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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (23 May) . . Page.. 1564 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

Also, it is an all or nothing exercise. When you talk about a disallowance motion, you are talking about disallowing the lot. I would far prefer to have something as significant as levying a tax left in the historical context. It is our right and we should not have it taken away, nor should we give it away. I reiterate that if, in fact, we allow a tax to be levied by subordinate law and if, perchance, one of the members has a difficulty with it and moves for its disallowance, recovery of the amounts involved by the people affected is nigh on impossible because it has been in force for a certain length of time.

What alternative is there? I have some sympathy for the Treasurer in this regard, because he has time against him. Later on in the daily program there is a reference to Mr Humphries, the Treasurer, presenting by leave the Goods and Services (Temporary Transitional Provisions) Bill 2000. I have not seen that bill, but it is a bill. Why could we not have had a bill presented to this Assembly giving the proper authorisations for the passing on of the tax? Why not? We have all known about the GST for some time. In a sense, we are talking about an academic treatment of how this tax will be applied and passed on. Why on earth do we need to do it through subordinate legislation?

People have been born, lived their lives and died in the time that this debate on a GST has been going on. I do not understand why the government could not have asked the Parliamentary Counsel to draft an act which empowered this government to pass on the implications of the GST, which is a tax.

I will not be supporting this bill because I do not want to give away my right as a member of this parliament to determine a tax or to contribute to that debate. I do not want to have to sift through a whole raft of information on subordinate laws to try to find something that I do or do not like. I do not want to have such a proposal sit on the table for six days and then have the difficulty of moving a disallowance motion on it. That is totally wrong. On top of that, if we can have a temporary transitional provisions bill, Mr Speaker, why can we not have a bill for this sort of thing? I urge members to vote against this bill today. Doing so would give the government a good six weeks or so to come back with a bill. Given the inevitability of the GST, we all have some sympathy with the mechanics of it and I am sure that it would probably have a reasonable passage.

Debate (on motion by Mr Rugendyke ) adjourned.

MR HIRD (11.36): Mr Speaker, I present Report No 49 of the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services, entitled Activity in 1999-2000, together with a copy of the extracts of the minutes of proceedings. I move:

Mr Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues on the Planning and Urban Services Committee, Mr Rugendyke and Mr Corbell, I present a report to the Assembly which outlines the committee's work for the last 12 months. The report continues the practice established

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