Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 4019 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Ms Horodny in this amendment, the AMA becomes an associated entity of the Greens and has to put forward an annual return in respect of the Greens. I am afraid that does not sound to me like a very appropriate provision and sounds like a far wider catchment than was intended by Ms Horodny.

I am also unclear as to what "collects money" means. Is an organisation which collects money from, for example, its customers to then pass on to a political party - BHP, for example - an organisation which would become an associated entity when it makes a donation to a political party or candidate?

Mr Moore: I did not notice BHP making any donations to ACT parties, Gary.

MR HUMPHRIES: Maybe not, but they have certainly made donations to other parties, nationally.

Mrs Carnell: What about all the people who play poker machines at the Labor Club?

MR HUMPHRIES: Indeed, an organisation where people collect money through poker machine takings. The point is that paragraph (c) of this definition is so broad as to catch many more organisations in the web of accountability than I think we can reasonably expect to be caught. I would argue very strongly that this has not been well thought through and that we should not widen this concept. We have already put on the table a much more accountable model of political funding. I would urge members to accept that and see how that operates. If they feel that this model produces hidden pockets of funding for political parties, then we can think about extending it in the future. But I do not believe the Greens' amendment catches that concept appropriately at this point.

MR WHITECROSS (Leader of the Opposition) (8.24): I have only one thing to add to what Mr Humphries has had to say, and that is that the provisions in this Bill are such that should an organisation collect money of sufficient magnitude - and I apologise if you did mention this - for distribution to one or more registered political parties, donations exceeding $1,500, they, of course, have to put a return in anyway as a donor donating more than $1,500. To use Mr Humphries's example: If the AMA did do a whip-round of their doctors and then handed the money over to a political party and that amount exceeded the $1,500 threshold, there is no doubt that they would have to put in a declaration. In a sense, I do not see what additionally this achieves.

Moreover, paragraph (b) is quite clear. There are organisations out there which are controlled by either registered political parties or Independents and operate for the benefit of those parties, and they are pretty easy to identify under paragraph (b). Does an organisation which one year does collect money and another year does not collect money have to put in a return in the year that it has not collected any money because it is the kind of organisation that does collect money for political parties? Well, who would know? But if it does collect money for political parties, if it does make a donation to Mr Moore's campaign, then, of course, it has to put in a return.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .