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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 4031 ..

Mr Moore: I should come back and explain it to you.

MR HUMPHRIES: Well, okay. Perhaps, Mr Moore, you know of cases where people have taken some money and made a decision on the basis of the taking of that money. In my seven or eight years in politics I have not seen that happen. There is not even a case where I could say I suspected it. I have never seen even a case where I have suspected that someone has received money and made a decision accordingly. I know that that is not a very plausible line to run publicly. I know that I am not going to get up in the media and say, "We are honest politicians and you do not have to worry about letting us receive donations without it influencing us". That is not going to cut much mustard. But I have to say that the dark and nefarious world that Mr Moore describes is not quite the political world that exists in the ACT, at least at the present time.

Can I debunk quite emphatically something else Mr Moore said. Mr Moore has created the impression that if you make lots of small donations - he gave the example of a $499 donation 350 days a year - you are off scot-free under the legislation. He said, "Do not worry; you escape the disclosure requirements. You can channel all the money you want through this device" - or at least up to that $175,000, or whatever it is - "to your favourite political party, and you are home and hosed". Mr Moore does not acknowledge that the legislation also imposes a requirement on individuals, and that requirement on individuals is that donations over a financial year exceeding or equal to a total of $1,500 have to be disclosed.

Mr Moore: And they now have to be informed that it has to be disclosed.

MR HUMPHRIES: Indeed, under Mr Moore's provisions, they now also have to be informed that they need to disclose donations above that level. Why is it that the nefarious political parties to which Mr Moore refers are very dishonest but are the ones who are supposed to be the gatekeepers, the people who in turn keep their donors honest by keeping records which they then disclose to the Electoral Commission? It does not make sense, Mr Speaker; it just does not make any sense.

I think that what the provisions here do is take out - again, in line with the Commonwealth; I acknowledge that - a layer of disclosure which has been fair enough in the context of the ACT electoral system until now but which is not necessary in order to keep our electoral process honest, I believe. I repeat: I do not believe someone who makes small donations in this context can be described in any shape or form as an influence of any significance whatever on individuals within the political system; at least, that is my assessment of politics at this time in Canberra. I understand the force of Mr Moore's argument, but I urge the house to reject his arguments.

MR WHITECROSS (Leader of the Opposition) (9.09): Mr Speaker, the Labor Party will not be supporting this package of proposals, of which opposition to this clause is the first, which would create a divide between the reporting obligations of political parties under this Act and the reporting obligations under the Federal Act. Put simply, we do not see any justification for this. We believe that, as I said in my remarks at the in-principle stage, the suite of amendments that we have here, which includes obligations on individuals to put in returns where their donations exceed $1,500, as well as an obligation

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