Page 2136 - Week 07 - Thursday, 16 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS SZUTY (8.08): I, too, oppose this legislation, and I, too, have grave concerns about legislation which is retrospective. As a member of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, the issue is one that I, particularly, have to deal with on a number of occasions. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee of the Assembly met yesterday and Professor Whalan had a look at this piece of legislation. He made the following comment, which forms part of our report:
The Bill imposes the financial institutions duty for the period 1 November 1992 up to, and including, 16 May 1994. The reason for the retrospectivity is described fully in the Chief Minister's presentation speech.
Indeed, it is, Madam Speaker. As a member of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, I think it is unfortunate that the committee did not pick up the error at the time that it occurred. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee would have considered the issue around November-December 1992.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I would like to take issue with some of the comments that Mr Connolly made in his remarks. We are not talking here about commas, punctuation, or words that have been left out of a particular determination. We are talking about a determination which did not even exist. I think that that is an important issue for the Assembly to consider again in terms of where we draw the line in dealing with this type of legislation.
MR MOORE (8.10): That the determination did not exist requires some understanding of what happened. As part of the normal process of putting in a new determination, the Government wipes the slate clean, in effect. If this Bill is lost this evening, the only people to gain will be a set of bankers. The chance of the money being returned to the people from whom it came is very slim. Apart from that, everybody understood at the time that they would have to pay the financial institutions duty. There was no doubt in people's minds that that was what they ought to be doing. There was no doubt in the minds of members here that that was what was going on. There has been an anomaly. It was a mistake. The Chief Minister has admitted that there was a stuff-up. Indeed, there was on this issue.
Mr Humphries was talking about the principle. Where do you draw the line? On what set of parameters do you operate in making a decision like this? In making a decision like this, I ask myself: Is somebody going to consider themselves cheated by this piece of legislation? Effectively, will somebody be cheated?
Mr Stevenson: Everybody in the country.
MR MOORE: Apart from the absolutist view of Mr Stevenson, the answer to this question is no; nobody will feel that they were cheated, because everybody believed that they ought to be paying the financial institutions duty, and that is what has been collected.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .