Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

The Democrats oppose schedule 1 in the following terms:

(4)    Schedule 1, item 53, page 16 (lines 22 and 23), TO BE OPPOSED.

(5)    Schedule 1, item 54, page 16 (lines 24 and 25), TO BE OPPOSED.

These particular items in the bill act to increase the nomination deposits for the House of Representatives and for the Senate. The increase for the House of Representatives is $350 to $500, which is a substantial jump, and for the Senate per candidate from $700 to $1,000.

We oppose this on the grounds that there is no evidence that the current amounts are inappropriate. I wandered down and had a look at the 2004 election report. I could not find at a quick glance nor do I recall the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recommending this increase. It is an increase that the government have devised, as far as I am aware. We consider that there is no evidence that the current amounts are inappropriate. There is no evidence that they are too low. The purpose of the nomination deposit is primarily to deter frivolous candidates. Similarly, there is no evidence that they are so high as to deter serious candidates. Again, there is always a danger, because the cumulative cost for political parties of nomination fees can represent a barrier to entry, and it is a basic principle of our electoral democracy that we do not have high barriers of entry to political contests. While these increases may not be such a problem for the more moneyed major parties, there is a problem of principle here and the actual quantum does in my view pose a problem for the smaller parties or groups of independents wishing to field contestants in a number of electorates.

As with much of this bill, we think that this proposal is counter to good democratic practice. We think that nomination deposits should be at a level that does not deter people from standing as an election candidate, and contesting elections should not be confined to those who can best afford to do so. If the government is minded, as I think it is arguing with respect to the disclosure threshold, that you have to take account of inflation over time, then I would suggest that is the appropriate mechanism to put into the law rather than a leap which seems to me very substantial in quantum and in aggregate I think will act in a contrary fashion to encouraging the fullest participation possible.