Page 3779 - Week 12 - Thursday, 21 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS CARNELL (Leader of the Opposition) (5.52): Madam Speaker, I think it is important to clarify one issue. What Mr Kaine's amendment does is actually broaden the power of the Commissioner for Revenue. Under the current situation the commissioner can give a longer period of time for stamp duty to be refunded only in circumstances where it is the principal place of residence of the person and there is a bona fide reason. Mr Kaine's approach is to say that under any circumstances where the commissioner believes that there is a bona fide reason for the agreement to be rescinded he can give back the stamp duty. That seems quite reasonable. Mr Kaine's amendment does not change in any way the basis of the Government's amendment; it just gives the commissioner greater capacity to determine what is a bona fide approach. It still very definitely stops any avoidance mechanism, because the commissioner has a capacity to decide.
MR HUMPHRIES (5.54): Madam Speaker, I want to make a small contribution to the debate. I heard the Chief Minister say with some pique that she had not received a letter from the Law Society in the same time that it had come to us. There is a very good reason for that, which I think I should point out. When the Liberal Party sees legislation tabled in this Assembly we write, as a matter of course, to a number of bodies in the ACT, like the Law Society, and say, "Would you like to comment on this legislation? Would you like to contribute to the debate?". Because we do that we get responses. Responses like the one that was referred to today come to us from the Law Society and other bodies. That is why we receive those letters and we produce them in this way. You do not get a reply unless you write the letter in the first place, and that is a lesson that I think the Government could learn about consultation generally.
Question put:
That the amendment (Mr Kaine's) be agreed to.
The Assembly voted -
AYES, 7 NOES, 10
Mrs Carnell Mr Berry
Mr Cornwell Mr Connolly
Mr De Domenico Ms Ellis
Mr Humphries Ms Follett
Mr Kaine Mrs Grassby
Mr Stevenson Mr Lamont
Mr Westende Ms McRae
Mr Moore
Ms Szuty
Mr Wood
Question so resolved in the negative.
Clauses agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .