Page 1728 - Week 05 - Thursday, 8 May 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (11.47): I move amendment No 31 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 1778]. This amendment is the same as the amendment to clause 88 and it has the same effect.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 89, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 90.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (11.47): I move amendment No 32 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 1778].
This amendment is one of a series of amendments intended to undo the various changes in the bill related to disclosure. The amendment will also provide that associated entities are to be required to disclose the identities of persons who make payments to the entity of any amount and the total amount paid by such person, except that associated entities should not be required to disclose the identities of clients who pay the associated entity for normal business services rendered. This is intended to ensure that donors cannot avoid disclosure by giving through multiple entities.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra) (11.48): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 3 at page 1784]. It is an amendment to Mr Corbell’s proposed amendment.
I am pleased to see the attorney move his amendment. We have had quite a few consequential amendments so far, including amendments to allow the commonwealth and the states to get together and other significant changes. That is quite a healthy process in terms of putting this bill back into some form of equilibrium.
That said, proposed subsection 232 (4) is problematic. The rest of it is fine. It is now $1,000 rather than $1,500. It is now anything less than $1,000. We do not have to add up little bits of money any more, and that is good. So we do not have any problem there. Proposed subsection 232 (4) states:
Subsection (3) does not apply to any of the following amounts:
(a) for an associated entity licensed under the Liquor Act 1975—
…
(b) for an associated entity licensed under the Gaming Machine Act 2004—
That is a problem. One of the problems that we have with this legislation, and certainly one of the problems in terms of the associated entities, was the—I hate to use the word bias—change to the act perhaps to benefit the Labor Party’s main
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .