Page 2752 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 6 June 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
discussion. It is, therefore, in the government’s view, completely inappropriate for this bill to be listed for debate so soon after the issues of campaign finance and expenditure have been debated thoroughly and decided upon in this place.
Of course there is the further thoroughly objectionable component of Mr Smyth’s bill that attempts to retrospectively impose a criminal liability on people or entities in the territory. I will re-examine the circumstances in which this legislation came before the Assembly.
In his presentation speech Mr Smyth clearly sought to hunt down and punish a particular prospective political donation. He was not explicit about either his quarry or the specific conduct to which he obviously took and apparently still takes offence. While subsequent discussion did reveal more of Mr Smyth’s intent, it was necessary at the time of presentation to glean some of it from what Mr Smyth said when he was tabling his bill, which was not accompanied, I should add, by an explanatory statement. Mr Smyth said:
The basis for this bill arises from the concerns raised by members of the community with me about a certain organisation which, it is understood, could be considering arranging to make a substantial donation to a political party operating in the ACT. The manner of this donation is reputed to be of such a significant size, and to be contemplated in such a way, as to raise the concern that it is a deliberate attempt to circumvent the inquiry into campaign finance reform, which is being conducted by the justice and community safety committee of this Assembly.
In the lead-up to the prospect of long-term campaign finance reform following the report of the justice and community safety committee, this bill has a very simple objective. It is to ensure that donations which are made to political parties in the ACT do not exceed $50,000. It includes situations where the same source, be this an individual or an organisation, provides a number of donations which aggregate to $50,000.
… We see this as an interim measure, until such time as the Assembly’s committee report has been dealt with by this place.
The Assembly committee’s report has been dealt with by this place, and the Assembly has adopted an act accordingly. If this bill was to proceed to passage on the basis of Mr Smyth’s shallow presentation, it would be an exploitation of the goodwill and proper processes of this Assembly and it would make a mockery of the changes that this Assembly has just concluded debate on.
The committee’s report has been dealt with by this Assembly and the legislation has been passed. That ship has sailed, Mr Smyth. When the bill was presented it was already anticipated that the recommendations of the inquiry into campaign funding would include the issue of capping political donations, and that issue has been addressed. The issue was debated extensively on 10 May this year, yet Mr Smyth seeks to raise it again today.
The government is deeply concerned about the retrospective nature of this legislation, which attempts to create offences, with significant penalties, to apply from the date of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video