Page 4624 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 15 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Berry: She is not tampering with it. She is providing choice, the very choice that you Liberals always want.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order!
MR KAINE: Madam Speaker, the Chief Minister's argument that my amendment gives - - -
Mr Berry: Of course you are edgy about it because you know that what has been proposed is popular. You know that it is popular. That is your big worry.
Mr De Domenico: That is a good election line, Wayne.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! Mr Kaine has the floor.
MR KAINE: Are you all having fun?
Mr Berry: They are all agitated.
MR KAINE: You are agitated. We are just having fun. Madam Speaker, to return to the Chief Minister's arguments, which are quite spurious, she talks about my amendment giving the Revenue Commissioner wide discretionary power. I am not giving any power that her present Bill does not give. It is obviously okay for her in her Bill to give the commissioner wide discretionary power, but when I merely perpetuate that she finds something offensive about it.
She also raises questions about the Revenue Commissioner's ability to decide what "bona fide" means. I would remind her that she put those words in the Bill, not me. If he is capable of defining the words "bona fide" when he is exercising a discretion conferred on him by the Chief Minister, why can he not do the same when he is exercising a discretion which I am giving him? How does this suddenly change his capacity and his competency to make a decision? She says, "What factors will he take into account?". My question is, "What factors does he take into account now when he exercises this discretion?". He will take into account the very same considerations. Presumably, they will be those factors which legitimately prevent the original transaction being brought to a conclusion. If they were legitimate reasons for not being able to bring the contract to conclusion, then the person should not pay the duty. He is quite capable of making that decision.
The other thing that the Chief Minister reminds us of is that if the commissioner makes a mistake his decision is appealable. I am not changing that either. If he does make a mistake in respect of a principal residence it is appealable. If he makes a mistake in a transaction that is not in connection with a principal residence it is appealable, and so it should be. Madam Speaker, none of the things that the Chief Minister raises have any substance to them. That is not unusual in debates of this kind, I might say. I have to conclude that her arguments are singularly unconvincing. None of them stand up to any sort of analysis. I conclude by saying that, if the Act was workable before I make this amendment to it, it is going to be just as workable after the amendment is made.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .