Page 2780 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 29 June 2011

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


Let us remember that this bill was presented without even an explanatory statement, let alone any human rights analysis. How can the Greens have any credibility on their claim that they believe human rights analysis is essential in the passage of laws in this place when they have done no such analysis themselves, when the proposer of the bill has done no such analysis himself, and when the Greens believe that this bill should be passed today? Their credibility is in tatters if they argue for human rights analysis in this context. Let us read section 25 of the Human Rights Act again, just to make it clear:

No-one may be held guilty of a criminal offence because of conduct that was not a criminal offence under Territory law when it was engaged in.

That is exactly what the sections proposed in Mr Smyth’s bill do. They create retrospective criminal offences.

These are real and serious questions. There are a range of other issues of significant concern for the government in the operation of this bill. It is clear to us that there is a strong argument that it would be relatively easy for donors to find ways to give money to political parties that do not fall within the definition of “gift”, as outlined in Mr Smyth’s bill, such as payments to attend functions or other events. There is a risk with these offences that they would not be effective if people giving money were able to devise payments that simply did not fall within the definition of “gift”.

The government also has concerns about proposed section 221C. It would appear that it is intended to apply to accumulated payments over $49,500 that are approaching the $50,000 threshold, which is a very narrow window of opportunity. But the intention is hard to be clear about because there is no explanatory statement to the bill.

In conclusion, the government strongly opposes this bill. It is unnecessary, it is based on rumour and innuendo, it is poorly drafted, it has no justification in fact, it pre-empts the outcome of a significant and longstanding Assembly inquiry, it has no human rights analysis, it is in breach of a fundamental principle of the Human Rights Act, and it proposes retrospective criminal penalties.

This is no way to make laws. This is no way to engage in the serious question of campaign finance reform. I am not surprised that the Liberals proposed this bill; we expect that from them. But it is absolutely appalling that the other party in this place that always attempts to apply the highest standards when it comes to the analysis and justification for bills from this government, that demands detailed human rights analysis, explanation of the engagement of rights from every government bill, is not prepared to apply the same standard to the Liberal Party or to their own legislation, or to their own political position. It is hypocritical, it is completely unjustified, and this bill should not be passed today.

MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (10.50): For the information of members I would like to correct a comment that the attorney made. The Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety inquiry into campaign finance reform did begin on 11 November. Invitations for submissions were sent out. I have just checked, because I knew that the


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