some empathy with the view that publicly funded electoral funding would be the best possible arrangement and that private funding should be capped, if not prohibited, particularly in regard to the large donations from the corporate sector. That is my personal view. However, I do not think it is constitutionally possible to do that in Australia. In about 1990, the federal Government enacted a law that limited or banned political advertising on television in particular. That is my recollection off the top of my head. The High Court struck down that law as an undue imposition on free speech in this country. Free speech is an implied constitutional right, at least with regard to political matters, because of the representative democratic structure provided for in the Australian Constitution. I suspect that no caps or prohibitions have been put in place on the private funding of political parties in other States where public funding has been introduced, because it is not constitutionally permissible to prevent a private individual or corporation from expressing a political opinion and seeking to promote that political opinion by funding an election campaign. A measure to ban or prohibit private funding of political parties would fall foul of the same constitutional principle as did the ban on the electronic advertising of political matters regarding the 1992 High Court case of ACTV v Nationwide News Pty Ltd. I suspect that is the reason the Commonwealth has not banned or prohibited the private funding of political parties. No equivalent ban exists in the States of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT, which provide public funding for political parties. There are two primary reasons why public funding is now an integral part of a modern democratic and electoral system. The first is to reduce the reliance on corporate donations and the appearance of being able to buy political favours. I think it is highly desirable to reduce that reliance. We do not want to go down the same path as America, where only millionaires can run as candidates. Political candidates in America are unable to succeed in American politics unless they have the backing of large companies in return for legislative support of their position. It would be a disaster if that situation occurred in Australia. I am delighted that that is not a feature of our political system in Western Australia currently. This legislation is a step in the right direction to make sure we do not become so reliant. That is a positive reason why that is the case. Mr B.K. Masters interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just a minute. The second point I want to make is that it is important that political parties get their message across to the community so that the electorate is well informed on voting day. From time to time, our respective political parties - not the member for Alfred Cove - will go through the doldrums. We will hit an all-time low, donations will dry up and we will find it difficult to get our message across in tough times. On the other hand, the party that is enjoying buoyant times - Mr R.F. Johnson: Is that how you are finding it at the moment? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Not at all. We are introducing this legislation to help the Opposition because we realise the position it is in. It is important to have a playing field that does its best to take out those peaks and troughs with regard to a party’s ability to sell its message. The Australian public - or, in our case, the Western Australian public - will make up its mind on who it wants to support, given all the information before it. They are two very sound reasons why this Parliament should support this legislation.
(1) Is the minister aware of the extent of union and business funding provided to political parties and has any research been conducted on how this Bill might influence this funding? (2) If the minister intends to reduce the dependence of political parties on donations from unions and big business, will he agree to consider a formula for limiting non-public or private donations or to place a cap on donations from unions and big business? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I have some empathy with the view that publicly funded electoral funding would be the best possible arrangement and that private funding should be capped, if not prohibited, particularly in regard to the large donations from the corporate sector. That is my personal view. However, I do not think it is constitutionally possible to do that in Australia. In about 1990, the federal Government enacted a law that limited or banned political advertising on television in particular. That is my recollection off the top of my head. The High Court struck down that law as an undue imposition on free speech in this country. Free speech is an implied constitutional right, at least with regard to political matters, because of the representative democratic structure provided for in the Australian Constitution. I suspect that no caps or prohibitions have been put in place on the private funding of political parties in other States where public funding has been introduced, because it is not constitutionally permissible to prevent a private individual or corporation from expressing a political opinion and seeking to promote that political opinion by funding an election campaign. A measure to ban or prohibit private funding of political parties would fall foul of the same constitutional principle as did the ban on the electronic advertising of political matters regarding the 1992 High Court case of ACTV v Nationwide News Pty Ltd. I suspect that is the reason the Commonwealth has not banned or prohibited the private funding of political parties. No equivalent ban exists in the States of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT, which provide public funding for political parties. There are two primary reasons why public funding is now an integral part of a modern democratic and electoral system. The first is to reduce the reliance on corporate donations and the appearance of being able to buy political favours. I think it is highly desirable to reduce that reliance. We do not want to go down the same path as America, where only millionaires can run as candidates. Political candidates in America are unable to succeed in American politics unless they have the backing of large companies in return for legislative support of their position. It would be a disaster if that situation occurred in Australia. I am delighted that that is not a feature of our political system in Western Australia currently. This legislation is a step in the right direction to make sure we do not become so reliant. That is a positive reason why that is the case. Mr B.K. Masters interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just a minute. The second point I want to make is that it is important that political parties get their message across to the community so that the electorate is well informed on voting day. From time to time, our respective political parties - not the member for Alfred Cove - will go through the doldrums. We will hit an all-time low, donations will dry up and we will find it difficult to get our message across in tough times. On the other hand, the party that is enjoying buoyant times - Mr R.F. Johnson: Is that how you are finding it at the moment? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Not at all. We are introducing this legislation to help the Opposition because we realise the position it is in. It is important to have a playing field that does its best to take out those peaks and troughs with regard to a party’s ability to sell its message. The Australian public - or, in our case, the Western Australian public - will make up its mind on who it wants to support, given all the information before it. They are two very sound reasons why this Parliament should support this legislation.
(2) If the minister intends to reduce the dependence of political parties on donations from unions and big business, will he agree to consider a formula for limiting non-public or private donations or to place a cap on donations from unions and big business? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I have some empathy with the view that publicly funded electoral funding would be the best possible arrangement and that private funding should be capped, if not prohibited, particularly in regard to the large donations from the corporate sector. That is my personal view. However, I do not think it is constitutionally possible to do that in Australia. In about 1990, the federal Government enacted a law that limited or banned political advertising on television in particular. That is my recollection off the top of my head. The High Court struck down that law as an undue imposition on free speech in this country. Free speech is an implied constitutional right, at least with regard to political matters, because of the representative democratic structure provided for in the Australian Constitution. I suspect that no caps or prohibitions have been put in place on the private funding of political parties in other States where public funding has been introduced, because it is not constitutionally permissible to prevent a private individual or corporation from expressing a political opinion and seeking to promote that political opinion by funding an election campaign. A measure to ban or prohibit private funding of political parties would fall foul of the same constitutional principle as did the ban on the electronic advertising of political matters regarding the 1992 High Court case of ACTV v Nationwide News Pty Ltd. I suspect that is the reason the Commonwealth has not banned or prohibited the private funding of political parties. No equivalent ban exists in the States of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT, which provide public funding for political parties. There are two primary reasons why public funding is now an integral part of a modern democratic and electoral system. The first is to reduce the reliance on corporate donations and the appearance of being able to buy political favours. I think it is highly desirable to reduce that reliance. We do not want to go down the same path as America, where only millionaires can run as candidates. Political candidates in America are unable to succeed in American politics unless they have the backing of large companies in return for legislative support of their position. It would be a disaster if that situation occurred in Australia. I am delighted that that is not a feature of our political system in Western Australia currently. This legislation is a step in the right direction to make sure we do not become so reliant. That is a positive reason why that is the case. Mr B.K. Masters interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just a minute. The second point I want to make is that it is important that political parties get their message across to the community so that the electorate is well informed on voting day. From time to time, our respective political parties - not the member for Alfred Cove - will go through the doldrums. We will hit an all-time low, donations will dry up and we will find it difficult to get our message across in tough times. On the other hand, the party that is enjoying buoyant times - Mr R.F. Johnson: Is that how you are finding it at the moment? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Not at all. We are introducing this legislation to help the Opposition because we realise the position it is in. It is important to have a playing field that does its best to take out those peaks and troughs with regard to a party’s ability to sell its message. The Australian public - or, in our case, the Western Australian public - will make up its mind on who it wants to support, given all the information before it. They are two very sound reasons why this Parliament should support this legislation.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I have some empathy with the view that publicly funded electoral funding would be the best possible arrangement and that private funding should be capped, if not prohibited, particularly in regard to the large donations from the corporate sector. That is my personal view. However, I do not think it is constitutionally possible to do that in Australia. In about 1990, the federal Government enacted a law that limited or banned political advertising on television in particular. That is my recollection off the top of my head. The High Court struck down that law as an undue imposition on free speech in this country. Free speech is an implied constitutional right, at least with regard to political matters, because of the representative democratic structure provided for in the Australian Constitution. I suspect that no caps or prohibitions have been put in place on the private funding of political parties in other States where public funding has been introduced, because it is not constitutionally permissible to prevent a private individual or corporation from expressing a political opinion and seeking to promote that political opinion by funding an election campaign. A measure to ban or prohibit private funding of political parties would fall foul of the same constitutional principle as did the ban on the electronic advertising of political matters regarding the 1992 High Court case of ACTV v Nationwide News Pty Ltd. I suspect that is the reason the Commonwealth has not banned or prohibited the private funding of political parties. No equivalent ban exists in the States of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT, which provide public funding for political parties. There are two primary reasons why public funding is now an integral part of a modern democratic and electoral system. The first is to reduce the reliance on corporate donations and the appearance of being able to buy political favours. I think it is highly desirable to reduce that reliance. We do not want to go down the same path as America, where only millionaires can run as candidates. Political candidates in America are unable to succeed in American politics unless they have the backing of large companies in return for legislative support of their position. It would be a disaster if that situation occurred in Australia. I am delighted that that is not a feature of our political system in Western Australia currently. This legislation is a step in the right direction to make sure we do not become so reliant. That is a positive reason why that is the case. Mr B.K. Masters interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just a minute. The second point I want to make is that it is important that political parties get their message across to the community so that the electorate is well informed on voting day. From time to time, our respective political parties - not the member for Alfred Cove - will go through the doldrums. We will hit an all-time low, donations will dry up and we will find it difficult to get our message across in tough times. On the other hand, the party that is enjoying buoyant times - Mr R.F. Johnson: Is that how you are finding it at the moment? