Page 33 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 12 February 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
and other members in advance for their work on this. I think we are all in agreement that it is very important to get it right.
MR RAMSAY (Ginninderra—Attorney-General, Minister for the Arts and Cultural Events, Minister for Building Quality Improvement, Minister for Business and Regulatory Services and Minister for Seniors and Veterans) (11.19), in reply: I start by thanking Mr Hanson, Ms Le Couteur, and Ms Cheyne for their contribution and their support in principle for this important matter, ensuring that we do indeed have a robust and transparent electoral system here. I also note the reality that there will be additional views and alternative views expressed at a later stage in the debate when the matter returns for consideration in detail. But this is in closing this part of the debate.
The government introduced the Electoral Amendment Bill alongside the Integrity Commission Bill late last year; they are seen together. These bills demonstrate the government’s commitment to maintaining the integrity of public institutions and also ensuring community confidence in the ACT system of representative government. The Electoral Amendment Bill supports that commitment. This government is committed to improving the transparency of our public administration and strengthening our electoral reporting framework. This, as has been noted, is a key parliamentary agreement commitment.
As has also been noted, ACT Labor has already stopped accepting donations from property developers. As I stated when I introduced the bill last year, perceived influence by property developers on government decisions is a serious concern. Property developers are distinct from other businesses because their profit depends heavily on decisions that are made by government in relation to land development. Importantly in this debate, there is an evidence base in New South Wales to show that the risk of property developer donations influencing government decisions is not purely theoretical. Canberrans are entitled to know that political donations cannot unduly influence decisions about land.
The bill was also presented in the context of an evolving set of legal principles around the country. Numerous High Court judgements have recently considered the extent of the implied right of freedom of political communication. Attempts to regulate the electoral system can be and have been found unconstitutional. Similar legislation from Queensland is currently before the High Court.
It is clear that a ban on political donations by one group, by one industry or by one class of people must be supported by the strongest possible evidence. That is why this government undertook a thorough legal analysis in developing the bill. The bill carefully manages the critical task of removing the distorting influence that property developers can potentially have on development applications while maintaining the constitutional right to political communication.
The thorough evidence base and legal analysis behind this bill reflect a commitment not only to effectiveness but also, importantly, to human rights. The rights to recognition and equality, to freedom of expression and to take part in public life are all enshrined in our own Human Rights Act. Any limitations must be reasonable and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video