Page 458 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 24 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR DE DOMENICO (4.09): Madam Speaker, from the outset let me say that the Liberal Party will be opposing both Bills. Contrary to some of the things that we heard yesterday, we have had a chance to look at these Bills. We have read them, we have digested them and we have even gone far and wide and consulted members of the community who we think are being affected by this legislation. To be honest, Madam Speaker, if my fax machine had not been working hard over the weekend and if I had not mailed the Bills out the day after they were introduced into this house, they probably still would not have arrived at their destination. We will be opposing these Bills because of the mere fact that, on principle, we will not be put in a position of ramrodding legislation through, simple as it may appear to be, just to suit the whims of the Government.
The Business Franchise ("X" Videos) (Amendment) Bill is made up of basically three sections. The first is in response to a High Court decision that the current tax on X-rated videos may be interpreted as an excise, so the manner in which taxation is charged will be changed through this Bill. The previous advance fee is the area of dispute. This will now become a franchise fee. Under the Alliance Government the X-rated video industry was charged a tax. Actual stock and turnover were used as the basis of liability. "Actual stock" will now become an estimate to avoid the interpretation that an excise is being charged as the advance fee. The commissioner makes an estimate of the taxation liability by considering the size of the business, its stock and other fees being charged to similar business. This gives the commissioner wide discretionary powers to decide what the business will be taxed.
Madam Speaker, in my office on Monday it was said that it was not essential that this Bill go through on Wednesday. The Liberal Party is going to be opposing these Bills. Why are we debating these Bills so soon? During the last sitting I heard both Mr Moore and Ms Szuty say, "No, this is terrible. This is obnoxious. We cannot have this. We have not had time to see Bills". But all of a sudden they seem to have changed their minds. We saw the incredible situation this morning, Madam Speaker, where a private members Bill was declared urgent by this Government because it thought, "This is such an urgent Bill that we have to debate it straightaway". Yet we are here expected to make decisions on legislation which, simple as it may appear to be, will affect a great part of the community. The Opposition will not allow that to happen.
There are other parts of the Bill too. One is the amendment of the definition of "wholesale value". The present definition allows wholesale value to be assessed minus Commonwealth duty. This Bill changes the definition so that the Commonwealth taxes and duty are included in the wholesale value. The third part of the Bill expands the net of people to be included in an assessment of fitness and propriety when an application is made for a licence. At present corporate bodies - including directors, secretaries and officers of the company - must satisfy certain standards of fitness and propriety to be granted a licence. The cost of police checks is borne by those seeking the licence. The Bill proposes to expand the definition to include influential people such as major shareholders. In fact, Madam Speaker, the requirements are no different from those which currently must be met in the liquor industry. According to the Revenue Office, there will be no financial implications.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .