Page 4598 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 6 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
RATES AND LAND TAX (AMENDMENT) BILL (NO. 2) 1994
Debate resumed from 10 November 1994, on motion by Ms Follett:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR KAINE (8.31): Madam Speaker, the Opposition, in general, supports this Bill. The amendments are intended to achieve a number of things. First of all, they amend the Act - these are the words of the Government, and I accept them at face value - "to more adequately reflect current land ownership requirements". I am not too sure what that means, but I am sure that the Government's intentions are good. The Bill also provides for the correction of errors in valuation processes. It allows persons adversely affected by administrative decisions to have greater objection and appeal rights. The Opposition has no great difficulty with most of those things, although we are a bit doubtful as to why it was necessary to redefine the relationship between a landowner or a land lessee and a tenant. However, we accept that the Government's intentions are to secure the revenues of the Territory without undue detriment to the people who have to pay those charges.
In debate earlier today, much was made of the fact that the Liberal Party in opposition had not consulted all kinds of people about marijuana use. It is funny that the Government should say that, because when this Bill was tabled I contacted the Canberra Business Council, the Canberra Property Owners Association, the ACT Ratepayers Association, the ACT Law Society, the Society of Certified Practising Accountants and the Institute of Chartered Accountants, and none of them had seen the Bill. So, I sometimes wonder who is guilty of a lack of consultation. I cannot imagine why the Government would proceed with a Bill like this without contacting people like the Canberra business owners, who are directly and perhaps materially affected by it. Nevertheless, the facts are that the Government clearly did not consult any of those people before it brought this Bill forward. Madam Speaker, I note that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee raised a point in connection with this Bill. It indicated that the proposed subsection 10(4) could give rise to a prejudicial retrospectivity and suggested that the Government should perhaps make its intentions clear. I wait for the Government to indicate to the Assembly whether or not there is a prejudicial retrospectivity in that section and, if so, why it is there and what they intend to do about it.
Madam Speaker, there is only one aspect of the Bill that the Opposition does not agree with. I foreshadow that I will be moving an amendment that has to do with the situation where a taxpayer has paid the assessed tax up front, he then lodges an appeal against the assessment and there is an order by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or some other relevant body that says that the assessment was excessive. At the moment, it certainly provides for the reimbursement of any excess money, but it does not say anything about the payment of any interest in connection with such overpayments. The Government is quite clear that, if somebody underpays or does not pay on time, they pay a very substantial amount of interest on the amount of money short-paid or not paid. I do not believe that it is asking any less of the Government that, where there is an incorrect assessment and that assessment is judged to be incorrect and money is due and payable, interest at the same rate should be paid to the taxpayer on the money that has been inadvertently or erroneously collected. I will be moving an amendment in the detail stage to correct that oversight. Other than that, the Opposition supports the Bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .