Page 2537 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 23 August 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The issues of enforcement and cross-border trade were put squarely to the Government during the debate we had in October last year about this particular issue. I will not return to that issue. That was resolved politically on the floor of the Assembly, but I do think that we should have been less than surprised to see the issue come back up again. Members at the time, I think it is true to say, particularly members on the cross benches, were persuaded by the Commissioner for Revenue in the Territory that the apparent problem of enforcement and cross-border trade could be dealt with and would be dealt with by his administration. Some of us at least accepted that assertion. It became apparent that there was a problem with this. That happened when I tabled a letter from the Treasurer of New South Wales, a letter which I would have thought I did not need to get from the Treasurer of New South Wales. The Chief Minister and Treasurer ought to have obtained that letter from the Treasurer of New South Wales when the problem was first raised on the floor of the Assembly. Nonetheless, I put that to one side.
Having put that issue on the table, I think the Estimates Committee of this Assembly was entitled to expect a certain degree of frankness and openness about what the problems were which faced this scheme, and what problems apparently existed with regard to enforcement and cross-border trade. Those of us who were present during the unedifying spectacle of the commissioner giving evidence before the Estimates Committee would be forgiven for thinking that openness was not a high priority for this Government. I use the word "Government" because I do not think that the blame should be sheeted home fully to Mr Faichney. Mr Faichney sat beside his superior, the Treasurer, throughout his 50 minutes or so of examination by the committee. I maintain that it was proper questioning by the committee - not harassment and haranguing, as I think Ms Ellis was suggesting was the case in that instance. She did not name anybody; she was just referring to that particular exercise. All those questions were good questions. They were all appropriate and they should have been answered; but they were not.
Do not forget that this Assembly relied very largely on the word of Mr Faichney to pass that legislation in 1993. I think we were entitled to expect that he would be equally open about explaining the problems with that very scheme that were now identified. He was asked this fairly simple question: "You, Mr Faichney, assert that there is a capacity by the Government to prevent people crossing the border and buying diesel fuel in New South Wales. The Treasurer of New South Wales has indicated that he is prepared to supply certificates of exemption to any citizen of the ACT who can prove, or who can indicate satisfactorily, that he or she wishes to use diesel fuel for an off-road purpose". So, clearly, stopping the issuing of certificates was not going to be a barrier to obtaining fuel in New South Wales. Mr Faichney was asked, quite properly, "How will this be prevented? What provision of the legislation will you rely upon to hunt down those who seek to cross the border and deny the Territory revenue?".
Mr Faichney, as we all know, was not prepared to indicate the answer to that question. Ms Szuty has quoted what I think were quite disgraceful answers by Mr Faichney to indicate that he was not prepared to supply information to the Assembly merely because we, the Estimates Committee, were asking the questions. To quote him, he said, "I am the Tax Commissioner", as if that was answer enough.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .