Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 4020 ..

Mr Moore: If it is over $1,500.

MR WHITECROSS: I think we are plugging a loophole which does not exist, quite frankly. I think we would do better to stick to the original Bill, rather than construct a new legal category of organisations under the vague heading of "collecting money for distribution to political parties" as one of thousands of activities that they might undertake.

MR MOORE (8.27): Ms Horodny is not able to defend her own amendment, perhaps because she does not understand it. I am quite comfortable about defending the amendment because I happen to think it is a very sensible amendment. Mr Speaker, I hear what the major parties are saying about this and I understand why it is that they do not want to support it. I think one could very easily argue that the Labor Club, for example, does not exist wholly or mainly for the benefit of the Labor Party; it exists as a club wholly and mainly for the benefit of members of the club.

Mr Whitecross: That is not what the Electoral Commission says, Mr Moore; the Electoral Commission says it is an associated entity.

MR MOORE: I hear Mr Whitecross interjecting that it does. Let me give another example which I think is pertinent in this case. It seems to me that it would be quite within the bounds of imagination to accept that an organisation such as the Conservation Council or the Australian Conservation Foundation - although I believe neither of these bodies has collected specifically for a party - is closely associated with the Greens and collects money for them. Under such circumstances, it is entirely appropriate that they then put in a return in that way and identify where the donations have come from.

I think great credit is due to Mr Humphries for putting this up when we know that one of the prime funding bodies for the Liberal Party is the 250 Club, which will be covered by this. We understand that this legislation is about making sure that the money is open to disclosure. In a criminal situation, we talk about laundering money. We are not talking about laundering it in the sense of any criminal activity but laundering it in the sense of hiding where the money has come from. This is what Mr Humphries is trying to achieve by this amendment. The Greens have put up an amendment to tighten that up by ensuring that there is even less chance of hiding the money by giving it to somebody who, in turn, makes the donation.

It seems to me, Mr Speaker, there are plenty of organisations which exist, not for this purpose completely but for an entirely different purpose. For example, an accountancy firm would fit into this in a very neat way. If somebody wants to hide money, you simply ask an accountancy firm, "Will you collect money and then make the donation to a particular party?". The accountancy firm exists as a firm for its own existence. The word "laundry" comes to mind, but I want to use it in the context not of black money but of hiding money. This is a way about it and a way of avoiding it. I think this is a very sensible amendment, and I would hope members would reconsider it.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .