Written evidence to be reported to the House
Political Parties and Elections Bill
12:00 pm
Lisa Klein: Schedule 1 and clause 1, with one exception, replicate the current investigative or monitoring powers. Those powers enable us to request documents and obtain explanations from regulated entities, such as political parties, third parties and regulated donees. The current powers under PPERA also provide for us, in our monitoring role, to enter premises on notice to inspect documents relating to financial information. That is limited at present to political parties, third parties and permitted participants in the context of a referendum. That is replicated in the Bill, with the one exception that the ability to enter premises upon reasonable notice is extended to all other regulated entities. The provision reflects the current commission role in terms of monitoring and inspecting the party finance regime. It provides the type of powers that one would anticipate having in any inspectorate-type monitoring authority.
Given that the Bill also clarifies and extends the commission’s role as a regulator, paragraph 2 of the schedule refers to the powers that we would have in the event that we were wearing our investigative hat. It is subject to the caveat that there is reasonable suspicion that a breach has occurred. We are then into the realm not of monitoring, not of inspecting, but of investigating. In that context, the law is broader in that it enables us to obtain information and documents, and to have representatives of entities or anyone who may have information relevant to the allegations attend for interview.
The Bill also provides for the commission to obtain a warrant to enter premises to seize documents. In discussions with MOJ officials, what I wanted, given my prior experience as a regulator of party and election finance, was a mechanism so that if we issued a notice and it was not voluntarily complied with, there would be some way for us to enforce it. There are different ways in which that can occur. The one selected in the Bill is the ability to seek, through a justice of the peace, a warrant for entry. In my home jurisdiction it was handled through a notice that would be issued if there was a lack of compliance, and that would be through the judicial process. We would put the arguments to the court as to why there should be an order compelling compliance with that notice, and if that court order was not adhered to, the individual or entity would be held in contempt of court. There are two different avenues and one has been chosen. If there is a preferred alternative, I am sure that we would be able to work with that.