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Not at all. We are introducing this legislation to help the Opposition because we realise the position it is in. It is important to have a playing field that does its best to take out those peaks and troughs with regard to a party’s ability to sell its message. The Australian public - or, in our case, the Western Australian public - will make up its mind on who it wants to support, given all the information before it. They are two very sound reasons why this Parliament should support this legislation.
(1)-(2) I have some empathy with the view that publicly funded electoral funding would be the best possible arrangement and that private funding should be capped, if not prohibited, particularly in regard to the large donations from the corporate sector. That is my personal view. However, I do not think it is constitutionally possible to do that in Australia. In about 1990, the federal Government enacted a law that limited or banned political advertising on television in particular. That is my recollection off the top of my head. The High Court struck down that law as an undue imposition on free speech in this country. Free speech is an implied constitutional right, at least with regard to political matters, because of the representative democratic structure provided for in the Australian Constitution. I suspect that no caps or prohibitions have been put in place on the private funding of political parties in other States where public funding has been introduced, because it is not constitutionally permissible to prevent a private individual or corporation from expressing a political opinion and seeking to promote that political opinion by funding an election campaign. A measure to ban or prohibit private funding of political parties would fall foul of the same constitutional principle as did the ban on the electronic advertising of political matters regarding the 1992 High Court case of ACTV v Nationwide News Pty Ltd. I suspect that is the reason the Commonwealth has not banned or prohibited the private funding of political parties. No equivalent ban exists in the States of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT, which provide public funding for political parties. There are two primary reasons why public funding is now an integral part of a modern democratic and electoral system. The first is to reduce the reliance on corporate donations and the appearance of being able to buy political favours. I think it is highly desirable to reduce that reliance. We do not want to go down the same path as America, where only millionaires can run as candidates. Political candidates in America are unable to succeed in American politics unless they have the backing of large companies in return for legislative support of their position. It would be a disaster if that situation occurred in Australia. I am delighted that that is not a feature of our political system in Western Australia currently. This legislation is a step in the right direction to make sure we do not become so reliant. That is a positive reason why that is the case. Mr B.K. Masters interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just a minute. The second point I want to make is that it is important that political parties get their message across to the community so that the electorate is well informed on voting day. From time to time, our respective political parties - not the member for Alfred Cove - will go through the doldrums. We will hit an all-time low, donations will dry up and we will find it difficult to get our message across in tough times. On the other hand, the party that is enjoying buoyant times - Mr R.F. Johnson: Is that how you are finding it at the moment? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Not at all. We are introducing this legislation to help the Opposition because we realise the position it is in. It is important to have a playing field that does its best to take out those peaks and troughs with regard to a party’s ability to sell its message. The Australian public - or, in our case, the Western Australian public - will make up its mind on who it wants to support, given all the information before it. They are two very sound reasons why this Parliament should support this legislation.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just a minute. The second point I want to make is that it is important that political parties get their message across to the community so that the electorate is well informed on voting day. From time to time, our respective political parties - not the member for Alfred Cove - will go through the doldrums. We will hit an all-time low, donations will dry up and we will find it difficult to get our message across in tough times. On the other hand, the party that is enjoying buoyant times - Mr R.F. Johnson: Is that how you are finding it at the moment? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Not at all. We are introducing this legislation to help the Opposition because we realise the position it is in. It is important to have a playing field that does its best to take out those peaks and troughs with regard to a party’s ability to sell its message. The Australian public - or, in our case, the Western Australian public - will make up its mind on who it wants to support, given all the information before it. They are two very sound reasons why this Parliament should support this legislation.
Mr R.F. Johnson: Is that how you are finding it at the moment? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Not at all. We are introducing this legislation to help the Opposition because we realise the position it is in. It is important to have a playing field that does its best to take out those peaks and troughs with regard to a party’s ability to sell its message. The Australian public - or, in our case, the Western Australian public - will make up its mind on who it wants to support, given all the information before it. They are two very sound reasons why this Parliament should support this legislation.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Not at all. We are introducing this legislation to help the Opposition because we realise the position it is in. It is important to have a playing field that does its best to take out those peaks and troughs with regard to a party’s ability to sell its message. The Australian public - or, in our case, the Western Australian public - will make up its mind on who it wants to support, given all the information before it. They are two very sound reasons why this Parliament should support this legislation.
(1) Is the minister aware of the extent of union and business funding provided to political parties and has any research been conducted on how this Bill might influence this funding? (2) If the minister intends to reduce the dependence of political parties on donations from unions and big business, will he agree to consider a formula for limiting non-public or private donations or to place a cap on donations from unions and big business? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I have some empathy with the view that publicly funded electoral funding would be the best possible arrangement and that private funding should be capped, if not prohibited, particularly in regard to the large donations from the corporate sector. That is my personal view. However, I do not think it is constitutionally possible to do that in Australia. In about 1990, the federal Government enacted a law that limited or banned political advertising on television in particular. That is my recollection off the top of my head. The High Court struck down that law as an undue imposition on free speech in this country. Free speech is an implied constitutional right, at least with regard to political matters, because of the representative democratic structure provided for in the Australian Constitution. I suspect that no caps or prohibitions have been put in place on the private funding of political parties in other States where public funding has been introduced, because it is not constitutionally permissible to prevent a private individual or corporation from expressing a political opinion and seeking to promote that political opinion by funding an election campaign. A measure to ban or prohibit private funding of political parties would fall foul of the same constitutional principle as did the ban on the electronic advertising of political matters regarding the 1992 High Court case of ACTV v Nationwide News Pty Ltd. I suspect that is the reason the Commonwealth has not banned or prohibited the private funding of political parties. No equivalent ban exists in the States of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT, which provide public funding for political parties. There are two primary reasons why public funding is now an integral part of a modern democratic and electoral system. The first is to reduce the reliance on corporate donations and the appearance of being able to buy political favours. I think it is highly desirable to reduce that reliance. We do not want to go down the same path as America, where only millionaires can run as candidates. Political candidates in America are unable to succeed in American politics unless they have the backing of large companies in return for legislative support of their position. It would be a disaster if that situation occurred in Australia. I am delighted that that is not a feature of our political system in Western Australia currently. This legislation is a step in the right direction to make sure we do not become so reliant. That is a positive reason why that is the case. Mr B.K. Masters interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just a minute. The second point I want to make is that it is important that political parties get their message across to the community so that the electorate is well informed on voting day. From time to time, our respective political parties - not the member for Alfred Cove - will go through the doldrums. We will hit an all-time low, donations will dry up and we will find it difficult to get our message across in tough times. On the other hand, the party that is enjoying buoyant times - Mr R.F. Johnson: Is that how you are finding it at the moment? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Not at all. We are introducing this legislation to help the Opposition because we realise the position it is in. It is important to have a playing field that does its best to take out those peaks and troughs with regard to a party’s ability to sell its message. The Australian public - or, in our case, the Western Australian public - will make up its mind on who it wants to support, given all the information before it. They are two very sound reasons why this Parliament should support this legislation.
(2) If the minister intends to reduce the dependence of political parties on donations from unions and big business, will he agree to consider a formula for limiting non-public or private donations or to place a cap on donations from unions and big business? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I have some empathy with the view that publicly funded electoral funding would be the best possible arrangement and that private funding should be capped, if not prohibited, particularly in regard to the large donations from the corporate sector. That is my personal view. However, I do not think it is constitutionally possible to do that in Australia. In about 1990, the federal Government enacted a law that limited or banned political advertising on television in particular. That is my recollection off the top of my head. The High Court struck down that law as an undue imposition on free speech in this country. Free speech is an implied constitutional right, at least with regard to political matters, because of the representative democratic structure provided for in the Australian Constitution. I suspect that no caps or prohibitions have been put in place on the private funding of political parties in other States where public funding has been introduced, because it is not constitutionally permissible to prevent a private individual or corporation from expressing a political opinion and seeking to promote that political opinion by funding an election campaign. A measure to ban or prohibit private funding of political parties would fall foul of the same constitutional principle as did the ban on the electronic advertising of political matters regarding the 1992 High Court case of ACTV v Nationwide News Pty Ltd. I suspect that is the reason the Commonwealth has not banned or prohibited the private funding of political parties. No equivalent ban exists in the States of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT, which provide public funding for political parties. There are two primary reasons why public funding is now an integral part of a modern democratic and electoral system. The first is to reduce the reliance on corporate donations and the appearance of being able to buy political favours. I think it is highly desirable to reduce that reliance. We do not want to go down the same path as America, where only millionaires can run as candidates. Political candidates in America are unable to succeed in American politics unless they have the backing of large companies in return for legislative support of their position. It would be a disaster if that situation occurred in Australia. I am delighted that that is not a feature of our political system in Western Australia currently. This legislation is a step in the right direction to make sure we do not become so reliant. That is a positive reason why that is the case. Mr B.K. Masters interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just a minute. The second point I want to make is that it is important that political parties get their message across to the community so that the electorate is well informed on voting day. From time to time, our respective political parties - not the member for Alfred Cove - will go through the doldrums. We will hit an all-time low, donations will dry up and we will find it difficult to get our message across in tough times. On the other hand, the party that is enjoying buoyant times - Mr R.F. Johnson: Is that how you are finding it at the moment? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Not at all. We are introducing this legislation to help the Opposition because we realise the position it is in. It is important to have a playing field that does its best to take out those peaks and troughs with regard to a party’s ability to sell its message. The Australian public - or, in our case, the Western Australian public - will make up its mind on who it wants to support, given all the information before it. They are two very sound reasons why this Parliament should support this legislation.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I have some empathy with the view that publicly funded electoral funding would be the best possible arrangement and that private funding should be capped, if not prohibited, particularly in regard to the large donations from the corporate sector. That is my personal view. However, I do not think it is constitutionally possible to do that in Australia. In about 1990, the federal Government enacted a law that limited or banned political advertising on television in particular. That is my recollection off the top of my head. The High Court struck down that law as an undue imposition on free speech in this country. Free speech is an implied constitutional right, at least with regard to political matters, because of the representative democratic structure provided for in the Australian Constitution. I suspect that no caps or prohibitions have been put in place on the private funding of political parties in other States where public funding has been introduced, because it is not constitutionally permissible to prevent a private individual or corporation from expressing a political opinion and seeking to promote that political opinion by funding an election campaign. A measure to ban or prohibit private funding of political parties would fall foul of the same constitutional principle as did the ban on the electronic advertising of political matters regarding the 1992 High Court case of ACTV v Nationwide News Pty Ltd. I suspect that is the reason the Commonwealth has not banned or prohibited the private funding of political parties. No equivalent ban exists in the States of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT, which provide public funding for political parties. There are two primary reasons why public funding is now an integral part of a modern democratic and electoral system. The first is to reduce the reliance on corporate donations and the appearance of being able to buy political favours. I think it is highly desirable to reduce that reliance. We do not want to go down the same path as America, where only millionaires can run as candidates. Political candidates in America are unable to succeed in American politics unless they have the backing of large companies in return for legislative support of their position. It would be a disaster if that situation occurred in Australia. I am delighted that that is not a feature of our political system in Western Australia currently. This legislation is a step in the right direction to make sure we do not become so reliant. That is a positive reason why that is the case. Mr B.K. Masters interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just a minute. The second point I want to make is that it is important that political parties get their message across to the community so that the electorate is well informed on voting day. From time to time, our respective political parties - not the member for Alfred Cove - will go through the doldrums. We will hit an all-time low, donations will dry up and we will find it difficult to get our message across in tough times. On the other hand, the party that is enjoying buoyant times - Mr R.F. Johnson: Is that how you are finding it at the moment? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Not at all. We are introducing this legislation to help the Opposition because we realise the position it is in. It is important to have a playing field that does its best to take out those peaks and troughs with regard to a party’s ability to sell its message. The Australian public - or, in our case, the Western Australian public - will make up its mind on who it wants to support, given all the information before it. They are two very sound reasons why this Parliament should support this legislation.
(1)-(2) I have some empathy with the view that publicly funded electoral funding would be the best possible arrangement and that private funding should be capped, if not prohibited, particularly in regard to the large donations from the corporate sector. That is my personal view. However, I do not think it is constitutionally possible to do that in Australia. In about 1990, the federal Government enacted a law that limited or banned political advertising on television in particular. That is my recollection off the top of my head. The High Court struck down that law as an undue imposition on free speech in this country. Free speech is an implied constitutional right, at least with regard to political matters, because of the representative democratic structure provided for in the Australian Constitution. I suspect that no caps or prohibitions have been put in place on the private funding of political parties in other States where public funding has been introduced, because it is not constitutionally permissible to prevent a private individual or corporation from expressing a political opinion and seeking to promote that political opinion by funding an election campaign. A measure to ban or prohibit private funding of political parties would fall foul of the same constitutional principle as did the ban on the electronic advertising of political matters regarding the 1992 High Court case of ACTV v Nationwide News Pty Ltd. I suspect that is the reason the Commonwealth has not banned or prohibited the private funding of political parties. No equivalent ban exists in the States of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT, which provide public funding for political parties. There are two primary reasons why public funding is now an integral part of a modern democratic and electoral system. The first is to reduce the reliance on corporate donations and the appearance of being able to buy political favours. I think it is highly desirable to reduce that reliance. We do not want to go down the same path as America, where only millionaires can run as candidates. Political candidates in America are unable to succeed in American politics unless they have the backing of large companies in return for legislative support of their position. It would be a disaster if that situation occurred in Australia. I am delighted that that is not a feature of our political system in Western Australia currently. This legislation is a step in the right direction to make sure we do not become so reliant. That is a positive reason why that is the case. Mr B.K. Masters interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just a minute. The second point I want to make is that it is important that political parties get their message across to the community so that the electorate is well informed on voting day. From time to time, our respective political parties - not the member for Alfred Cove - will go through the doldrums. We will hit an all-time low, donations will dry up and we will find it difficult to get our message across in tough times. On the other hand, the party that is enjoying buoyant times - Mr R.F. Johnson: Is that how you are finding it at the moment? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Not at all. We are introducing this legislation to help the Opposition because we realise the position it is in. It is important to have a playing field that does its best to take out those peaks and troughs with regard to a party’s ability to sell its message. The Australian public - or, in our case, the Western Australian public - will make up its mind on who it wants to support, given all the information before it. They are two very sound reasons why this Parliament should support this legislation.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just a minute. The second point I want to make is that it is important that political parties get their message across to the community so that the electorate is well informed on voting day. From time to time, our respective political parties - not the member for Alfred Cove - will go through the doldrums. We will hit an all-time low, donations will dry up and we will find it difficult to get our message across in tough times. On the other hand, the party that is enjoying buoyant times - Mr R.F. Johnson: Is that how you are finding it at the moment? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Not at all. We are introducing this legislation to help the Opposition because we realise the position it is in. It is important to have a playing field that does its best to take out those peaks and troughs with regard to a party’s ability to sell its message. The Australian public - or, in our case, the Western Australian public - will make up its mind on who it wants to support, given all the information before it. They are two very sound reasons why this Parliament should support this legislation.
Mr R.F. Johnson: Is that how you are finding it at the moment? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Not at all. We are introducing this legislation to help the Opposition because we realise the position it is in. It is important to have a playing field that does its best to take out those peaks and troughs with regard to a party’s ability to sell its message. The Australian public - or, in our case, the Western Australian public - will make up its mind on who it wants to support, given all the information before it. They are two very sound reasons why this Parliament should support this legislation.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Not at all. We are introducing this legislation to help the Opposition because we realise the position it is in. It is important to have a playing field that does its best to take out those peaks and troughs with regard to a party’s ability to sell its message. The Australian public - or, in our case, the Western Australian public - will make up its mind on who it wants to support, given all the information before it. They are two very sound reasons why this Parliament should support this legislation.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.