Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1948 ..
MS TUCKER (10.37): We will be supporting this amendment. It puts back into the bill subsections that were new insertions into the act. The aim of these subsections was to identify receipts that are not for gifts and the purpose for which the amount was received. That will enable the separation of payment for services from gifts. That was to overcome an anomaly in the existing act that made it difficult for the commissioner to identify entities that may have to submit donor returns. Again, it is disappointing that the government is seeking to reverse a good amendment that was in its original bill. I am happy to support this amendment.
MR RUGENDYKE (10.38): I, too, will be supporting Mr Moore's amendment. It is a very wise amendment.
MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Attorney-General) (10.38): The government will not be. Apparently, this amendment will take us out of kilter again with Commonwealth practice, especially in terms of the returns. That is the advice I have got, so we will not be supporting the amendment.
MR MOORE (Minister for Health, Housing and Community Services) (10.39): I think Mr Stefaniak's comments are worthy of a response. Later, we will come to an amendment which would allow for what I would refer to as a slave clause. I think the concept is the same as Mr Stanhope rejected earlier about clause 9. The slave clause provides that it is good enough for the ACT for you to hand a submission to the Commonwealth Electoral Commission, no matter what the Commonwealth commissioner requires. To say now with regard to this amendment that it is inconsistent with the Commonwealth legislation is a bit silly because the other one, effectively, will override it anyway.
Mr Moore's amendment to Mr Stefaniak's amendment negatived.
MR MOORE (Minister for Health, Housing and Community Services) (10.40): I ask for leave to move amendment No 3 circulated in my name to Mr Stefaniak's amendment No 3.
Leave granted.
MR MOORE: I move amendment No 3 [see schedule 8, part 2, at page 1993] to Mr Stefaniak's amendment No 3. These sections provide parties and associated entities with the option of submitting a Commonwealth annual return in place of an ACT return. This is what I have referred to as the slave scheme. Earlier today, Mr Stanhope made a very good argument, a persuasive argument, that actually won my support and that of Mr Rugendyke-I think it was of Mr Kaine as well, but I cannot remember about Ms Tucker-on clause 9 when he said that it is silly for us to align ourselves with the Commonwealth when we do not know what its law is.
Mr Rugendyke: Kim Beazley said it as well.
MR MOORE
: Mr Rugendyke holds up the front page of a newspaper to remind me about Mr Beazley pointing out the flaws and holes in the Commonwealth legislation. I think it is worth reminding members that there is a Commonwealth bill currently
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .