Page 3573 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 19 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The other thing that we have some difficulty with is the $20. What is the basis of the determination that $20 is a fair fee? Is it a cost recovery thing? Is it the user pays principle? Is it full cost recovery? Would full cost recovery require a fee of, say, $50 or $70 or $100? We have no information. We simply have the Government saying, "We intend to make an arbitrary charge of $20 to process this documentation, even though we know that in 10,000 or more instances there will be no duty payable; but we call it a minimum duty payment". My colleagues and I find it rather reprehensible that this tax is being hidden and described as something else.
Mr Stevenson: Did they not do this last week? Was not another tax described as something else?
MR KAINE: It happens all the time, but you may have some other instances that you want to put on the table. Mr Deputy Speaker, before the Liberals in opposition will accept this particular part of the Bill, we need more information as to just what transactions it relates to and does not relate to, how the $20 figure was arrived at and whether in fact that is a reasonable figure. Either the figure is based on the user pays principle and we are recovering the full cost of processing the documentation or the Government should be able to demonstrate, in their language, that this $20 is a socially just payment that we demand of people who may have an obligation to pay a duty, so that we can find out whether they are obliged to pay the duty or not. It seems an unusual approach, and we will require far more justification from the Government than has been provided so far before we agree with it. While in principle the Opposition has no difficulty with two-thirds of this Bill, we certainly do have some difficulty with the other third, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the Government is unable to satisfactorily answer our reservations, then during the detail stage we will seek to amend this Bill.
MR MOORE (3.21): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to indicate that I will be supporting this Bill. I use the opportunity to point out that, although Ms Szuty and I have made a specific commitment to allow this minority Government to have their supply and appropriation Bills, we normally interpret that to mean allowing the Government to have their budget.
In this particular case, in dealing with the Stamp Duties and Taxes (Amendment) Bill (No. 2), it seems to us that what the Government is doing here is a reasonable and equitable approach to revenue raising. We have no difficulty in raising with the Government issues about measures that we consider to be inappropriate or questionable. We will continue to do that. Indeed, I raised some questions at question time and will pursue further questions later on today when we deal with the Business Franchise (Tobacco and Petroleum Products) (Amendment) Bill.
When clearly there are going to be costs associated with administrative functions, it is appropriate to have a charge. I think that the way the Government has acted in this particular instance, by establishing a $20 charge when, because of the way the percentages work, no other fee might be payable, is quite reasonable. It means that people will not get something for nothing.
I find it quite surprising that the Liberals are not quite enthusiastic about this, because in fact we usually have an indication from them that they are interested in a user pays regime. Personally, I often have trouble with a user pays regime. Government is there to provide a service, and there are certainly occasions when
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .