Page 643 - Week 02 - Thursday, 19 February 2015

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

---

The Greens oppose this clause and all the clauses associated with this change because it undermines the very expenditure cap that has been talked about by other members in this place as being the key protection in this system. It means that anybody can go out and set up a string of associated entities that can spend money to benefit another party. MLAs in this place or candidates or their party officials will be pulling the strings on those associated entities. It makes a mockery of the expenditure cap that is being used to justify other positions taken in this place.

MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Health, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Capital Metro) (4.52): This clause reflects the High Court decision in Unions NSW v State of New South Wales, which, despite everything Mr Rattenbury says, is still acknowledged as casting doubt on the validity of provisions contained in sections 205F, G and H of the act related to aggregated electorate expenditure. I note that even the quotes that Mr Rattenbury refers to in support of his argument acknowledge that there is doubt. There is doubt about the validity of these provisions because of the High Court decision in Unions NSW.

Mr Rattenbury may disagree with the government about which side of the line you go, but, from the government’s perspective, I am not going to turn a blind eye to possible constitutional invalidity in relation to these provisions. We are amending the provisions, and that reflects our judgement as to the implications of the Unions NSW ruling.

MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (4.53): We agree with the government’s position on this. Again, this is a matter of judgement, but the advice and the arguments as we see them are that we do not want to end up back here with elements of our law that are not constitutionally valid. I think the arguments made by the government are valid.

Question put:

That clause 6 be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 6 agreed to.

---

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