Page 34 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 12 February 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
must be demonstrably justified. The government’s work to implement the parliamentary agreement meets that double standard.
So, it was with some disappointment that I read late last week of amendments to be moved that would dramatically alter the legislation and target a broad range of both private and community groups. The amendments that were announced by the ACT Greens mean that today we cannot debate a straightforward implementation of our shared commitment on property developer donations. It is unfortunate that, although we share a commitment to end political donations by property developers, we were not able to move forward today.
The amendments that are proposed by the ACT Greens would, without any evidence base, ban nearly all clubs in the territory from engaging in political campaigns. They would also expand the definition of who is a property developer to capture non-profit community groups. The High Court’s ruling in the case of McCloy v New South Wales on property developer donations depended on an evidence base, and that included numerous New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption findings.
The proposed amendments, by targeting a wide swathe of community groups and an entire industry with no such evidence, are extremely unlikely to withstand constitutional scrutiny. That is not limited to the attempt to expand the ban on who can and cannot make a political donation. The amendments would also introduce a new special expenditure cap for non-party candidates, just weeks after the High Court found differential spending caps without strong justifications in New South Wales to be unconstitutional.
These changes cannot simply be accepted or negotiated between members here. It is not a matter of what the parties in this chamber think of the politics of political funding. I note again that the fact that the Canberra Liberals have again today spoken of specifically targeting one individual or entity shows a gap they have when it comes to due process, evidence base, the rights enshrined in our constitution, or the law as stated on numerous occasions by Australia’s High Court.
There are clear constitutional limits on what we can and cannot do when it comes to electoral laws. As the first law officer of this territory, I cannot in good conscience recommend that we knowingly consider legislation that would breach the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution or the rights enshrined in our Human Rights Act. That is why today, as has been flagged, we will be debating the bill in principle but will be adjourning consideration of the amendments in detail and final passage of any legislation to a later date. So long as there remain serious constitutional issues with any proposed amendments, the bill simply cannot move forward.
There are a range of other integrity measures in this bill that are worthy in their own right and that also will unfortunately not be enacted today. The bill also amends the Electoral Act to treat the total amount of a fundraising contribution as a gift for the purpose of reporting thresholds. Previously donations of up to $250 did not need to be reported. This amendment will assure the Canberra community that parties and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video