Page 2442 - Week 06 - Thursday, 10 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
prohibition on party groupings accepting a gift of more than $50,000 from any one entity in the period between then and the commencement of this legislation, which was anticipated.
The bill, at the time, only progressed to the in-principle stage because there was some discussion and some uncertainty. The more I think about it and the more I discuss it, I realise that the level of uncertainty was unclear. What exactly was the cause of the problem? I thought at the time—it was my understanding at the time—that the Greens had some reservations because Mr Smyth’s bill had a penalty in it, a substantial criminal penalty. My understanding was that the Greens were concerned about the criminal penalty.
So when we had discussions about this some time ago, I put forward the provisions. We thought that Mr Smyth’s bill was important and that it should be passed. The Greens said to us, “We want to deal with it all within one piece of legislation.” I said: “Good; that is fine. I am sure that we can translate the provisions already agreed to by the Assembly into this. And while we are about it, if you are concerned about the criminal penalties, let us make it a civil penalty.” I got sort of nodding agreement: “Gee, that was a good idea.”
The civil penalties in the bill as it is evolving tonight are that usually if there is an overpayment the penalty is double. Essentially this would mean that if anything in excess of $50,000 was received in this period from 21 June to the commencement of this legislation—if any party received more than $50,000 from one organisation, they would have to give it back to the donor. And if they could not give it back to the donor, they would have to give it back to the territory.
What we were actually proposing—and everyone gave me nodding agreement: “gee, that is a good idea”—was that everything would be as it was on 21 June 2011. No-one would have a disbenefit. There would be no penalties. No-one would get a criminal record. We would just say, “As of 21 January, this is how the accounts looked and that is how they will continue.” They could receive donations of up to $50,000, and that is it. And $50,000 is generous compared to the limitations on donations in this piece of legislation that we are debating here today.
So I drafted this in these terms. Since I drafted it, I have been scratching my head and trying to work out why the Greens will not talk about it. It was revealed to me about dinner time today. They now think that because we have taken away the criminal penalty, these provisions somehow now have retrospective effect. But there is no disbenefit to anyone. The greatest disbenefit is that if you receive more than $50,000 from one organisation, you have to give it back to them. Everybody ends up where they were on 21 June. How can that be a retrospective piece of legislation—which it is not—that has a negative effect on anybody?
I was left quite perplexed. Then I was told, “The concerns were not about the criminal penalties in Mr Smyth’s bill; they were about something else.” But I still do not know what that is.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video