Page 2523 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 23 August 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Committee believes that the Commissioner's refusal to justify his opinion that provisions exist which allow him to tax interstate fuel purchases is unacceptable.
Further, at paragraph 4.46, we said:
The Committee believes that at times in addressing questions about the Diesel Fuel Off-Road Exemption Scheme the Commissioner for Revenue's answers were unhelpful.
The following exchange was quoted in the committee's report to illustrate the preceding point:
Mr Humphries: And some of them use hundreds of thousands of litres of fuel, it would be in their interest, would it not, to make arrangements to buy fuel from a source where they can get it for seven cents a litre cheaper?
Mr Faichney: Well, if that is what you are encouraging them to do, well, then I suspect that they may try.
Mr Humphries: Is that not what they are legally entitled to do?
Mr Faichney: Well, we will see.
Mr Humphries: I would like you to tell us how we can see that to be the case.
Mr Faichney: Why should I tell you?
Mr Humphries: Because we are the Estimates Committee of this Assembly -
Mr Faichney: Yes, but I am the Tax Commissioner.
Further, at paragraph 4.48, we said:
... the Committee expresses dissatisfaction at the manner in which the Commissioner for Revenue responded to questioning by the Committee.
We also said, at paragraph 4.49:
The Committee is concerned that the failure on the part of the Treasurer to intervene during the questioning of the Commissioner for Revenue could imply that the Treasurer condoned his approach in the Committee.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .