Page 4625 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 15 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS SZUTY (12.15): I will not take up too much time of the Assembly because the points I was going to make are exactly the same points as Mr Kaine has made. In fact, I was quite surprised that Ms Follett said that the words "bona fide" were not defined in the Act and therefore there could be a potential problem with them, because, as Mr Kaine said, they are included in the Government's own Bill which it presented to the Assembly earlier this year. If the Government has a problem with the words "bona fide" at the moment, it certainly did not have that problem some weeks ago.
MR MOORE (12.16): I quite clearly see why the Government has a problem with the term "bona fide", Madam Speaker. It has been illustrated by the way they are dealing with the Electoral Bill. It is quite clear that that is where the problem is. They do not understand the words "bona fide". If they now understand them we might, by tomorrow, see a variation so that the Bill that is presented will be acceptable.
Mr Connolly: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are discussing the stamp duties Bill. It is clear that Mr Moore's votes on all of this are agitated by his fantasies about other matters. He should attempt to address the issue before the house.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Connolly, I was listening with interest to see whether he would ever come back to the matter at hand.
MR MOORE: I am leading to the point about the term "bona fide", Madam Speaker. I point out to the Government that they still have time to get each one of those Bills and draw a line through the offensive parts before they table it tomorrow.
Madam Speaker, turning specifically to section 28 of the principal Act, there will be no problem with the term "bona fide". It is clear that the Commissioner for Revenue understands what that means. It is well defined in dictionaries and we do not need that definition in the Act. Courts are quite capable of dealing with that. It seems to me that this clause will provide an opportunity for people to have a fair hearing from the Commissioner for Revenue. If appeals are taken on and the commissioner's view is supported there is likely to be little cost to the Government because costs will be awarded. I do not think that it is a major problem. I think that the amendments that Mr Kaine has presented will allow business to work more successfully and will be an appropriate contribution to the business sector. At the same time they allow for what the original amendment Bill was intended to do, and appropriately so, and that is to overcome situations of tax avoidance. Madam Speaker, that Bill was not quite right. Mr Kaine has moved to fix up a few of the problems, and has done so in an effective way.
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .