Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (9 May) . . Page.. 1235 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

a national legislative package which authorised and required certain new taxation provisions to be put in place with respect to the new road transport system. The result of that was that there was not an authority conferred on the executive to put in place, without further reference to parliament, certain fees which could be characterised as taxes on some construction, although of course such charges would be subject to disallowance on the floor of the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, I want to explain the reason for the government's Interpretation Amendment Bill. It arises out of a concern that has been expressed, perhaps not a concern about a very likely event but a concern about an event nonetheless which has been flagged very clearly for the government's attention: the collection of government fees and charges which may contain an element of taxation without proper authority. The present legislation authorising the collection of those particular fees and charges does not extend to the collection of the taxes associated with them. It is clearly, unequivocally and unambiguously not the government's intention to allow the executive to collect taxes per se, to create or designate taxes which we should be able to collect by virtue of this amendment to the Interpretation Act. I can absolutely confirm that that is not the government's intention.

Mr Osborne's committee has raised the possibility that even unintentionally this may be the effect of the legislation. My advice is that it is not the effect of the legislation, but I am prepared to look in more detail at the issues Mr Osborne's committee has raised, to see whether we can clarify further the effect of the words that have been used in the government's bill.

With respect to the main issue which this bill is meant to address-that is, the collection of goods and services tax on ACT government fees and charges-the position is slightly different to the one that has been put by the committee. There are a whole swag of government taxes, charges, fees and so on which, under a division 81 instrument executed by the federal Treasurer, have been exempted from goods and services tax.

There are, however, a number of other government fees and charges for what amount to services a person purchases which are subject to GST. For example, when you use the merry-go-round in Garema Place, you are not paying a tax; you are using a government service. You are paying a fee to use the merry-go-round and, quite rightly, the federal government has said that it is a service which should be subject to GST.

At the present time there is a doubt about whether a determination made by me as Treasurer, or perhaps by the Minister for Urban Services-I am not sure who-to impose a fee to ride on the merry-go-round also includes the 10 per cent GST, which must be collected at the same time. That is what this Interpretation Amendment Bill is meant to address: collecting the 10 per cent GST at the same time as we collect the $2.50 to ride on the merry-go-round.

Mr Speaker, on the question of the GST being a tax which must come before parliament, of course the GST has come before parliament. The GST has been authorised by parliament-not this parliament but the federal parliament. The federal parliament has decided that from 1 July, with some exemptions, a 10 per cent tax should be imposed on goods and services which are provided within Australia. Therefore, the parliamentary authority which Mr Osborne quoted a number of precedents for, has already been

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .