Page 421 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 19 February 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
change”. My husband, in fact, pointed out the program to me and said, “You should watch it.” For various reasons we do not have a working TV in our house, but when I had the opportunity to watch it I asked him, “Did you realise those words were not mentioned?”
It is quite subtle, but the political discourse from some parts of Australian politics is leaving out this principal evidence base that we are getting hotter. There is a reason for it—it is climate change and it is human induced. We as legislators in the ACT should see this as one of the primary things we need to work on. But perhaps that is enough of me ranting on that.
Mr Parton: No way. Give us more; give us more.
MS LE COUTEUR: I am not sure if you are totally serious in saying that, Mr Parton.
Mr Hanson: Well picked.
MS LE COUTEUR: I am not sure if I should say thank you, Mr Hanson. I want to briefly talk about the thing Mr Ramsay spoke about at the end of his speech: the constitutionality of making changes to our donations laws. I totally agree that the constitutionality of this is a considerable issue. We passed very strong laws in 2012 which were reversed in the Eighth Assembly, with one of the reasons being the perception that they could be unconstitutional. I point out that there was, in fact, no constitutional challenge to them.
The New South Wales Electoral Act 2018 bans donations from property developers, tobacco companies and liquor and gambling industry business entities. The latter are defined in section 53 as a corporation engaged in a business undertaking that is mainly concerned with wagering, betting or other gambling, including the manufacture of machines used primarily for that purpose. This is wider than the Greens’ proposed amendments.
I noted in the Assembly last week the McCloy case, which focused on the validity of the New South Wales ban on property developer donations and which clearly established that categories of donors can be banned where they give rise to an unacceptable risk to the political process. This is quite clear. This was a constitutional challenge, and that is what the McCloy case said.
Looking at both the legislation put forward by the government and the amendments put forward by the Greens, these are areas where we can well argue that there is significant evidence of potential interference in electoral processes. I note that the New South Wales legislation does not include any restrictions as to the type of entity that is a property developer that then donates. Our only amendment as far as that is concerned is that whether you are a property developer or not does not depend on the structure of your business.
Unlike the New South Wales ban on donations from property developers, the ban on gambling donations has not been tested in the High Court. But from an ACT point of view I think there is a very arguable case. The value of pokies and other licensing is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video