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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 4028 ..

MR WHITECROSS (Leader of the Opposition) (8.54): The Labor Party will also be supporting this amendment. I was slightly confused by Mr Moore's speech because I think at one stage he started talking about consultants collecting donations, which is not related to this; but he subsequently gave an example which did relate to expenditure by an advertising agency. Indeed, that is what it is about. I am satisfied that the effect of this will be to broaden the range of electoral expenditures for which declarations have to be made and, in that sense, will provide a fuller declaration than might have otherwise been provided. I had had some concerns that perhaps this was just going to be about shuffling money from one slot to another slot; but, as it appears that we are just broadening the range of electoral expenditure which will have to be declared, I think it is helpful and increases openness. For that reason, I am more than happy to support it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 17 and 18, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 19

MR MOORE (8.55): Mr Speaker, I oppose this clause. It is fundamental to what I was interested in. The issues that we have dealt with until now have been relatively minor compared to the real objections I have to this part of the Bill. If we are to retain the rigour of our ACT disclosure laws, as a consequence we must abandon the Government's plan to excuse parties from the ACT's reporting obligations. They will then be able to submit a copy of their less rigorous Commonwealth return. This is what this clause is about. If this clause passes, my whole series of consequential amendments will not need to be moved.

These are the reasons why the clause should not be supported. We currently require the disclosure of details of all donors who donate more than $1,500 a year to a party or, in the case of Independents, $200. We currently require all donations to be counted in the $1,500 threshold test, with only one exception; that is, donations up to $99 made on fundraising occasions. This clause that Mr Humphries has put up seeks to remove a fundraising event. Section 229 of the Act says:

(1) For the purpose of this Division, the regulations may prescribe -

(a) a class of events that are to be taken to be fund-raising events; and

(b) a class of events that are not to be taken to be fund-raising events.

(2) Nothing in paragraph (1)(a) is intended to limit the kinds of events that are fund-raising events.

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