Page 2420 - Week 06 - Thursday, 10 May 2012

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

governance. It has nothing to do with what is right and what is proper. It is for their selfish political ends, which is why they are not allowing affiliated unions to come under the same cap. I think Mrs Dunne has very well articulated the stance of the opposition on this. I think the speeches by both the government and the crossbench have highlighted to this place just how partisan and just how political the decision making has been with regard to this amendment.

MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Leader, ACT Greens) (7.39): That was all a little rich. It is about a squabble over money. Really, why would we be focusing on one group—in this case, the unions? We go to the example of Clive Palmer, who has poured millions and millions into coalition campaigns to rage against the superprofits tax on mining. This has really shown some true colours here. We need to be aware that all groups have a right to participate in our democracy and recognise that tonight we may not necessarily be coming up with absolutely the best solution, but Mrs Dunne’s amendment is going too far. Why focus on one when there are other groups out there? As I said, when you look at Clive Palmer, Gina Rinehart and all their mates, the amount of money that they have poured into federal Liberal campaigns is unbelievable. I believe it is just a little bit rich to be pulling that argument in this particular case.

Question put:

That proposed new clause 7B be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Ayes 4		Noes 9
Mr Coe	Mr Smyth	Mr Barr	Ms Hunter
Mr Doszpot		Dr Bourke	Ms Le Couteur
Mrs Dunne		Ms Bresnan	Ms Porter
		Ms Burch	Mr Rattenbury
		Mr Corbell

Question so resolved in the negative.

Proposed new clause 7B negatived.

Clauses 8 and 9, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 10.

MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (7.44): I move amendment No 4 circulated in my name on the white paper [see schedule 5 at page 2473].

This amendment is proposed in the interests of clarity and to avoid impractical distinctions. The definition of electoral expenditure in the act is mind-bogglingly complex, as is almost everything with the Electoral Act. One of the things that I have learned over the last two years is that if ever there was a piece of legislation that needs a root and branch review, it is the Electoral Act. This is not the time and place for it,

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