Page 5572 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
accept the logic for that; I think it is a good clarification of the legislation. For land release programs, I am less convinced. I am mindful of the context in which this legislation came forward. We know that housing affordability, land affordability, land rent schemes and a range of those matters have been topics of some considerable political conversation, and I suspect will continue to be. In that context, it is probably not an appropriate area to be exempting from the legislation.
Mr Seselja’s amendment agreed to.
Mr Stanhope’s amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Proposed new clause 9A.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (4.06): I move amendment No 6 circulated in my name, which inserts a new clause 9A [see schedule 3 at page 5626]. This amendment clarifies “party political”. The committee determined that “party political” required more clarification, recommendation 11, and we have responded. The new definition is:
… something is party political if it is designed to promote the polices, past performance, achievements or intentions of a program or the government with a view to advancing or enhancing a political party’s reputation rather than informing the public.
This is a very clear definition that is not beyond either a reasonable person’s interpretation, especially by an expert observer, or detailed scrutiny. It is based on several academic sources, other legislation and dictionary definitions. I commend it to the Assembly.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Minister for Transport, Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Land and Property Services, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and Minister for the Arts and Heritage) (4:07): I have circulated an amendment on the same issue. I believe that perhaps the pivotal, most significant part of the legislation in a way is the clarity of the definition of “party political”. The government does agree in part with Mr Seselja’s definition of “party political”.
But we, I have to say, do have a concern that there is room for ambiguity in the definition and we believe that a simpler, less ambiguous definition that meets the purpose and intent of “party political” would be preferred. The definition of “party political” in this act which the government proposes is:
party political—something is party political if it is designed to enhance a political party’s reputation rather than informing the public.
We believe that goes to the heart of the rationale and the objects of this particular bill. We believe it is unambiguous; we believe it is simple; we believe it can be easily
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video