Page 3593 - Week 12 - Thursday, 19 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Nevertheless, they come within the categories set out in the Bill as it presently stands; that is, they can say that they were compulsorily transferred by their department - be it Civil Aviation, Foreign Affairs or Defence - 15 or 20 years ago, and that they have maintained a residence in the Territory and have maintained their position of being on transfer or on very long-term posting. Occasionally, as we all know, they come back for six months, settle the children into boarding school and go again.
As I said earlier, I am in no way criticising that lifestyle. It is a very difficult lifestyle for many of them. But, if this tax is to be applied equitably, it is the Rally's view that, after they have been absent for a period of five years and have not been present in the residence for two continuous years in that period, they should pay this impost. It is not a great sum of money, but they have the advantage over that five-year period of rent throughout that time.
In other words, transferred though they be, the Rally takes the view that the word "compelling" will create great difficulty for the commissioner if, one might say, a compliant department arms its long-term, overseas-serving or interstate-living staff with a letter saying that there are very good and compelling reasons why they go abroad. What can the commissioner then do in exercising his discretion? In my view, the provision needs to be tightened up. The provision needs to give the Commissioner more discretion. And I accept the fact that that may result in, to some extent, more revenue falling due under this Act.
I do not accept the arguments that this would necessarily create a hardship for those people who are on long-term, almost permanent postings. Nevertheless, even with the amendment drawn the way that the Rally has drawn it, the commissioner is still left an out discretion on the basis of compassionate grounds or, as the amendment says, if the owner "has a compelling reason for not occupying the parcel". So, there is still discretion, but the discretion is being narrowed for the commissioner. We support the notion that if the tax is to be applied it should be applied equitably, and it should not exempt the very long-term absentee landlords.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (5.49): The Government is not opposed to Mr Collaery's amendment, but I think we have to point out a couple of fascinating facts about it. The first is that Mr Collaery, having opposed the Bill, is now, in fact, tightening it up by virtue of moving this amendment.
Mr Collaery: What is wrong with that?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .