Page 2429 - Week 06 - Thursday, 10 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (8.21), by leave: I move amendments Nos 1 to 3 circulated in my name on the blue paper together, to amend Mr Corbell’s amendments [see schedule 7 at page 2477].
This is why I said this was the furry end of the lollipop; this is getting quite complex here, Madam Deputy Speaker. While the procedure is quite complex, the amendments that the Canberra Liberals propose today are quite simple. The definitions of gift again in this legislation are complex; they are becoming much more complex than they are in other comparable electoral legislation and it is something that we should be concerned about, because once you get this level of complexity you will end up with loopholes.
However, in proposed subsection 198AA(1B) I propose a variation to the definition of gift in the attorney’s proposal for anything that is a subscription to a party or a fundraising contribution, at a single event, say a dinner. We are proposing to increase the figure from $250 to $1,000 and also in doing so to add a new subclause 198AA(1A)(aa) that if an affiliation fee is paid to a party by an entity then the first $1,000 is not considered a gift but the remainder would be considered a gift under this legislation. This is comparable to the provisions in the New South Wales legislation where the threshold is $1,000 rather than $250 and I think this is a reasonable approach.
The whole issue of gifts is a fraught one and the issue becomes what is no or insufficient consideration; that is a very subjective question. Someone who is a supporter of a particular political party and who considers the leader or a particular member of the political party to be their hero, the acme of achievement in politics, might be quite happy to pay $1,000 or $2,000 or $3,000 to have dinner with that person and they would consider that value for money. They would consider it value for money because they got an opportunity to speak and meet with someone; they might get nothing out of it other than the warm, furry feeling of getting to have dinner with the Attorney-General or the minister for planning. There would be people who would think that that was a reward in itself. And that is a very subjective question.
I would disagree that having to pay $3,000 to have dinner with the Treasurer of the ACT would be a reward in itself. I would not get that warm, fuzzy feeling; but other people might.
Mr Barr: I could be quite charming, Vicki. You never know.
MRS DUNNE: You could be quite charming, but not charming enough. You could be charming, but you would have to try really hard to charm me that much. But the thing is that there are people who would think that it would be reasonable to do that. I think that going down this path of being very prescriptive and saying, “If you have dinner with the Attorney-General or the planning minister, we will consider that $250 pays for the dinner and anything else is a gift for reporting purposes,” means that this legislature is imposing upon people what they think is adequate consideration, and that is a very subjective judgement. I have some real concerns about this and I think that the general approach across jurisdictions is that, if we are going to impose that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video