Page 4605 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 6 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR DE DOMENICO: No; I am looking forward to your contribution, Mr Lamont. You would not even understand the principles. Let me say, Madam Speaker, that there is no sense in not treating a member of the public in the same way as you expect the member of the public to treat you. Where is the sense in saying that the duty of the ACT Revenue Commissioner is to collect taxes? That is true; but, surely, the duty of that person is to collect only the taxes that are due. If he or she collects ones that are not due or makes a mistake, why should the taxpayer have to bear the burden of that? For example, the taxpayer might have been meeting their responsibility and paying what they believed to be a tax because they were told to pay it, going through all the processes that this Bill quite correctly enables people to go through - and the Chief Minister ought to be applauded for that - and then a third party, an independent body like the AAT, might rule in favour of the taxpayer. Why should the Government, in this case, which has made the mistake, not be treated in the same way as the Government would treat the taxpayer if he or she made a mistake?
Let us have a look at one of the other reasons Ms Follett gave for not voting for this amendment. She said that Mr Kaine's amendment is out of kilter with other legislation. I believe that Mr Kaine's amendment makes good sense. My suggestion to the Chief Minister is that perhaps the Government ought to consider amending all the other pieces of legislation to bring them into line with Mr Kaine's amendment. I find it very difficult to believe that anybody in this Assembly would not support a proposition that would treat everybody equally. "If the Government makes a mistake", the Chief Minister is saying, "we are prepared to pay 5.25 per cent; but, if the taxpayer makes a mistake, we will slug them 17 per cent". Why is there a differential? I am suggesting, Chief Minister, that, as a disincentive, there ought to be penalty provisions so that perhaps tax collectors who are already scrupulous might be inclined to be a bit more scrupulous and not disadvantage normal members of the public.
MS SZUTY (9.00): I listened very intently to what Mr Kaine had to say when he put forward his arguments about this provision being fair, reasonable and socially just. I think the key element of this clause that Mr Kaine is recommending that the Assembly consider is the rate determined under subsection 22(3) of the Rates and Land Tax Act. I listened also to the remarks that the Chief Minister made about the differential between the penalty amount of payment and the usual amount of payment. On that basis, I will not be supporting Mr Kaine's amendment on this occasion.
Amendment negatived.
Bill, as a whole, agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .