Page 2133 - Week 07 - Thursday, 16 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr De Domenico: No; he said, "What if?".
MR CONNOLLY: I say to you, "What if?". Seeing that you take that absolutist view, I would agree that it is something to be avoided at all costs - well, not at all costs. I would agree that it would be reprehensible to go back and impose a higher rate of tax than citizens had paid in good faith; but, to take your absolutist position, are you saying that in the event of a successful challenge on a technicality to the law that imposes, say, the land rates - where you got a comma wrong or a "may" instead of a "shall" - and the rate was imposed improperly, you would willingly say, "We will pay back hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue raised over the years and we will bankrupt the Territory."? Of course you would not say that.
In a situation where a technical error had occurred, where people paid the tax under the full assumption that the tax was payable, until very recently, when there was a change in the law in the High Court, the law in Australia would have been that taxes paid under this technically incorrect process would not have been recoverable, so there would not have been a need to fix it up retrospectively. The law for many centuries had said that in those circumstances the tax was not recoverable. That has recently changed. No-one could have predicted that it would change, so until recently it was not necessary to seek retrospectivity in these circumstances. The court simply said that if you paid the tax willingly, as opposed to under protest, you could not recover the money. Now the view is that perhaps you can recover the money.
You really cannot be absolutist on this proposition. I say to members that, while it is not something a government willingly wishes to do - that is, impose retrospective taxation - it is something that in principle it is appropriate for a government to bring in. If you are happy to say, "We will pay back half a million dollars here", I would at least want something on the record from the Opposition to make it clear that, in the event of the challenge to the rates being successful, you are not establishing the proposition here - - -
Mr De Domenico: Talk about the Bill before the house now. Do not point and slash; just talk about the Bill.
MR CONNOLLY: Listen, Mr De Domenico. Mr Kaine in his remarks said, "We have to establish a principle here. It is only half a million dollars; but it may be $50m or $500m in the future, and we have to draw the line in the sand and say 'no retrospectivity'". I say to you that you must seriously reconsider that position because, in the unlikely event of your being in office at some stage in the future, you may face just this challenge. I hope that in opposition now you will take a sensible approach to this rather than some absolutist oppositionist position. It is quite appropriate for a government to introduce retrospective legislation to - - -
Mr De Domenico: Rubbish!
MR CONNOLLY: Again he says, "Rubbish". The Opposition is saying that, in the event of a challenge to the rates Bill being successful, you would pay back hundreds of millions of dollars. Of course you would not. It is quite dishonourable to suggest that you would do that, because we know that you would not. Think carefully before you play opposition politics on legislation such as this.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .