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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Friday, 14 May 2004) . . Page.. 2084 ..

MS TUCKER (12.21 am): I move amendment No 2 circulated in my name [see schedule 6 at page 2135]. Similarly for non-party groups, this amendment simply keeps the disclosure threshold at $200.

MS DUNDAS (12.22 am): The Democrats also seek to support this amendment. There was perhaps some confusion when we were debating the previous amendment. There are two amendments here, one of which talks about gifts made to a candidate of a political party. This amendment talks specifically about gifts made to non-party groups, so that all candidates are covered in relation to the disclosure of gifts.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (12.22 am): As Ms Tucker has indicated, this amendment is related to the earlier amendment and extends the proposed $200 disclosure threshold to include non-party groups. It is inconsistent with the other provisions in this bill that remove references to non-party groups. For the reasons given regarding Ms Tucker’s earlier amendment, the government opposes this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

MR STEFANIAK (12.23 am): I will be opposing this clause for the same reasons given in relation to clauses 12 and 13—because of the non-party group matter. The amendments I am moving are all consequential to that.

Clause 35 negatived.

Clauses 36 to 40, by leave, taken together.

MR STEFANIAK (12.24 am): Again, this is consequential in relation to the non-party group matter and I will be opposing these clauses.

Clauses 36 to 40 negatived.

Clause 41.

MR STEFANIAK (12.24 am): I will be opposing this clause—clause 41—and I will also be moving amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 7 at page 2136]. I thank the Electoral Commissioner, Mr Phillip Green, for this. He told me and Parliamentary Counsel that if my opposing those earlier clauses in relation to the non-party group matters were successful—and it has been—it would be necessary to move these two amendments. He said:

You signal your intention to oppose various clauses relating to the removal of non-party groups from the Electoral Act.

To achieve this end, you may wish to consider two further amendments to ensure the Electoral Act deals consistently with non-party groups.

I thank the commissioner for his assistance, and I thank Parliamentary Counsel. It continues:

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