HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-10-16 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ELECTORAL (FUNDING, EXPENDITURE AND DISCLOSURE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 October 2013.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (11:07): I rise to continue the remarks I commenced yesterday afternoon in indicating Liberal Party support for the second reading of the bill. The Liberal Party's position, as I indicated, was that we supported the commencement of this being delayed until 2018 and the government's position, as reflected in the House of Assembly debate and voting, is that they now accept the logic of that particular argument.

There are two principal reasons. I touched on one which was at a time when we are looking at a billion dollar deficit and have just moved past a financial year where we had a deficit of about $1.2 billion, we are clearly confronting a budget crisis. At a time when we are cutting funding to hospices, community health programs, school programs and a range of important programs right across the board, to be saying to the people of South Australia that a higher priority to our funding is to fund political parties for an election campaign and that that is a higher priority than the non-hospital based services within health, for example, or the funding of hospices or the funding of a paediatric ward at Modbury or the funding of obstetric services at Millicent, we think is not likely to attract too much support from the community. That is one reason.

The second reason is a more technical and administrative reason for some parties. For our party (and other representatives can speak on behalf of their own parties) the complexity of the legislation to be imposed on candidates and political parties in the future will be a quantum step above the level of complexity that already exists at the moment. The increasing requirements for what is in the end weekly reporting of contributions and particular issues such as the aggregation of donations in a financial year above a level of $5,000 will make it extraordinarily complex for parties which are decentralised, such as the Liberal Party.

If I can give you an example: in the Liberal Party we have up to a couple of hundred of branches and bodies—it is not just branches; it includes state electorate committees and federal electorate committees as well—that conduct their own finances and administration and also run their own cheque accounts and investment accounts as well, and some of their funds are locked up in investment accounts. In those particular circumstances, under the current arrangements a particular person who might make a donation to the Ceduna branch of the Liberal Party for $2,000, then makes a donation to the City of Adelaide branch of the Liberal Party for $2,000, and then makes a donation to the Naracoorte branch of the Liberal Party for $2,000 at three-monthly intervals through a financial year, under the proposed terms of this legislation will go above the $5,000 disclosure level. Under the current arrangements, clearly a donation of $2,000 to each of those branches accounted for during the financial year does not have to be disclosed.

Under our current structural arrangements, the person who would ultimately be sent to gaol if there is an offence (our state director) is not in a position of knowing that a donation is being given by a person to the Ceduna branch in July of the year, then a donation to the City of Adelaide branch in September of the year, and then a donation to the Naracoorte branch in March of the following year, but still in the same financial year. The only way that could potentially be known is when the end of year financial accounts are produced in July at the end of the financial year when there is currently some centralised collection of that sort of information.

From our discussions with Attorney-General Rau, the Labor Party's position is centralised where that sort of circumstance is either immediately known or readily accessible to the central headquarters of the Labor Party. That does not exist within the current arrangements of the Liberal Party.

When you move to a position of anything more regular than annual accountability of six-monthly reporting, then three-monthly reporting and, just before the election period, weekly reporting, then I suspect it is physically impossible to keep our state director out of gaol if we are to have this particular arrangement implemented in the proposed time frame. This will be an issue we will have to work our way through if the legislation passes for 2018. We will have to move to a system either akin to the Labor Party's or much closer to the Labor Party's which is centralised accounts or some centralised accessibility of accounts. In relation to the administrative arrangements, we will have a position where it is impossible under our current arrangements in the Liberal Party to be aware of when someone goes above that particular aggregate figure.

There is additional complexity as well—and I guess we will tease this out in the committee stages—in relation to issues such as auctions, and there are new accountability arrangements in relation to that. As I understand it (this needs to be clarified), if someone donates an auction item that counts against the $5,000 donation as well, so you have the issue of determining the value of an auction item. Some things are relatively clear in terms of what the value might be, but there might be a week's stay at someone's beach house, accommodation house or whatever it might happen to be, where they have not established a market value for that.

Someone will have to, in essence, value the auction item and then see whether that is enough to take someone above. If someone has donated $3,000 and then donated for an auction a week's stay in my house on Kangaroo Island, what is the value of that and does that take it above $5,000 in aggregate terms over a 12-month period? So, there are some complexities in relation to all that.

There will need to be not only centralised record keeping of donations, for which I assume the Labor Party will have a more accessible model, but I suspect that the Labor Party, from my discussions with some Labor members, does not record currently the accepted value of donations for auctions, for example. Somehow all parties, if my reading of the legislation is correct, will have to come to administrative arrangements that are acceptable within the terms of these provisions as well.

What I am not yet clear on (and I guess the committee stages will provide us with an answer) is whether someone who bids at an auction, as many of us have attended, for a dinner for two with the Premier of South Australia and pays $2,000 for it, is that a donation and will it be included in the $5,000? I am not clear in relation to that, but if it is that will add another degree of complexity to all parties in relation to whether or not you go above this $5,000 level over a 12-month period.

Whilst a key reason for not supporting its starting in 2014 is clearly the budget crisis we are confronting (and I have outlined that), the second reason is the complexity that is required, with significant penalties for your responsible officer if you breach provisions of the disclosure requirements. Clearly, everyone will have to get their head set around what these arrangements mean for things that have been long-accepted practice within political parties and in terms of fundraising for candidates and for political parties. That is going to require information, it is going to require training of volunteers, it is going to require training of admin officers, and it is also going to require training of Electoral Commission staff.

I think the member for Davenport outlined the discussions he had with the New South Wales Electoral Commissioner in relation to the extensive training that was required in New South Wales and what will be required in South Australia for the Electoral Commission staff as well. I have not had a discussion with the Electoral Commissioner in South Australia, but I would be amazed if her view was not that this is a significant issue for her and her staff and that it would be an enormous task if the parliament were to say in October of 2013, 'You are to implement straightaway the provisions of this legislation, and you are going to be the ones answering all these sorts of questions coming from candidates and political parties, prior to the March 2014 election.'

I have only highlighted two or three examples of the complexity of the legislation which I suspect not too many people in this chamber, or perhaps even in the other chamber, have got their head set around in terms of what, in the end, the implications will be when it is implemented. As I said, those who should concentrate their attention the most will be the responsible officers in the political parties because they are the ones the penalties will fall upon and they are the ones, in the end, who might end up in gaol for significant breaches of the new requirements.

Another aspect of the legislation is a threshold of 4 per cent. As the member for Davenport outlined, this is a pretty uniform threshold around the nation. There has been, as a result of amendments moved by the member for Davenport, some agreement between the government and the opposition in relation to the special circumstances of members of parliament who have been elected in the past on less than 4 per cent of the vote, in terms of entitlement to reimbursement.

Amendments moved by the member for Davenport to change the dollar per vote arrangements were also, as I understand it, successful in the House of Assembly debates so that the arrangements that are before us today are closer to the federal funding arrangements, although not exactly the same, than the original proposal from the Labor government in South Australia.

The next area on which, originally, there was a significant difference of opinion—but it has now been, mercifully, resolved (and this perhaps says as much as anything about the Labor Party's state of mind as it enters the 2014 election)—is that the government was seeking to cap the maximum payments under the legislation to 35 per cent of the primary vote. So, if a party polled more than 35 per cent of the vote—if it polled 45 per cent of the vote, it would not get 45 per cent worth of the entitlements under public funding—it would be capped at the 35 per cent level. The Liberal Party strongly opposed that.

Certainly, the arrangements in the commonwealth are that, if you get 40 per cent or 45 per cent of the vote, you are not capped at 35 per cent. Our understanding is that, in most if not all the other jurisdictions, that is the same as well, so the government changed its original position and my advice is they have now accepted the general arrangements that occur around the nation.

The next issue is in relation to the disclosure requirements. The current disclosure requirements federally are $12,400. Essentially, if you donate up to $12,400, you do not have to disclose. I would have to say that, whilst this is a position that has been adopted by both federal Labor and federal Liberal, I think, my personal view has always been that that has been too high a disclosure level, and I am pleased to see that the government and the Liberal Party in South Australia have supported the reduction of that disclosure level to $5,000. So, that is certainly a stronger disclosure regime. As I indicated earlier, the closer you get to an election, the more regular is the required reporting on that provision, to the stage where it gets to weekly.

