Page 1730 - Week 05 - Thursday, 8 May 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
some other form of business, should be required to disclose each and every transaction. It does not make sense to report a transaction about buying a beer or buying a Chinese sate or putting money in a poker machine. That is a purchase for services rendered. It is not a donation. If the profits from those activities are donated, they must be disclosed. That is the intent of the government’s amendment. For the reasons I have outlined, the government will not be supporting Mr Stefaniak’s amendment.
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (11.56): I am inclined to support the amendment, but I would welcome clarification, if the attorney is inclined to explain it, how this might apply in relation to a commercial tenant of an entity associated with a political party. I am aware from my past experience how commercial tenants have had to be listed as though they are donors when, in fact, they have had a purely commercial relationship for the provision of office accommodation to an entity that may be associated with a political party, and much the same principle applies. It is a provision of accommodation service. It is not somebody who is trying to give money to the political party though the back door.
I would have thought that if there was an argument to look after their mates at the Labor Club around the corner and not include their beer sales when people walk in there, or their meals, or people that play the machines—and I can understand the line of argument there—ought that to be the case? I am not involved in this area any more, but the same principle applies where a commercial tenant of an entity with a political grouping ought to be exempt from disclosure.
I understand that was not the case. If I am wrong, I would be delighted to be corrected. I know it caused embarrassment to that company because they did not want to be seen as a political donor; they were purely a commercial tenant. I wonder if that situation has been thought of or contemplated and why it ought not to be captured under any exemptions being extended?
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (11.57): Just in response to the issues raised by Mr Mulcahy, I am advised that currently such a tenant would be required to disclose their rental payment to the associated entity if the associated entity was the landlord. However, I am advised that there is a provision in the act that would allow the minister to make a regulation to exempt certain types of payments from disclosure. I must admit it is not an issue that has ever been raised with the government. It is not one I have ever been aware of before, but if it is an issue that members believe is of concern there is a provision to provide for certain types of payments to be described by regulation as exempted. Maybe that would deal with the issue.
Amendment (Mr Stefaniak’s) negatived.
Amendment (Mr Corbell’s) agreed to.
Clause 90, as amended, agreed to.
Proposed new clause 90A.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .