Page 1155 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I have had passed to me the draft regulations. They were passed to me in the last couple of minutes. There is an attempt to define "betterment" in terms of the mathematical system that the Government is going to apply. I think we need to include a definition of "betterment" in the Act. I have put forward a proposal. I make it quite clear to the Government that if they have a better definition of "betterment" I would be quite happy to consider it. I think it is a well thought out definition of "betterment". I would presume that people like Mr Jensen would have very little difficulty with that particular definition.
Mr Jensen: It leaves out two important things, Michael.
MR MOORE: Mr Jensen indicates that it leaves out two important things. I would be delighted were he to move an amendment to my amendment to include those two things. What is left out at the moment is everything. We are using this word "betterment" and, clearly, the courts can go to the dictionaries and get no guidance whatsoever. It is ridiculous in the drafting of this Bill to change from the term "premium" and go to the term "betterment" without defining it.
There is a standard practice. We have had a commitment from almost everybody in this chamber to make our legislation more readable and easier to understand. If we are going to use the word "betterment", let us define it; let us make the legislation easier to understand. It is a quite normal practice; it is a quite easy thing to do. I commend this amendment to the house as a positive measure designed to improve the legislation.
MR CONNOLLY (12.17): Mr Speaker, Mr Moore makes a very important point in this proposed amendment, and that is the importance of what really is a central term, a central word, to this whole piece of legislation being defined. It may be that Mr Moore's definition of "betterment" is not the best definition of "betterment" and there may be a better definition of "betterment", but there ought to be a definition of "betterment".
The Government referred to a definition that appears in the draft regulations. Mr Moore has had the advantage of having the draft regulations for about four minutes. I have not had the advantage of seeing the draft regulations at all. It may well be that the definition of "betterment" there appearing is a better definition of "betterment". But, in principle, it ought to appear in the Act rather than people having to race to the regulations.
It is very disconcerting for anyone trying to work their way through legislation, particularly legislation that is, of necessity, somewhat complex, as any taxing Bill is, to find that the key terms are defined perhaps in the regulations rather than in the Act. The Opposition, I think, is inclined to support Mr Moore's amendment unless the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .