Page 4845 - Week 15 - Thursday, 8 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
BUSINESS NAMES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1994
Debate resumed from 10 November 1994, on motion by Mr Connolly:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR STEFANIAK (5.08): Madam Speaker, some four years ago unsatisfactory amendments of a technical nature were made to the Business Names Act. The result was that in some instances where the fees were levied there was no legislation under which to levy such fees. I am told by the departmental officers that it was a very minor portion of fees levied - something like one or 2 per cent. A small number of those fees have been paid and are technically invalid. The glitch was found by the department. Accordingly, the amendments were put forward; hence, the basis for this Bill. Members of the business community whom we have talked to have no problems, as such, with the Bill. The Bill does a number of other things. It removes sexist language, replaces numbers in words with figures and does extend the registrar's powers to levy fees for things like the late lodgment of documents with the registrar, inspection of documents, production of documents and approval. The Liberal Party will be supporting the Bill.
However, I did notice one matter of concern. I will give the reasons now. We would want to see clause 11 deleted. That is the clause that retrospectively covers any fees that have been paid. I note in the report of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee the following comments:
Clause 11 of the Bill inserts a savings provision that removes any doubts about the validity of past determinations of fees made by the Minister. This ensures that any fees that were collected in the past have been validly collected whether or not the determinations were valid.
If, in fact, previous determinations were invalid, then this clause would have a prejudicial retrospective effect in validating the collection of fees under those invalid determinations.
Because of that prejudicial retrospective effect, it is the Liberal Party's view that that clause should be deleted. We appreciate that there are only a few fees involved and that it is probably unlikely that anyone would want to claim those back; but people who have paid fees invalidly to a government department should have that right protected, should they wish to reclaim those fees that they need not have paid in the first place. Accordingly, with that proviso, we support this Bill.
MS SZUTY (5.11): Madam Speaker, I just want to indicate to the Assembly that I will be supporting the Bill. While I have the opportunity, I might take this moment to comment briefly on Mr Stefaniak's proposed amendment to the Bill. Mr Stefaniak did quote some comments made by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I did ask a question either during the Scrutiny of Bills Committee meeting on this matter or at the briefing I had on this Bill. My understanding is that there are no cases pending in relation to this matter where fees have been collected invalidly. I do not see any need to support Mr Stefaniak's amendment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .