Page 6258 - Week 19 - Tuesday, 17 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
If Mr Collaery's amendment is approved, there will be a plethora of partnerships and other working arrangements established just to avoid payroll tax. The Territory will lose significant revenue of at least $1m per annum and maybe more. The loss of revenue, Mr Speaker, is bad enough, but morally what Mr Collaery is doing is wrong. It is simply wrong to encourage tax avoidance; it is simply wrong to penalise honest taxpayers by making them pay for tax cheats; and it is simply wrong for a private member to attempt to interfere in the complex area of tax administration by attempting to foist on the Government amateurish and ill-conceived amendments to the tax laws which make the task for the Commissioner for ACT Revenue more difficult and in some cases impossible and which cause a loss of revenue.
Mr Speaker, clauses 3(f) and 3(g), clause 4, clause 5(a) and clause 6 propose inserting the words "prime motive" in substitution for the words which require the commissioner to prove a direct or indirect intent to avoid or evade tax. Mr Speaker, the ACT provisions parallel those of the other jurisdictions and use accepted anti-avoidance language. The "Collaery clarification", so called, will only confuse everyone and in the process make it virtually impossible for the commissioner to effectively use the provision to attack tax evasion. The proposal is yet another example of misguided interference in the complex and professional art of legislative drafting.
Finally, Mr Speaker, clause 5(b) is another attempt to clarify what does not seem to need clarifying. The words which are proposed to be added merely follow the commissioner's interpretation of the Act. Although no difficulties are known to arise for taxpayers, the words suggested by Mr Collaery could be advised to taxpayers by way of commissioner's rulings. This issue hardly calls for legislative action.
In summary, Mr Speaker, the Government does not support the Bill in whole or any part of it. It is an ill-conceived and amateurish interference, as I have said before, in a very complex area of law. It proposes to advantage tax cheats. It will disadvantage honest taxpayers. It will increase the complexity of some provisions, and it will certainly introduce unfamiliar terms into the legislation. Mr Speaker, I urge other members to reject this Bill, even if they feel that the amendments made in 1989 in some way disadvantage particular sectors of industry.
Mr Collaery: So, now you concede it.
MS FOLLETT: I know that some members do feel that way. Some members voted against it, Mr Collaery, in 1989. But it is simply not good enough for this Assembly to make legislation on the run at Mr Collaery's whim. We have seen before - today, minutes ago - the unintended effects of Mr Collaery's so-called clarification Bills. I urge all
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .