Page 3765 - Week 12 - Thursday, 21 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
But, with respect, if the certificate shows that it has expired it ought not to be possible to buy fuel with it. Instead, we are creating a potential liability on the part of age pensioners and other beneficiaries in the ACT to a fine of $500. That certainly is inequitable, and I suggest that we remove the requirement that they be forced to return this defunct certificate.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (4.58): Madam Speaker, the Government will be opposing this amendment. I think it is a remarkably hypocritical attitude that Mr Humphries is displaying here. Having spent a large amount of his earlier speaking time on this matter in accusing the Government of being unable to enforce compliance with this new regime, Mr Humphries now has moved an amendment that does away with an important part of the compliance regime. Madam Speaker, the subparagraph of the Bill which Mr Humphries seeks to remove is an anti-avoidance measure. It is a very important part of the compliance approach to this legislation - something Mr Humphries asserted that he had some interest in. I do not know why he has thought to do a backflip at the eleventh hour like this, but he is quite wrong.
We do need this anti-avoidance measure because this concession is targeted specifically at disadvantaged groups. If a person ceases to be a member of one of those targeted groups - for instance, if a person finds employment after having been unemployed - he or she ought not then to remain entitled to the concession. If a wholesaler provides the exemption to a certificate holder on the production of that certificate, the details are recorded by the wholesaler and then used and recorded on delivery invoices and for compliance purposes. It is an important feature of compliance. By this measure the Commissioner for ACT Revenue then can ensure that the wholesaler is dealing with the legitimate certificate holder - it is very important that they deal with legitimate certificate holders - and that the person who holds the certificate is legally entitled to receive that concession. It is very important that we have some strict rules in relation to this.
As I outlined earlier in my remarks, Madam Speaker, the review that the Commissioner for ACT Revenue undertook earlier in the year revealed some slackness in the administration of the regime even as it stands now. With the changes that the Assembly now has agreed to in principle, I think it is essential that we also adjust the compliance measures in order to cope with the changed circumstances and to acknowledge the fact that we have discovered, through the commissioner's own efforts earlier this year, that we do need to make a stronger compliance effort.
I would ask members not to vote for Mr Humphries's amendment because it is quite clearly an opening of an avoidance loophole that I have no doubt the more unscrupulous operators in our community would want to exploit. I think, in fairness to the whole community, that we do have to be genuine about the compliance effort and support the clause as it originally stands.
MR HUMPHRIES (5.01): Madam Speaker, I must say that I am really disappointed with the quality of that response by the Chief Minister, to be quite frank. She spoke about two of the three issues in that clause which are not being affected by this amendment. No-one is suggesting that a person whose entitlement is cancelled should be allowed to keep their certificate. No-one is suggesting that a person who ceases to be entitled to that certificate should be able to keep their certificate. We are talking here about a certificate which is a dead letter. What do you do with a dead letter? You throw it away, do you not?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .