Page 4134 - Week 13 - Thursday, 25 November 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Humphries, that I cannot guarantee that. We will have to take our chances in the High Court. Given the vast sums of money involved, not only to this jurisdiction but to all jurisdictions, it is an approach the Government feels it should support. I am pleased that the Opposition is supporting these measures, despite its reservations. Oppositions in other States have done the same, and I thank Mr Humphries for his support.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (11.00): Madam Speaker, I would also like to thank the Opposition for their support of the Bills. Mr Humphries and Mr Connolly have pointed out that this is not what you do in normal circumstances, but we are not faced with normal circumstances. We are faced with very dramatic circumstances, and the Government considers that these Bills are needed to protect the Territory's revenue from potentially quite devastating claims should the High Court hand down an adverse decision in the Capital Duplicators case. Members know that that decision is due on 7 December, and it may well be that the High Court will not make as adverse a decision as we are anticipating. Nevertheless, we do need to be prepared for the worst case, because of the likely impact of that worst case on the Territory.
The concerns being expressed by the Territory Government are shared by all other State and Territory governments. Several of them have enacted or are in the process of enacting legislation that will either limit or eliminate the threat to their revenues that is posed by this High Court litigation. In the past week, I can advise the Assembly, legislation that is aimed at achieving some or all of the safeguards proposed in the Bills being debated by the Assembly this morning has been either made or introduced in the parliaments of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. This is a widespread precautionary measure. What the various State and Territory parliaments are doing and what we are doing today, I believe, is fair and in the best interests of the community as a whole.
I will spend a moment on the Taxation (Administration) (Amendment) Bill, which proposes that a refund is available only if the taxpayer has reimbursed relevant third parties. This Bill recognises the inequity of taxpayers obtaining a refund of moneys which the taxpayers themselves have already passed on to their customers. That is a quite inequitable situation. Although the amendment was developed as a result of the deliberations concerning the Capital Duplicators case, it is seen as desirable, perhaps no matter what the outcome of the Capital Duplicators case is, because it does prevent windfall gains at the expense of the general taxpaying community. As Mr Humphries suggests, if the High Court decision turns out better than anticipated, obviously we would be reviewing the measures we have put in place.
The proposal that tax paid under a subsequently invalidated revenue law should not be recoverable also protects the Territory revenue from the chance overturning by a court of legislation under which taxes have been paid. I believe that it would be an intolerable situation for any government, or any parliament, having already framed successive budgets on the premise of certain revenue levels, to find suddenly that, because of a judicial decision, not only has a significant source of revenue been invalidated but also future budgets will have to fund through increased taxes and reduced expenditure the repayment of those revenues. Such a burden, I consider, should be imposed only by a decision of this Assembly. I would like to reassure members that this proposal does not affect a taxpayer's right to the refund of an overpaid tax under a valid law. We are not affecting that right at all.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .