Page 1903 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 14 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
of 0.005 per cent, which was to remain unchanged, was inadvertently omitted from the instrument. Because the explanatory memorandum accompanying the instrument indicated that the short-term dealing rate was to remain unchanged, its omission from the instrument was not picked up for some considerable period.
An instrument setting the short-term dealing rate of financial institutions duty at 0.005 per cent of the average daily liability was notified in Special Gazette No. S83 of 17 May 1994 and was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 19 May 1994. During the period 1 November 1992 to 16 May 1994 all financial institutions and short-term dealers continued to collect the usual financial institutions duty from their customers and paid it to the Revenue Office. Madam Speaker, I do not believe that it can be said, therefore, that this validating legislation will adversely affect anyone. In accordance with past practice and everyone's understanding of what the short-term duty rate was, financial institutions have been collecting and remitting the tax - in all, about $530,000. That is why, Madam Speaker, on this occasion the Government believes that retrospective legislation is justified. I commend the Bill to the Assembly and I present the explanatory memorandum.
Debate (on motion by Mr Kaine) adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 4.40 to 8.00 pm
BOOKMAKERS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1994
[COGNATE BILL:
GAMING AND BETTING (AMENDMENT) BILL 1994]
Debate resumed from 19 May 1994, on motion by Mr Lamont:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MADAM SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the Assembly to debate this order of the day concurrently with the Gaming and Betting (Amendment) Bill 1994? There being no objection, that course will be followed. I remind members that in debating order of the day No. 1 they may also address their remarks to order of the day No. 2.
MR DE DOMENICO (8.01): Madam Speaker, the Opposition has no real problem with either of these Bills. We feel, however, that the Government should contemplate changing the amount of the minimum allowable telephone bet, which, I understand, under the Bill, is $250. I am advised that the minimum bet is the same in each State or Territory with the exception of Tasmania. Tasmania, I believe, was able at the Racing Ministers Conference in February last to get the agreement of other States to allow them to have a minimum bet of, I think, $200. They have a larger population than the ACT and the Tasmanian TAB has a similar turnover to ACTTAB. The question that needs to be asked is why the ACT was not given a similar exception. In terms of mutual recognition, we have agreed to $250 at this stage. Perhaps another reason is that we want to remain on friendly terms with New South Wales.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .