Page 3574 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 19 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the service is such that it is appropriate for a user to pay; but there are also many occasions when a user pays regime is inappropriate for the style of service that government provides. I think it is fair to say that all members here generally agree with that concept, although we draw a different line between where users should pay and where they should not. In this particular case, Mr Deputy Speaker, I think the Bill as drafted, with the relatively minor amendments foreshadowed by the Chief Minister, is quite appropriate.
MR DE DOMENICO (3.24): Whilst the Chief Minister is taking on board some concerns raised by Mr Kaine and Mr Moore, she might care to take on board another concern that I have personally. What is the definition of "documents"? Which documents will attract this $20 charge? I cite the example of someone who may have been overcharged stamp duty by, say, an amount of $30. One would hope that, if that is the case, such a person would not have to pay a $20 fee in order to get back $30 that had been overcharged. I think an explanation of what the legislation defines as being a document would be very helpful, as would an explanation of which so-called documents attract stamp duty and which documents are currently exempted from stamp duty.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (3.25), in reply: I thank members for the support that they have given to this Bill. I will address my remarks to those parts of the Bill to which Mr Kaine has expressed opposition. Mr Deputy Speaker, Mr Kaine, first of all, asked what sorts of transactions might be exempt from duty. Mr De Domenico asked the same question. I can advise that there is a range of exemptions. They include things like transfers under wills, and they include transfers of marketable securities where there is a change in the trustees but the beneficiary remains unchanged. Those are the kinds of instances, Mr Deputy Speaker, where a document would be exempt from duty.
The difficulty for the Commissioner for Revenue, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that he has to see all documents in order to assess whether or not they are dutiable. Therefore, there is a requirement that taxpayers lodge all documents so that the Revenue Office can make that assessment. Where taxpayers are able to self-assess, later compliance audits, I am informed, have consistently revealed a number of transactions which were incorrectly categorised as exempt; so I support the commissioner in his action in examining all documents. Also, Mr Deputy Speaker, by examining all exempt documents, the Revenue Office also has the chance to become aware at an early stage of any undesirable avoidance practices. I hope that that clears up that point for members.
Mr Kaine also asked whether the proposed sum is full cost recovery. I would not hesitate to say that that is not the case. It is a figure that has been arrived at after reviewing what occurs in other States. All States except Victoria impose such a fee. The amount varies between $2 and $20. In seeking to impose the fee ourselves, it was my view that the upper figure would recover more of the cost and would be a better reflection of the administrative workload in dealing with these documents. There are a large number of these documents and the administrative workload is considerable. I think I advised members earlier that there were over 11,000 such transactions in marketable securities alone, and there were well over another 1,000 documents which were exempt for other reasons. This is a significant workload in the Revenue Office, and there is a significant cost in servicing that workload.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .