Page 2443 - Week 06 - Thursday, 10 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
On occasions I have had discussions with Ms Hunter about this. She has sort of said, “It is really naughty that the Labor Club has passed this money over.” I think she actually said, “The horse has already bolted on that.” I think they were her words. It was a sort of “The horse has bolted and we should shrug our shoulders and not do anything about it. We should let them get away with it.”
We know from the annual report of the Labor Club that they did transfer the money. And they did it in anticipation of being fined for it if they did it—in the full knowledge, which they published in their annual reports. How bold can you get? Mr Smyth’s legislation is perfectly clear. If after 21 June you receive more than $50,000 from an organisation and you are a political party, you will be in breach of the law.
It is pretty simple. I introduce a piece of legislation on 21 June and I say, “From this day, if you do this or this or this, there will be a penalty imposed.” It is actually a much better proposal than the sort of thing you get around budget time, for instance, when the federal government puts out a press release that says, “Duty on such and such is up by 10 per cent” and “As of the time of publishing, we will pass legislation sometime in the future that will make it illegal to charge duty from the date of this press release.” So the press release is the notification that creates the lack of retrospectivity.
Mr Smyth did not do that. He did not put out a press release that says, “I will introduce a piece of legislation that will be effective from the date of this press release.” He did the work. He introduced a bill and he said, “The bill will have effect from the date that it is introduced.” There is no retrospectivity about that. Mr Corbell will get up and tell me, tell the place here, just how wicked retrospective legislation is. He will get himself all in a lather. I have been in the room while he has got himself into a lather. He has practised his lines with his staff and me. They do not wash, because they are not true.
There are plenty of instances where governments say: “As from this day, if you do this, it will be against the law. And if you do it, we will fine you for it.” I reckon that if I went through the press releases that are associated with the federal budget that came down two nights ago, I could find half a dozen instances. “As of today, such and such a duty will be dealt with in such and such a way.” They do this so that people do not create artificial systems to compensate for this in the run-up to the passage of legislation. It is just sound policy.
Mr Smyth introduced sound policy. He knew what the government denied. Mr Corbell stood up in this chamber at the time and said that this was based on a rumour; it was untrue. Mr Corbell, the Attorney-General, the minister responsible for electoral affairs, the minister who has members of the board of the Labor Club in his office, stood up in here and said there was nothing to see here—it was not happening; it was just a vicious rumour. And then in the annual report the Labor Club came down and confirmed everything that Mr Smyth had anticipated. He put the lie to everything that Mr Corbell said in this place about this.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video