2854 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Wednesday 18 October 2006 ______ Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Joseph Aquilina) took the chair at 10.00 a.m. Mr Speaker offered the Prayer. Mr SPEAKER: I acknowledge the Gadigal clan of the Eora nation and its elders and thank them for their custodianship of country. CRIMES (APPEAL AND REVIEW) AMENDMENT (DOUBLE JEOPARDY) BILL CRIMES (APPEAL AND REVIEW) AMENDMENT (DNA REVIEW PANEL) BILL Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bills without amendment. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Bills: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders Motion, by leave, by Mr Matt Brown agreed to: That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit the resumption of the adjourned debate and passage through all remaining stages forthwith of the Election Funding Amendment Bill and the introduction and passage through all stages of the Passenger Transport Amendment Bill. ELECTION FUNDING AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 17 October 2006. Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.04 a.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose this legislation, but I say again, as I said last night, that the way in which legislation is being managed in this place leaves a lot to be desired. I am grateful to the Premier and his staff for briefing me on the Election Funding Amendment Bill on Monday so that I could at least brief the shadow ministry in the party room on Tuesday. The Liberal Party and The Nationals at least had a chance to consider the intent of the bill but, regrettably, were not able to see a draft bill until yesterday afternoon. In relation to the Passenger Transport Amendment Bill, the Opposition was not afforded that courtesy, nor has it seen a second reading speech or a bill. As I said last night, it is not good government. It is all about making sausages, and one hopes one knows what is in those sausages. I commend the honourable member for Kiama for moving so eloquently and excellently the motion to suspend standing orders and basically to ensure that there is not proper accountability in this place. They say that the honourable member for Kiama is nobody's fool but I am sure that some day someone will adopt him. The Opposition does not oppose the Election Funding Amendment Bill, which seeks in one instance to regularise the application of the State's election funding laws and in another instance to close a loophole in relation to disclosure matters. It is important in a system with various public funding and disclosure that steps are taken to ensure that both are working well. This is important legislation, which will ensure that the machinery of elections operates, and that machinery, of course, is the funding of candidates and the requirement that those candidates who contest an election make disclosure. The first issue I address relates to the regularising of changes in relation to the Constituency Fund. This legislation essentially seeks to ensure that the practice that has been occurring since this legislation was first introduced has sound legal and legislative footing, and that is a good thing. I understand that questions were 18 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2855 raised about some claims submitted by a minor party from the upper House. The Electoral Commissioner sought advice and that advice raised question marks and queries about the existing legislative basis for the provision of funding on the basis that had been proposed, and had been happening previously. This amendment seeks to ensure that what was intended by the drafters of the original legislation is allowed by the current legislation. The second issue provides that in cases where a person has failed to disclose political donations or electoral expenditure in accordance with the Act, the Election Funding Authority may require a third party to provide the information if it believes the third party has that information. From time to time with electoral legislation, I suppose much like tax legislation, some people are able to ensure that the intent and purpose of the legislation is perhaps subverted, not in an illegal way but in a way that was not envisaged by those who drafted the original legislation. This is one such case, as I understand it. In the last State election campaign and subsequently in a number of local government campaigns, a number of entities across the political spectrum have sought to use what might be described as a device to avoid having to make disclosure. Or, they have sought to use a device that failed to enable the Election Funding Authority to make the appropriate inquiries in order to determine who was responsible for the donations, which I think in most instances were advertising. As I indicated, the Opposition is very happy to continue to support strong disclosure laws in this State and has no concern with that issue. However, I will raise a subsidiary but related issue. As I said during the last sitting week, I am grateful that we now have an Electoral Commissioner who is seeking to bring the administration of elections in this State into the current century, which is only fitting in the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of this place. As was demonstrated in the amendments to the Parliamentary Elections and Electorates Act, and these amendments before us today, the Electoral Commissioner has been proactive. What concerns me, though, is one other glaring omission in relation to the disclosure of political donations in this State, which this legislation does not address. Previously in the House I referred to the donations connected to the election of the Willoughby mayor at the last election. There is an enormous loophole. A candidate for local government office who holds a function in the lead-up to a local government election at which money is raised expressly stated for the purpose of assisting that person's attempts to obtain office does not have to disclose that until the time of the next council or local government election. In other words, there is a glaring loophole in relation to the application of disclosure when it comes to local government. The loophole enables a candidate to raise money in the time period leading up to one election but that candidate does not have to declare it until the time period for the second election and only then if the person is a candidate at the second election. The purpose of political disclosure is so that people are able to understand who is in receipt of donations and from whence those donations have come. Political disclosure is part of the transparency that we support within our electoral system. However, at the last Willoughby mayoral election, clearly no transparency was available. Despite funds having been raised expressly for supporting a candidate for the mayoralty of Willoughby, there was no disclosure after that election was over, when other candidates were required to disclose. There may never be disclosure of who went to the function, who donated and how much, if that current incumbent decides not to contest the next Willoughby mayoral election. Clearly that is against the spirit of political disclosure legislation. I have been in communication with the election funding authority about the issue. I also have raised the issue in the context of ICAC's review into corruption risks in New South Wales' development approval processes, which, of course, is one of the main purposes of local government. I regret that the election funding authority has advised me that this is the law and the way it operates and there is no intention to change it. The only disappointment I have about this legislation is its failure to address that glaring oversight on disclosure laws applying at the local government level, an oversight that does not apply to disclosure at a State government level, an oversight that, in my view, should not apply to a local government election. I urge the State Electoral Commissioner to apply the same vigour in closing that loophole that he sought to bring to these two issues today or the issues that were raised during debate on the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Bill, which was before the Parliament during the last session. I thank the Premier's Department and the Premier's staff for the courtesy of the briefing on Monday and for giving me a copy of the draft bill yesterday. I indicate that the Opposition will not oppose the bill. Mr MATT BROWN (Kiama—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.13 a.m.], in reply: I am pleased that the Opposition supports the bill. The Government wants to see a national response in order to address the concerns 2856 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 October 2006 raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The New South Wales Government has written to the Prime Minister with respect to those matters but has yet to receive a reply. I commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages. PASSENGER TRANSPORT AMENDMENT BILL Bill introduced and read a first time. Second Reading Mr MATT BROWN (Kiama—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.15 a.m.], on behalf of Mr John Watkins: I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Passenger Transport Act 1990 to enable the accreditation of incorporated associations and groups of two or more persons, who may be partners, as operators of public passenger services. The bill will also validate accreditation of these associations and partnerships in the past, as well as any contracts entered into with the Director General of the Ministry of Transport for the provision of regular bus services by associations and partnerships.