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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 3705 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

I will be supporting Mr Moore's amendment. I was a little concerned when I first read it. I felt that there was perhaps a loophole for donations to be made direct to individual members or to individual candidates. I understand the Labor Party has changed the rules so that in the next election individuals can generate some funds.

There are two distinct issues here. The unique situation with poker machines requires closer scrutiny by the Assembly. I hear what Mr Berry has had to say and what Ms Tucker and Mr Moore have had to say in relation to political donations. I think donations are a blight on our electoral process. You only need to look at the extremes in the United States, where it is very clear that whoever has the most money wins.

I intend to come back in the new year with an amendment to the Electoral Act to require anybody that makes donations to political parties to make a donation to charity. I look forward to working with the Labor Party and other members on that issue. That would be a tremendous boon for charities of the ACT. Adding up the figures, over $1 million would be paid to charities because of an election. Hopefully I can amend the Electoral Act in the first sitting week so that we can address that problem as well. I obviously cannot do it tonight, because it is a different act. I look forward to support from members on that issue.

MS TUCKER (9.23): We will not be supporting Mr Moore's proposal or Mr Osborne's proposal. I am listening to the arguments but I am not prepared to vote on this tonight. It is worth remembering that Mr Moore, when he was an Independent, took a very strong line on the need for his office to have time to consider what was put up by the Assembly. I even remember that Mr Moore required extra staff to deal with the workload when he was an Independent and had to cover every issue. I am now in that situation, as are Independent members and Mr Kaine. We have to deal with all issues, and I do not appreciate having these sorts of things dumped on me the night before.

I have not seen a scrutiny analysis. You might say we do not need one. I do not know that. I have no idea what the implications of this are. I am prepared to look at it later. I am not prepared to support it tonight. I want to make it clear that I think no - one should take the business of making laws lightly and that I take it very seriously. For that reason I will not be cooperating with people when I am not given a chance to work on the issues and understand the implications. I am not going to support the amendments.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (9.25): The position has been put very well by my colleagues. We all know what this is about. It is a quite blatant attack on the Labor Party. Ms Tucker makes a very good point. The amendments were dropped on us today. We all know that this is about support for the Labor Party because of our association with the Labor Club. The artifice that this is all about dealing even - handedly with all members of this place and all parties represented here is absolute nonsense. It is intellectual dishonesty of the first order. It totally lacks credibility. It is so dishonest in an intellectual sense that it is staggering.

What does the amendment mean? Does it apply to any club, not just the Labor Club, that a politician visits for the purpose of discussions with constituents? I visit a number of clubs around the ACT. The clubs provide rooms to me free of charge as a meeting place.

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