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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (23 May) . . Page.. 1562 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

The government has put no justification forward for saying that it has to enact this bill for the purpose of the GST. Our report goes on:

In other words, you can do it by more specific provisions, rather than the blanket provision the government is imposing, which allows anybody in the ACT administration, under some sort of delegation, the power to levy a tax. This provision of this bill is not necessary. It can be done in a better way, a way which allows the Assembly to make its judgment on each case as to whether the subordinate legislation should be allowed or disallowed.

There is a longstanding principle here. I do not think that we ought to be disturbing that longstanding principle and embedding the diversion from it into law. I do not agree with that. The government need to go away and think again in terms of the necessity for doing what they are trying to do here. They have given no indication that they intend to do that. I make it quite clear that, until they do, I will not support this bill.

MR HARGREAVES (11.26): Mr Speaker, we should not be supporting this bill for the reasons which have been articulated very well by my leader Mr Stanhope and by Mr Kaine and Ms Tucker. I acknowledge Ms Tucker's proposed amendment, which will go some way to repairing the damage if this bill actually gets passed.

To put things more simply, we have the historical precedent that this parliament is the instrument by which taxes can be levied and we are giving it away. When we give it away to subordinate legislation, we affect the possibility of scrutiny of that legislation.

We all know that this government has dropped the period for subordinate law to sit on the table from 15 sitting days to six sitting days. That makes it very difficult for crossbench members, for example, who like to look at all pieces of subordinate legislation in case they see something with which they disagree. They will not have that opportunity. What will happen as a result of this bill is that, when a minister determines that a tax shall apply, that piece of action will be included in subordinate legislation governing any number of things.

In fact, a quick scan of the scrutiny of bills committee reports will show that something like four or five, maybe six, acts and 20 or more pieces of subordinate legislation are actually examined by the legal adviser and the committee. As I said, it is difficult for members to look through all of the subordinate legislation, given that once upon a time we had 15 sitting days to look at it and now we have six sitting days to look at it. It is a really big task for any opposition or crossbench member to examine each and every piece of subordinate legislation inside six sitting days if there is no flag to say that there may be something in them of concern. My hassle with this bill, along with the tradition that it is for members to set a tax, is that there is no flag for us to look at and say instantly whether we agree or do not agree with particular items.

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