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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 4032 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

on political parties to put in a return when the donations they receive exceed $1,500, do a good job of ensuring that, by coming at the problem from both ends, there is the maximum disclosure to the public of who is contributing to political parties and to political campaigns. There are obligations on the donors; there are obligations on the political parties; and there are obligations, of course, on associated entities. With those obligations, we are in a situation where there is the maximum opportunity for the public to know who is contributing to political parties and how much.

Mr Speaker, the Labor Party earlier supported an amendment which has the effect of putting an obligation on the political parties to notify their contributors of their obligations under this Act. No contributor under this scheme, as set out in this Act, can say, "I did not know I had an obligation under the Electoral Act", because they have been notified by the relevant political party that they have that obligation. Mr Moore might have had half an argument before, when he could make out that someone could have made their series of $499 donations and not realised they had an obligation under the Electoral Act to put in a declaration; the major political party did not put in a declaration because, of course, none of the amounts exceeded the $500; and the public would never know any better. But, under the amendments we have already agreed to, the political party is under an obligation to advise that person, "You must make a declaration under the Electoral Act". The person has no excuse for not putting in that declaration. It seems to me that the provisions do all that is reasonable to ensure that the political parties fulfil their obligations and that donors fulfil their obligations to make public their donations.

Mr Speaker, let me dwell for just a minute on the cynical scenario that Mr Moore tried to conjure up for us. If, as Mr Moore suggests, there is someone out there who wishes to make donations under the $500 threshold which need not be counted, and the political party presumably, whether directly or indirectly, conspires with that person to not issue any receipts for these amounts, so that there is no record in the party's accounts of these donations, and does not advise them of their obligations under the Act, and that person also chooses to conceal those donations - if all these people have willingly entered into a conspiracy to conceal a sizeable donation to a political party in exchange for which they propose to provide some political favour, then we are in the area of deliberate criminal intent. It seems to me that, whether the threshold is $100 or $500, you do not really solve the problem. What you are dealing with is malicious intent.

When the Electoral Commissioner comes in and audits your books and sees that you have received 25 donations of $499, do you not think the Electoral Commissioner's eyebrows are going to be raised? Even if you have not technically broken the law, do you not think the Electoral Commissioner will be reporting to parliament that perhaps there is a problem here in that political parties are engaging in some sharp practice; and do you not think the Electoral Commissioner will be on the case of the individual who made those 25 donations of $499, saying "How come you did not put in your return under the Electoral Act, as required?", and might be trotting them down to the court to explain themselves to the judge? It seems to me that there are plenty of safeguards in the administration of this Act, and I do not think Mr Moore can make out a case that the difference between a $100 threshold and a $500 threshold is going to make any difference to the safeguards that are in the Act.

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