Page 2315 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 15 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Cornwell: Is that so?
MR KAINE: That is true. A year ago, when the tax was first introduced, the commissioner did send out notices with the rates notices that informed people of their obligations.
Mr Cornwell: In the same envelope.
MR KAINE: Yes, in the same envelope. But since then it has not been done. I believe that the Government has an obligation, if they impose a tax, first of all, to inform people that they are liable to pay this tax; secondly, to describe for them the circumstances under which they are obligated to pay it; and, thirdly, if they believe that they have grounds for an exemption, to explain to them the circumstances and the methodology for submitting an application for exemption. It is not good enough simply to publish the Act. In the good old days it was the fashion to say, "Ignorance is no argument; ignorance is no excuse under the law. If you do not know the law, we will cop you". It is an obligation of government, and this Government, of all governments, which so loudly proclaims itself as a consultative, open government, has an obligation to tell people about the law.
At the moment, the commissioner has no such obligation. He does not do it. This is a double-edged weapon. Sadly, I think it could easily be demonstrated that the Government is losing revenue by not doing this. There are many people who do not know that they are liable to this tax, and unless the Government tells them they are not going to know, and they are not going to come forward voluntarily and pay the tax. It can easily be argued that this is an amendment to the Act which would be to the Government's benefit. Since their whole objective is to tighten up the Act and increase their revenues, and in no circumstances to give anybody the benefit of the doubt, this is a case where they can really get in a few more taxpayers. I would have thought that Mr Connolly and his colleagues would have been only too happy to accept this amendment because it is to their advantage to do so.
The question of who pays the tax and who is liable for it in the circumstances is a matter of grave concern. I know that it is a matter of grave concern to Mr Moore because Mr Moore has said publicly that we should levy this tax on the rich. I was interested in his definition of the rich. It clearly is anybody who has a UCV greater than his or, alternatively, anybody who has a block of land bigger than his. Those are his two criteria for whether you are rich or not. If you have a block of land the size of his, you are not rich; and, if you have a UCV the same as his, you are not rich. But, if your UCV is bigger or your block of land is bigger, you are rich and you should be levied this tax. Mr Moore said that. I think he misunderstands the definition. Perhaps the commissioner could send him a notice with his next rates notice saying, "These are the conditions under which the tax is payable". That might help Mr Moore to get his thinking straight, apart from anything else, and it will be doing a great service to the community.
MR MOORE (10.16): I rise to clarify a point or two that Mr Kaine raised. The point where he is mistaken, where he is wrong, is that I did not refer to this Bill at all but suggested an extension of land tax.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .