Page 460 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 24 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
On 20 October last year in this Assembly Mr Kaine asked me a question in relation to the High Court case concerning X videos. Mr Kaine's question made it very clear that he understood that a decision on the X videos case by the High Court had implications for other taxes. Mr Kaine asked me at the time what I was going to do about those other taxes - this was on 20 October last year - and my reply to Mr Kaine was that we were giving very close attention to all of the ACT's revenue laws to ensure that they would not be subject to a constitutional challenge. The longer the delay in changing these laws, the greater is the risk of challenge to them. If such a challenge were to be successful, there would be a loss of revenue to this Territory; and the longer the delay, the greater the loss. I think that is putting it pretty bluntly. I consider that it would have been irresponsible, quite irresponsible, to delay the introduction of the amendments that are proposed in these Bills - and they are straightforward, I would remind members.
Mr Humphries: But you did delay them, from October to now.
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, it was simply not possible for the Government to introduce these Bills prior to the date on which I did introduce them. Members will recall that the High Court decision was in October of last year. That High Court decision involved us in a detailed and very thorough review of our Territory's revenue laws. We needed to get senior counsel's advice on them - I believe in fact that we got two advices from senior counsel - and we needed to be absolutely certain that the action that we would take would be correct and would protect the Territory's revenue base.
Mr De Domenico raised a further question about the definition of "wholesale value", and I would like to respond briefly to that. Madam Speaker, the Bill proposes that the definition of "wholesale value" should be amended specifically to include the Commonwealth taxes and duties. This has always been the intention of the definition that is currently in the Act, and, in fact, on a proper reading of the Act that ought to be the clear meaning. However, industry sources have suggested that that may not be the clear meaning. They have suggested that there may be an ambiguity and, therefore, the definition has been expanded to make it quite clear that it does include Commonwealth taxes and duties. That is all that is; it is not a huge matter.
I am disappointed to hear from the Opposition that they do not propose to support these Bills. I consider that they have been brought forward at the earliest possible opportunity and that it is the only responsible course of action to take to put beyond doubt the constitutional soundness of our revenue Bills in order to protect the Territory's revenue base. Madam Speaker, as I say, members are aware that there are no revenue implications in the Bills as they stand; but, of course, if they are not passed they could have huge revenue implications for the ACT. They could greatly affect our ability to collect taxes. Such a reduction in our revenue would, of course, have implications for the whole of the community and for the services that we need to provide for that community; so I would urge members to think very carefully about it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .