Page 3575 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 19 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Bill is consistent with what occurs in other States and I think it is reasonable to ensure that there is some cost recovery. I do not believe that at the $20 figure it would be full cost recovery, but that is the highest level in other States and I think that it would be consistent for us to adopt that same figure. I commend the Bill to the Assembly, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I foreshadow that, following the report of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, I will be moving an amendment in line with the committee's report on this Bill.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Detail Stage
Clause 1
MR KAINE (3.29): Mr Deputy Speaker, before proceeding with the debate in detail I propose to move that the debate on this Bill be adjourned. I propose doing that on the basis that only now have I received a communication from the Law Society which in fact is addressed to the Chief Minister. It is dated only today, so she probably has not seen it either. In it the Law Society takes up some issues that they say they discussed with officers of the Revenue Office only last Thursday. Since that has not been brought to the Chief Minister's notice yet, I submit, and certainly not until today, and they raise questions about this Bill, I think it would be inappropriate for us to complete this debate until those issues have been resolved.
Mr Moore: Can you identify the sorts of questions it raises?
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Kaine, you might answer Mr Moore. You cannot adjourn the debate, having just spoken, but you might explain and somebody else, if they wish, might adjourn it.
MR KAINE: I am happy to deal with those issues if it is the wish of the Assembly that I do so.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: It appears that we have a little bit of confusion here. Do you want to elaborate a little more, Mr Kaine? I must point out that, if you do, standing order 63 does not allow you to move a motion for adjournment. Somebody else can adjourn the debate after you have explained the situation, and that may be well worth while for the clarification of members.
MR KAINE: In that case, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will address just one of the issues that have emerged. Interestingly enough, it was in connection with an aspect of the Bill to which we did not take exception. The Law Society refers to the refund of duty and a 30-day period for rescission of commercial and residential contracts, which is an issue to which we did not take exception. They state the problem. They say:
The ACT Government has detected a revenue loss through contracts being rescinded by unscrupulous parties taking advantage of the refund provisions. Often this masks an on-sale, where both sales would normally be dutiable.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .