Page 459 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 24 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The other point that needs to be made in respect of this Bill, and the other Bills as well, is that the High Court's final verdict is still pending. Until we know exactly what the High Court is going to say, surely we should put these Bills out for community consultation to make sure that they are all hunky-dory before we get up and debate them. But what does this Government do? It brings them in one week and wants to get them through the next week. For that reason the Liberal Party will be opposing the Business Franchise ("X" Videos) (Amendment) Bill.
Let us have a look at the Stamp Duties and Taxes (Amendment) Bill. I had a look at the Bill and saw that car dealers will no longer be liable to pay stamp duty on new cars and that the buyer will be liable. Dealers will still be liable when trading in used cars. Dealers can still pay duty on new cars as a service to customers, but are no longer liable under the Act. The Bill has been proposed in response to the High Court ruling regarding the ACT's ability to charge excise tax. The Bill also clarifies the definition of "trading stock". This appears to be a simple and sensible change. There are no financial consequences, and we are told that the legislation will be effective from 1 April.
The Liberal Party consulted the Motor Traders Association, and Mr Livingston said, "On what has been explained to me over the telephone, it appears that this Bill is okay. However, I have not had a look at it. I will have a look at it and let you know". We sent him a copy of the Bill and we rang him back and said, "Mr Livingston, what do you think of the Bill?". He said, "I am terribly sorry; I got it only on Monday and you are now expecting me to make a decision. I can't, because I have other things to do with my time, but it appears to be okay". Until such time as the Liberal Party is satisfied that both of these Bills are okay and the people that are affected by them are happy, we will not be supporting them.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (4.15), in reply: Members are aware that I will close the debate. Madam Speaker, I have listened very carefully to what Mr De Domenico has had to say about these two Bills. I have heard Mr De Domenico say that he has read them both. I have heard Mr De Domenico say that he has been briefed on them. I have heard Mr De Domenico say that he has consulted with industry who would have an interest in these Bills and that they have responded that as far as they are aware they appear to be all right. Madam Speaker, I cannot believe, in those circumstances, that Mr De Domenico therefore continues to oppose the Bills. That is a ludicrous position. Both Bills are relatively straightforward. They are being put forward in response to the High Court decision of October last year in relation to the question of whether the ACT could levy an excise.
Madam Speaker, just for the benefit of members opposite I would say that the High Court decided to hear the case in two parts. The first part was: Could the ACT levy an excise? I am putting this very simply; I am not a lawyer. That part of the case has been heard, and the answer was no, the ACT cannot levy an excise. The second part of the question, which the High Court is yet to consider, as Mr De Domenico says, is: Does the X-rated videos business franchise as it currently stands constitute an excise? That part of the case has yet to be heard, Madam Speaker, but I would put it to members that before that part is heard it is only prudent for any government to amend any legislation of a revenue nature so that it could not be interpreted as an excise. We have a duty to protect the revenue base of this Territory and I believe that any revenue legislation which has any doubt surrounding its constitutional soundness should be amended as a matter of urgency.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .