Page 2153 - Week 07 - Thursday, 20 August 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (6.47): I move amendment No 25 circulated in my name [see schedule 5 at page 2171]. This is a whole new section. It is talking about dollar amounts in terms of gifts. We are all on the same page about there being people from whom we want to prohibit gifts, even if we do not agree as to exactly those people are. It is not talking about exactly who those people are; it is talking about how much money and how we deal with them.
This amendment provides that gifts given by property developers and their close associates to political entities that are less than $250 must be repaid to the territory. Fair enough. It recognises that not all gifts are equally important or serious. Some small donations may even be inadvertent, and I do not believe that a criminal penalty is appropriate to those. If you are the partner of a property developer and you work at an office where raffle tickets are sent around and you buy one without paying any attention to who it is for, something like that should not end up with a criminal penalty. This is about dollar limits and criminal penalties.
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) (6.49): The government will be supporting amendment 25 and the associated ones, 26 to 29. Although we have said from the outset that we want a strong compliance regime in the bill, including criminal offences, we do accept the concerns of people who may, for example, unknowingly be close associates of property developers and who make donations to political parties.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (6.49): The Canberra Liberals will be supporting this and other amendments to remove criminal penalties for donations below $250. However, we do remain concerned about the criminal penalties in the bill as a whole, given that it is difficult to determine who is a property developer or a close associate. While it may be easier for political entities to identify corporations or prominent public individuals, there is no register of property developers. Furthermore, development applications are not publicly available for the last seven years, let alone in a searchable format. Additionally, there is complexity around what a close associate is.
How is a political entity expected to know who a property developer is dating? How is an independent candidate meant to know this either? There are many concerning aspects of what is being proposed in this legislation as regards this. There are some very practical questions and we do not have clear answers as yet. Therefore, we do support what the Greens are proposing here but note that there are concerns about other aspects of the bill as well.
Amendment agreed to.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (6.51), by leave: I move amendments Nos 26 to 29 circulated in my name together [see schedule 5 at page 2171]. This is more around the limits. Under $250 there would not be criminal penalties. Over that is where there is a significant issue.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video