Page 4617 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 15 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The people who are directly affected by this and who have made submissions to the Chief Minister, which she has bluntly ignored, have good reasons for putting forward the proposition that 30 years is a reasonable period, and I accept that, in the absence of any other contradictory advice. That is why I went for the 30 years. It seems to me to be reasonable, the business community finds it reasonable, and the Law Society finds it reasonable. The only one who does not is the Chief Minister - and, presumably, the Revenue Commissioner. One has to ask: If this is a tax avoidance thing, why are we using a broadsword instead of a scalpel to fix it? If we go slashing around with a broadsword and chop everybody off at the knees, we fix the problem. We might fix the tax avoidance problem, but we injure a great many other people in the process. So much for my first amendment.
The second one has to do with this question of the refund of moneys payable, and Ms Szuty is quite right. The Chief Minister says that this will make the legislation unworkable. It will not make the legislation unworkable. All it will require is that the commissioner actually look at propositions put to him for extending the period of the refund beyond 30 days. Under the Chief Minister's legislation he is bound to do that if it is in connection with the principal place of residence anyway. All I am saying is that, if the Revenue Commissioner can make a determination that a longer period than 30 days should apply in connection with a transaction relating to a principal place of residence, he is just as competent and capable of doing it in connection with a commercial lease or any other kind of lease. There is no justification for saying, as the Chief Minister appears to be saying, that everybody that engages in a commercial lease transfer is a crook and therefore we have to chop them off at the socks, take their money up front and provide no possibility of them having the money refunded after 30 days if something does not work out. It is a proper thing for the commissioner to make a decision, case by case, on that matter, and that is all that this amendment does.
It does not make the legislation unworkable at all. It just requires the Revenue Commissioner to exercise some judgment and some discretion instead of having behind him a law that blindly says, "After 30 days no refund". That is unacceptable; it is punitive. Again the Chief Minister has put forward no good reason, other than the general assertion of tax avoidance, for putting this forward in her legislation. It was draconian; it remains draconian. The people who are affected by it have put forward very effective arguments to say that this is unreasonable, and it is, and that is why I seek to amend the Act. Those are the two matters that I dealt with particularly.
I mentioned, Madam Speaker, that there have been some very reasonable arguments put forward on other issues which I hope the Chief Minister will take up, and one of them is the question of options. Even under the 30-year rule, if I take out a 20-year lease with a 10-year option the Chief Minister is going to take my money on the whole 30-year period; but in fact all I have is a 20-year lease and I have to renegotiate that at 20 years. If I am successful then, under the law, I ought to become liable to pay an additional fee; but not up front. I do not have a 30-year lease; I have only a 20-year lease. The Canberra Business Council has pointed out the inconsistency in that. It is like other legislation where the Government is anticipating that something might or might not happen and it is making a decision right up front. Here they are saying to the businessman,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .