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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (23 May) . . Page.. 1558 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

had this power for many years. I also understand that various fees and charges set by regulation in the past have included a taxation component, so what this bill is doing is legitimising a common practice.

The committee acknowledged that, where determinations are disallowable, the principle of controlling taxation by parliament is still maintained. However, it raised the fact that this bill could end up being applied to determinations that were not disallowable. It also raised practical difficulties if fees and charges were set and money paid and the fees and charges were later disallowed. The committee believes that that would be disruptive to the community and leave open the possibility of claims for compensation. However, that would be the case with any disallowance motion that overturned a regulation or instrument. I have also received advice from the Parliamentary Counsel's Office that there would be no legal obligation on the government to repay any fees and charges that were later disallowed.

Subsection 6(8) of the Subordinate Laws Act states that, where a subordinate law is disallowed, the effect is the same as the repeal of that law. The Interpretation Act, which also applies to subordinate laws as if they were acts, states that the repeal of an act does not affect the previous operation of the act or anything done under that act. While I can see that the bill is meant to facilitate the imposition of the GST, the bill raises broader issues regarding taxation powers that do need to be seriously addressed. I acknowledge the concerns of the scrutiny of bills committee and the Clerk, as I have stated before on this matter. Perhaps the government should be looking at more specific ways of including the GST in fees and charges, rather than this wholesale change to the taxation powers.

I will therefore not be supporting the bill in principle. However, if sufficient members pass this bill in principle, I will be putting up an amendment later to ensure that this taxation power can be applied only to disallowable instruments, so that the Assembly's oversight of the setting of fees and charges by government is at least maintained.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (11.11): This bill, presented by the Attorney-General on 9 May 2000, continues the government's downgrading of the Assembly's powers by providing that, if an act authorises or requires the determination of a fee, charge or other amount, the power includes power to determine a tax. The scrutiny of bills and subordinate legislation committee report No 5 of 2000 is scathing about this bill because it will allow the imposition of taxes by regulation, contrary to a principle that dates back further than the Bill of Rights of 1689. Mr Osborne, the chairman of the committee, has actually traced the origin of the principle to the reign of Edward I in the 13th century.

The government's response to the committee's report is inadequate and, in essence, merely reiterates what the Attorney said in his presentation speech; that is, it is no response at all because it does not address the fundamental problem drawn to attention by the committee. Why should the Assembly give up its power to control the imposition of taxes upon Canberrans for the spurious reasons given by the government?

What other possible reason is there for this Assembly to hand to the executive and the bureaucracy the power to impose taxes by regulation? Could it be that the government is concerned to cover up past actions? When the scrutiny committee raised this issue last

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