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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1885 ..

MR QUINLAN: Mr Speaker, the amendments are based purely on the findings or observations of the scrutiny of bills committee. They must be observations as they are not supported by the chairman of the committee. I recommend that subclause (1) be omitted from the bill and that subclause (2) be amended to accommodate that omission. I commend the amendments to the Assembly.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (9.53): My adviser, the Commissioner for Revenue, is concerned about these provisions coming out. I suppose the most compelling argument about this provision is that it is a standard provision which appears in all ACT taxation legislation. I understand that the formula used in this clause was amended. My recollection is that it was amended some years ago to reflect a concern about an overly wide power of self-incrimination and subclause (2) was put in there to mitigate the effect of it, so that a person was not excused from answering a question seeking to obtain information in order to assess whether, for example, an application should be approved. Subclause (2) makes it clear that the answer is not admissible in evidence against that person except in limited circumstances, namely, for perjury or for an offence of making false or misleading statements.

Mr Speaker, all it says in a sense is that if you are asking for money from the government and you are asked to provide information about the application or subsequently, to verify whether the money has been legitimately, not fraudulently, provided, you are asked to provide information about that, you have to provide an answer under the legislation. It is clear that you have to provide that information and you do not have an exemption on the basis that you will incriminate yourself, although the only offence for which that information can be used is an offence of perjury or providing false or misleading information.

If a person provides false or misleading information in that form, why should they not be subject to some form of prosecution? Of course they should; they are committing a fraud. They are attempting to obtain money of the territory by deception or whatever the formulation might be. It is only fair and reasonable, if there is a power to require a person to provide information, that there be limits on the extent of the penalty that can be brought against them or the prosecution that can be brought against them on the basis of that matter.

Mr Speaker, my advice is that this is not a matter which is likely to have the Commonwealth concerned about the ACT's scheme, so it is not likely to be a matter where the Commonwealth will say that we can or cannot do something and reject our scheme on the basis of its being there. But it is there on the basis that it exists in all other ACT taxation matters. I might point out also that it is in taxation legislation which was brought forward and passed by the former government. It is a standard provision; it has been there in all taxation matters-for example, the Taxation (Administration) Act-and members have allowed it to be there for some time.

In general, these provisions are not supportable in other legislation, but in tax legislation they are quite standard. If the Assembly wants to take them out of this bill tonight, we really ought to go through and take them out of all ACT taxation legislation.

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