Page 4038 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE (6.08): Madam Speaker, this Bill emphasises the distinction that members of the Government are going to have to try to make. They take a long time themselves to prepare legislation and then expect it to go through the parliament quickly. Mr Connolly likes to say, "Slow, slow, fast, fast". Yes, we know that "slow, slow, fast, fast" is their policy - slow, slow for them to prepare anything and get it to the Assembly, and then fast, fast through the Assembly so that nobody gets to look at it. If Mr Connolly, in his petulant and arrogant way, wants to do things in that way, then that is fine; but it is not necessarily going to work for the majority of members of this house. Madam Speaker, if a Bill has been presented and there has been a genuine reason for it to go through quickly, members of the Assembly have been prepared to support it. An example is the Crimes Bill on fighting.
The first part of the Ambulance Service Levy (Amendment) Bill is fine. I have no difficulty with that, Madam Speaker. The Government had the opportunity to remedy quickly the matter dealt with in clause 6. They chose not to do it quickly. They chose to take their time and have used retrospectivity as their method. I have stated in this house a number of times that I oppose retrospectivity. There are times, Madam Speaker, when retrospectivity in fact does not have a financial or legal impact on people and there is a role for it on those occasions. On this occasion there is a financial impact, and I indicate that when it comes to clause 6 I shall be voting against it.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (6.10), in reply: Madam Speaker, I thank members for support of the Bill in its main thrust. Clause 6, as members point out, does make the levy increase retrospective to an extent. I advise members that my information is that in fact the increase has already been passed on to the consumer, the contributor. So, if you were to deny that retrospective aspect, you could merely be providing to the companies involved something of a windfall, because they have already charged the higher fee. That has happened because we are generally in line with New South Wales and because the administrative arrangements for the ambulance levy and the ambulance fund are kept the same as those in New South Wales. I take the point about retrospectivity, but I offer the advice that you may not be protecting the people that you seek to protect in opposing clause 6 of the Bill.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Detail Stage
Clauses 1 to 5, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 6
MR HUMPHRIES (6.11): Madam Speaker, for the reasons outlined by Mrs Carnell, the Liberal Party will not be supporting this clause. It has already been referred to by others in this debate. Ms Follett made reference to what the health funds might do with this money if it is refunded to them or if it is not collected from them when it has already been collected from their members. I do not know what they will do with it; but the point, of course, is that either we stand against retrospective taxation or we do not.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .