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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 4025 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

One thing I should point out, Mr Speaker, which I do not know whether Mr Moore fully appreciates - perhaps he does - is that the $1,500 talked about here is different from the $1,500 talked about in regard to the obligations of parties to submit a return. It is possible, under this proposal by Mr Moore, that a political party could have an obligation to notify an individual of the need to submit a return of their own, even though the political party is not under an obligation to include that person on their own return, because, under the provisions relating to returns of political parties, there are exemptions for small donations, whereas there is no similar exemption under this provision.

Theoretically, political parties must keep track of every $10 given to them in order to satisfy their obligations under this provision. As a practical matter, I think Mr Humphries is right. If, as a routine matter, on every receipt you point out this obligation, you have probably satisfied your obligations under this provision. The chances are that you will have given anyone hitting $1,500 a receipt at some stage which, in the course of events, tells them that. But it would be practically impossible for a political party to literally know when someone hit the $1,500 if, as Mr Humphries said, some of that money was handed over in circumstances where receipts were not issued. I know that the Labor Party, whenever we can, does receipt things; whenever we receipt them, they go into the computerised accounts; every donation, whether it is $10 or $1,000, gets added up; and if it is over $1,500 into the return it goes.

We do our best; but it should be understood that this $1,500 imposes a new obligation which, in a literal sense, is very difficult for political parties to meet. But I am happy to accept the obligation on the basis that I think we can adopt administrative practices which will get us near enough. I am not sure whether it is a satisfactory situation that we have to rely on being able to get near enough rather than being able to exactly meet our obligations. Nevertheless, I think we can get near enough.

MR MOORE (8.45): Mr Speaker, I would be under the impression that a judge would find acceptable a case coming in under these circumstances where all receipts of an Independent have on them, "You have an obligation, where a gift goes beyond $200, to submit a return to the Electoral Commission". Similarly with a party, it would be "beyond $1,500". In drafting this amendment, I personally thought that the obligation would be met under those circumstances. I hope that, if that is the case, this Hansard would be taken into account.

I am also conscious, Mr Speaker, of Mr Humphries's statement that he believes that the current penalty of 200 penalty units or $20,000 is too onerous. It is a very serious obligation indeed and would indicate to a judge just how serious this obligation would be, and that is reasonable. Mr Humphries has approached me and said publicly that he believes it is too onerous, and I accept that. I see that he has an amendment. No doubt he will speak to it shortly. I just indicate to the house, to save time, that it is acceptable to me as it perhaps helps to deal with the issue that the major parties have raised.

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