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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3117 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

If a donation were given to an MLA for political purposes but the MLA uses the money on a holiday or to buy a new lounge suite then it does not have to be declared under this bill because the money has not been used for a purpose related to the MLA's position. However, it is still a gift and has the potential to have political strings attached because it is putting a mutual obligation on the MLA to return the favour to the donor. The issue of political donations to MLAs is not how they are used but the fact that they are given.

If this wording is retained there is also the issue of who is going to decide whether a gift has been used for a purpose related to an MLA's decision. This is a vague expression which is open to confusion. It is not just about funding election campaigns but could be any expenditure of the MLA that has relevance to his or her job. My amendment, therefore, deletes the references to the use of the donation.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (12.43 am): Mr Speaker, I will speak to both of Ms Tucker's amendments. The logic of what Ms Tucker has put forward with respect to her second amendment does appeal to the government and I think that we will support that amendment. I have to say that all of these amendments have come forward fairly late in this debate. They come forward in a very-

Mr Stanhope: When did you introduce this bill?

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Stanhope, what was your excuse for producing seven pages of amendments on the previous bill that was introduced in June? What was your excuse then?

Mr Stanhope: Weighty matters of state.

MR HUMPHRIES: Oh, weighty matters of state.

Mr Stanhope: And under-funded staff-

MR HUMPHRIES: You mean you were fighting in the party room against your colleagues who were out to get your leadership.

Ms Carnell: That was a bit earlier tonight.

MR HUMPHRIES: A bit earlier tonight-that is probably right. I will leave Mr Stanhope and his colleagues to stew in their own juices.

I indicate that we will support Ms Tucker's second amendment. I have received advice that the first amendment would tend to weaken the disclosure provisions. The effect of the amendment is to remove the proviso on the definition of a gift in section 221A, so that a donor of a gift would not be required to submit an annual return even if the Independent MLA uses the gift for a purpose related to an election. To that extent, the amendment would weaken the disclosure provision. So rather than weaken those provisions, it is best to retain them. We will oppose, therefore, amendment No 1 but we will support amendment No 2.

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