Page 649 - Week 02 - Thursday, 19 February 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I have spoken about this matter at some length already. Mindful of the time, I will not go into great detail but will simply outline the purpose of this amendment. It does several things. It restores the limits on the gifts section in the legislation. It amends the limit of a gift to ensure that the limit is reduced from $10,000 to $5,000, which is the same cap as in place for parties in New South Wales. It makes sense, in the face of corporations and unions now being able to donate, that we move to reduce the amounts that are involved. Our amendment also removes paragraph 205I(4), the paragraph that currently requires donors to be on the electoral roll, reflecting the outcomes of the High Court case.
I have spoken about this matter extensively, I have indicated the level of public concern, I have highlighted to the Assembly the expert commentary on this and I implore members to reflect on that and support this amendment.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Health, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Capital Metro) (5.18): Briefly, the government will not support this amendment. The government does not support it because it halves the current $10,000 donation cap.
Mr Rattenbury cites the New South Wales donation cap limit as the justification for his proposal, but the experience of New South Wales shows that these provisions are vulnerable—vulnerable both in terms of circumvention, as we have seen extensively through recent ICAC inquiries, and also vulnerable on constitutional grounds. There is currently a High Court case involving a challenge to similar general cap donations in New South Wales of $5,000 for a party and $2,000 for a candidate. The removal of donation caps will not reduce the robust framework that exists for reporting political donations in the ACT, and our reforms are a balance of public funding and removal of donation caps to limit the usefulness of excessive donations through ensuring that we have strong caps on electoral expenditure.
MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (5.19): The opposition will not be supporting this amendment. Indeed, as Mr Corbell alluded to, a number of the problems that we have seen in New South Wales that we are endeavouring to prevent ever occurring here are because of caps that were at a point where people then tried to work around them. As Mr Corbell has alluded to, based on various court cases, it is quite likely, in my view, that we would be back here, as we are today, to unpick elements of the existing bill that have been found to be unconstitutional.
The point I would make to the Greens is that if they do not like big donations or donations over $5,000 they do not have to take them. There is nobody forcing the Greens to take $50,000 from the CFMEU. They do not have to take it. They could have taken $5,000. That could have been their choice. So it is an untenable position to come into this place, when you have accepted donations of $50,000, of $12,000, of well over $1 million, to argue that it is somehow inappropriate or an undue influence on the process to accept donations over $5,000.
If the Greens had previously not taken donations over $5,000, they may have an argument. They may have some ethical stance that would be worth listening to. But
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video