Given that we do have, potentially, up until 2018 the opportunity to further refine this legislation, whoever is in government after 2014, this is one of the issues I suspect will need closer consideration because, in the middle of a four-week election campaign, the capacity for mistakes to occur, with potentially significant penalties, are just enormous.

Many of us have been involved in our political parties during the four weeks of the election campaign, and by that I mean within the central administration, the fundraising, the accountability, etc. They are not places for cool, calm and considered decision-making. They are times of frenetic activity in political parties. I suspect that it is the same in minor parties and for Independent candidates as well; I guess less so because you potentially have less complexity.

For those parties, for example, such as the Greens and Family First, which are running 47 candidates all over the place, together with the Legislative Council team, your responsible officer is going to be responsible for whatever it is that each of those doing and taking in donations or taking in auction items. Your responsible officer is the one who will go to gaol if two or three of those take you above the disclosure limits and you have not reported them within the seven days—no, I do not think they would go to gaol for not reporting them within seven days; I would need to check what the penalties are. But there will be clearly penalties for some of the offences; I guess we will need to tease this out in relation to it, but clearly there would be some penalties that relate to breaches of those provisions.

This whole notion that there is some easy mechanism during the frenetic period of a four-week campaign to be making sure that no mistakes occur on a seven-day regular period is, to use the words of Sir Humphrey, 'a courageous assumption, a courageous decision', I think, by those who have drafted the legislation. At this stage, the government is proposing it, and at this stage the Liberal Party is supporting it, and it is likely that the legislation in this form will pass.

I think that one of the other advantages of having it delayed until 2018 is that whoever is elected in 2014 will have the capacity, prior to the start-up of the legislation in 2015, to reflect on it in the cool, calm light of day, have a look at what they have just been through in an election period and then decide whether or not the parliament will agree to some tweaking of the legislation. I say that not with the authority of the Liberal Party. It is not the Liberal Party's position; it is just a personal reflection based on personal experience of political parties in election campaigns over a long period of time.

It is not just that area; I think that there are other aspects of this legislation about which, on mature reflection, and with the recent experience of an election campaign, people might say, 'If this had actually applied during this campaign, we would have had to have done this, this and this within this time frame. How would we have done it and, if we have to do it in 2018, how we will achieve it?'

If you can find a way of achieving it, great, but in the end I suspect there will be some examples where both major parties are going to say that in the mature light of day, whilst parliamentary counsel, ministerial staffers, others and state secretaries who draft this legislation thought that it would work okay, when you actually look at the practicalities, it is not as easy as perhaps some have envisaged it being in terms of practical operation. I am not going to delay the second reading by going through many other examples, but many others spring to mind in terms of potential issues. I think it is a third reason why the position that is being put to the house of not implementing it for 2014 but in 2018 makes so much sense.

The next issue of significance within the legislation is placing a restriction on the ticket price for political events where it is advertised that people are going to get access to a member of parliament, a minister or their staff. The Liberal Party is supporting that particular restriction. As Attorney-General Rau said, it is one of the trade-offs that the public will get in terms of greater transparency and accountability for the cost of funding political parties through public funding.

Again, there are a whole series of questions which I will not raise at the second reading in relation to this particular issue, but given the work a number of members of this house have done, including myself, in terms of this issue as it relates to access to current Labor government ministers and the reasons why donors have indicated why they sought access, it is clearly a needed reform. I would be surprised whether any of the non-government members in this chamber would oppose the direction of this change and the need for this particular change. As I said, I think the work through FOI and other means that a number of members in this chamber have done over the last few years in relation to past circumstances indicates there is a crying need for some restriction in relation to this particular aspect of the law.

One of the issues that I had not understood in terms of our considerable briefings but that the member for Davenport has put on the public record, and I do not see that it has been rebutted by the government but I guess we will leave that for a confirmation from the government, is that he has indicated that if someone does pay $500 or $300 or whatever it is towards a political dinner or lunch where it is advertised that a member of parliament is going to be, that $300 or $500 must be counted towards the $5,000 aggregate donation disclosure limit.

Obviously, that adds another degree of complexity because I am not sure what the accountability arrangements are within the Labor Party but over the years some of the discussions I have had with Labor members indicate—and I do not know whether it is still current practice, and it is certainly the same in the Liberal Party—if you are attending a $300 or $250 lunch or dinner, you can pay by credit card if you want to, you can pay by cheque if you want to, but you can also pay by cash if you want to. Because it is beneath the current disclosure limits of $12,500 it will still be below the disclosure limit of $5,000 under this. In many cases branches would not record by way of an official receipt or invoice the name, address and contact details of the person who provided it. There might be a name written down somewhere, you know, Fred Smith, or whatever, on a list, but that certainly would not be kept and forwarded and recorded in some sort of central registry in the Liberal Party as to someone who has paid $250 or $300 by way of cash to attend a lunch or a dinner.

As I said, from my past discussions with members of the Labor Party that was certainly the arrangement in the Labor Party as well. That might have changed in recent times, I do not know, but the situation is that if the member for Davenport is correct that the $250 or $300 counts towards the $5,000 then somehow your accounting arrangements are going to have to take into account a straight out donation, and not only the true market value of the auction item you have donated to a party in the 12-month period but also the total value of lunches and dinners that you might have gone to—I am assuming above the level of $200 but we need to clarify that with the minister—because all of those three elements over a 12-month period need to be aggregated and as soon as you go above $5,000 you need to declare it at the next disclosure point.

If during an election period someone is teetering on $4,900 and therefore does not have to disclose but then goes to a dinner in Whyalla and pays $250 to talk to the parliamentary leader of Family First, the shadow minister for health, or whoever it happens to be, that $250 will take you above the level of $5,000 and within a week your account keeping needs to be able to disclose that to the electoral commissioner.

The central repository of all information is going to have to have all of that information literally on a daily basis with instant access, which means that all of our volunteers—and these are not paid people—who are organising fundraising functions, etc., across the state need to have the same sense of urgency as a full-time paid public employee might have in terms of disclosure and accountability requirements. As they take the auction item there will need to be a valuation and then it will need to be forwarded quickly through to the responsible officer to see whether or not it takes you above $5,000.

As you take a $250 cash donation from somebody, it will have to be disclosed with enough detail so that if the Ceduna branch of the Liberal Party takes $250 from Dennis Smith, that it is the same Dennis Smith with the same address or the same identifier who has previously donated in two or three other sections of the Liberal Party over the previous 12 months which will take Dennis Smith above the $5,000 limit. So, just sending 'Dennis Smith, $250' will not be sufficient in terms of meeting the disclosure requirements for the responsible officer and the political party. Again, another element of the complexity of the legislation.

For some offences, as I inferred earlier, the penalty is up to 20 times the amount of overexpenditure. The other element in this is that there are expenditure caps within the funding system, or within the legislation. Essentially, there is an expenditure cap of $75,000 per state electorate and if you multiply that by 47 you get close to the $3.5 million. There is an expenditure cap of $500,000 for parties contesting the upper house, and there are some complex elements of that. So, in ballpark terms, there is an expenditure cap for the bigger parties of about $4 million in terms of what you can spend as a political party in the period from the July prior to the March election date, essentially 8½ to nine months during that particular period.

There are some other tweaks to that which mean that you can, with the approval of candidates and various other approvals, spend, in some circumstances, up to $100,000. The big parties and the marginal seats, you would imagine, would be seeking to comply with those arrangements to allow spending of up to $100,000 in the more marginal seats. There are some tweaks which allow you to reduce the expenditure in other seats. I am not entirely clear how low you can actually go, but there are certainly arrangements where you can take it down to $40,000. There is a minimum requirement of $40,000, and I think you can only go lower than the $40,000 if the candidate agrees. I must confess that my understanding of how these particular provisions work is not perfect. It is one of the areas in the committee stages on which I will be seeking clarification from the minister.

It certainly does provide some flexibility in all the cases to prevent party headquarters from doing over candidates that they do not particularly like. It does require the agreement of the candidate to go below a certain figure having to be spent in terms of their expenditure cap in their particular electorate. If you overspend by $1,000, the penalty is twenty times that amount, so you are penalised $20,000 for every $1,000 overexpenditure and that comes off your payment. You do not get paid and then you are penalised; it is just netted off your payment.

The other key feature of this is that it is an opt-in system. It is a little akin to the United States system, where if a party wants public funding it has to opt in at a certain period of time a couple of years out. If you do not want public funding, then you can go your own way in relation to some aspects of the legislation. If you are confident enough, for example, if you are Clive Palmer or someone like that, you have plenty of money and you do not want to rely on public funding, then you do not have to opt in, and you can choose the set of circumstances in relation to which, for certain provisions of the act, you want to say, 'We will go it alone.'

There are other provisions of the legislation which will still apply, but it is a decision for the political parties to take as to whether they opt in or whether they do not. We understand the advice from the government is that this opt-in is an important legal principle to help get around some of the potential legal issues in relation to this type of legislation, some of which, as I indicated, are being tested in the High Court in New South Wales as we speak.

The final issue is the one I referred to briefly yesterday and I will not go over it again. It is the complicated area of third party expenditure. There are some complicated provisions in relation to that particular area. I think both the government and the opposition would argue that this is the best endeavour by this parliament to try to tackle this issue, but that it is imperfect. I do not think there is a perfect solution without impinging on the right of political expression or free speech by people in relation to their political views.

It is an area which I am sure will be tested by particular groups and I guess only time will tell as to whether solutions are found in other jurisdictions or in South Australia in relation to what might be seen by the media, the community and politicians as being abuses of the third party provisions in support of a particular party or candidate. With that, I indicate the Liberal Party's support for the second reading of the legislation.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (11:44): I thank the honourable member for the debate on this bill and look forward to the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I have indicated that the government on its priority list indicated that it wanted this legislation through this week. I have indicated to my whip, and I indicate now to the Legislative Council, that I am quite happy for this bill to be processed today, but I am not in a position to conclude the committee stage this morning. I have an engagement I cannot get out of in 10 minutes' time at 12 o'clock. I am quite happy to return to conclude the debate in the committee stage this evening and put it through. Up until halfway through my contribution I had been advised the Hon. Ms Bressington was moving an amendment—

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, I said up until halfway through my contribution, that is why the Hon. Mr Dawkins took me aside. Up until halfway through my contribution I had been advised the Hon. Ms Bressington was moving an amendment and that the government and the member for Davenport were having discussions in relation to the amendment. I had no idea what the amendment was about in relation to it. I have not had a chance to have a discussion with the member for Davenport, but I have had a quick note that evidently the Hon. Ms Bressington is not moving it and, anyway, the government and the opposition were not going to support it.

So, Mr Chairman, until my engagement at 12 o'clock, I am happy to continue with questions in relation to the early clauses of the bill, but I am flagging that at 12 o'clock, if the minister will not agree to continue and to conclude the debate this evening, I will move that we report progress. I do not think it is an unreasonable position to put. We only commenced the debate on this yesterday afternoon in the Legislative Council. There is agreement between the government and the opposition in relation to the passage of the bill evidently by this week, but now the minister is insisting that it be done today. I am happy to comply with that as well, but I am just not in a position to be in the chamber from 12 o'clock.

Can I ask at the outset whether the minister would prefer to have some general questions at clause 1 in relation to aspects of the legislation that were raised in the second reading? Normally, the minister replies to questions at the conclusion of the second reading speech. I noted that he did not do so in relation to questions that I put. What is his intention, given that he did not reply at the end of the second reading? Can I seek a response from the minister, under clause 1, as to what he intends to do in relation to the questions?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My position would be to pursue this legislation now, but given the commitments that the honourable member has, and given his indication that he is prepared to deal with the bill later today, we are happy to take general questions now and come back with those answers when we continue to deal with it later today.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thank the minister for his willingness to assist the passage of the legislation and I repeat the commitment. I have a general question, and I do not have the notes of the member for Davenport with me, but as I understood it the minister in this house was going to give, on behalf of the government and the Attorney-General, some verbal commitment in relation to regulations which the member for Davenport had indicated. I note the minister has not given that commitment at the close of the second reading. Obviously, he does not appear to have that commitment for clause 1. Is the minister intending to do what the member for Davenport has outlined to me he is meant to do on behalf of the Attorney-General? If he is, is he prepared to do that at this stage?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: No, Mr Chairman. What I propose is that the honourable member put on record his questions and we will come back with that information, and answers to his other questions, later today.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This particular question that I have just put is not a question for me; it is a discussion, as I understand it, between the Attorney-General and the member for Davenport and a commitment from the Attorney-General to the member for Davenport. The member for Davenport said to me we wouldn't be moving an amendment in this house because the Attorney-General had satisfied him that you would, on his behalf, give a commitment. If you are unwilling to do that then I will need to have a discussion with the member for Davenport, I guess, as to what our position should be. But as I understand it, this has been an agreed position between the Attorney-General and the member for Davenport.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that the information the honourable member is requesting has been taken into account in discussions between the government and the opposition and will be addressed through an amendment standing in my name, at 130Y, at clause 4, page 21, after line 42.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is that the Liberal Party is supporting the amendments that the government is moving. The minister is saying that he does not believe that, over and above the amendments, there is any verbal commitment in relation to regulations that Attorney-General Rau has given to the member for Davenport. That is not the advice the member for Davenport has given me. He is saying that the amendments are one thing, but the reason why we are not moving an amendment in this place in relation to some issue in relation to regulations is that the minister, on behalf of the Attorney-General and the government, was going to give a commitment on the issue.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My understanding is that a commitment on behalf of the government has been given to the member for Davenport. As I expressed earlier, I will address that issue when we come to consider the amendment to 130Y and I will give the explanation as to why that amendment has come about, and make some comments about regulations which have been agreed to between the government and the member for Davenport.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Is the minister now saying that in the debate on that amendment he will be giving the commitment on behalf of the Attorney-General?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My answer is yes.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That was a long-winded way to go about it. If the minister had been able to say yes earlier we could have expedited the last four minutes of discussion. I am not sure whether the minister wants me to repeat these questions, which I raised in the second reading. One of the issues I raised was the issue in relation to auctions and to seek further advice from the minister later today, and that is, in relation to auctions, is it firstly correct that the value of the auction item, one would assume above the threshold of $200, needs to be included in the $5,000 disclosure requirement? If that is the case, what is the government's advice to candidates and to parties in relation to the striking of a value for some auction items?

I gave an example of one where there might not be a readily identifiable value. I am sure the minister and the Hon. Mr Maher, who have both had experience of administration within parties, would know the length and breadth of variety of donations that supporters might give you for auction items over the years, but the example I gave was where there is not a market for your property at Kangaroo Island, because you have never rented it out before, but you have said to somebody, 'I'm prepared, during the Christmas holiday period, to give you a week's holiday at the Kangaroo Island beach house,' or whatever it happens to be. How does the Kangaroo Island branch of the Liberal Party (or Kangaroo Island branch equivalent of the Labor Party) immediately, on a seven-day basis, strike a value that is defensible with the Electoral Commission for that particular auction item, if it is included in the $5,000 (and that is certainly the way I read the contribution from the member for Davenport)? I think the minister is taking my questions on notice.

The other issue then in relation to auction items—and I gave the example of a dinner for two with the Premier being one of the auction items—is where someone pays $1,000, so it is less than the $5,000 disclosure limit. Most people would probably say the value of the food to be had between the Premier and the donor would be less than that, $100 or whatever it might happen to be. Is it the intention of the disclosure regime that the net value of the donation, in essence, has to be accounted for as part of the $5,000 disclosure regime being implemented?

Clearly again, as the minister and Hon. Mr Maher would know, if that is the case, it would certainly add a degree of complexity, particularly when we are talking about seven-day turnarounds during the four weeks of an election period. The minister in charge of the bill in this house has regaled me in the past with some examples of donation arrangements in relation to his own party, and he has probably chuckled at some of the examples I had in relation to mine, and neither need go on the public record. Suffice to say that the arrangements under the new disclosure regime for 2018 will place considerable additional complexity and requirements on the responsible officers in the political parties. In his case it will be the state secretary and in our case the state director of the Liberal Party. Given that I have to go to an engagement at 12, they are the general questions. The others I am happy to raise during the committee stage of the debate this evening.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT