Page 2152 - Week 07 - Thursday, 20 August 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR RAMSAY (Ginninderra—Attorney-General, Minister for the Arts, Creative Industries and Cultural Events, Minister for Building Quality Improvement, Minister for Business and Regulatory Services and Minister for Seniors and Veterans) (6.43): We will be opposing these amendments. We do believe that the bar for banning participation in the political process should be high. The High Court has said the same.
It is clear that the profit motivator for property developers is a key reason why some may seek outcomes through the political process. There are many examples in other jurisdictions of how developers have sought certain political decisions in order to increase their own profit. And while surplus is important to not-for-profit organisations, there is actually very little evidence to show that not-for-profits seek to influence government decisions by way of donations.
The High Court has made very clear that it is the profit motive and the profit factor that is the key in its decision on which restrictions are constitutional and which are not. We are also particularly concerned about the unintended consequences of the amendment, the way that it is drafted, and the number of entities and therefore the number of very close associates that it would cover. We are opposing the amendments.
Amendments negatived.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (6.45): I move amendment No 20 circulated in my name [see schedule 5 at page 2169]. This merely substitutes the term “property developer” with “prohibited developer”, and thus I assume will not be supported.
MR RAMSAY (Ginninderra—Attorney-General, Minister for the Arts, Creative Industries and Cultural Events, Minister for Building Quality Improvement, Minister for Business and Regulatory Services and Minister for Seniors and Veterans) (6.45): Ms Le Couteur is correct: it will not be supported.
Amendment negatived.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (6.45), by leave: I move amendments Nos 21 and 22 circulated in my name together [see schedule 5 at page 2170]. No 21 introduces a new subdivision that will deal with gifts from property developers. No 22 moves the definition of “decided”, which relates to a relevant planning application here, from where it was previously in the attorney’s bill, which was in the proposed new section 222B. So this really comes under the classification of minor and technical.
Amendments negatived.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (6.47), by leave: I move amendments Nos 23 and 24 circulated in my name together [see schedule 5 at page 2170]. They are minor and technical but I assume will not be supported.
Amendments negatived.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video