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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 7 Hansard (6 June) . . Page.. 2078 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

beyond the intent of the bill and ought to be the subject of its own separate debate at another time should a member have that desire.

Workers compensation is already exempt under section 201 of the Duties Act, so paragraph (e) is unnecessary. The insurance mentioned in paragraph (f) will be included in the determination as exempt insurance. As I mentioned earlier, the insurances in paragraphs (g) to (k) are outside the intent of this bill.

The bill will allow the Treasurer to determine other kinds of insurance which will be exempt. The ability of the minister to determine other kinds of insurance is duplicated in the amendment. In proposed new section 201A a determination under paragraph (1) (l) is a disallowable instrument, whereas in proposed new section 201B an exemption under subsection (1) is a notifiable instrument, and a guideline is a disallowable instrument. This amendment will cause confusion because of the different instruments required under different sections. I do not think I need to go into detail about it. If I do, let me know.

The proposed section on exemptions from duty of particular insurance introduces added complexity, requiring each type of insurance and person to be stated in writing and notified in accordance with guidelines which are a disallowable instrument. As indicated, proposed section 201B seems to duplicate the minister's ability to determine that other kinds of insurance are exempt as set out in 201A (1) (l).

All of that goes to say that, despite the good intentions, this amendment does not improve the legislation. It certainly widens the scope of insurance that might be exempt, but that is outside the issue I brought to this house.

The other attempts at ensuring accountability create a prescriptiveness that may, and probably will, militate against the provision of an exemption to an appropriate organisation. These things are difficult to define. That is why the bill confers flexibility on the appropriate minister.

In case it is not known, as Treasurer, I virtually have the capacity now to waive any tax in the territory. One has to be accountable for that. The amendment is not helpful to the bill.

MR HUMPHRIES (Leader of the Opposition) (6.34): The Treasurer has raised a number of concerns about the amendment Ms Dundas has brought forward. I do not fully accept some of the his criticisms of the amendment and have some questions about others. He pointed to duplication between the amendment and provisions already included in other parts of the bill or in the act itself. For example, the exemption from duty for charitable organisations is already provided for elsewhere. Is there a problem with the duplication? Does it cause a difficulty in being able to operate the legislation?

The Treasurer pointed out that proposed paragraph 200A (b) excludes certain non-sporting organisations, but it is meant to do that. Paragraph (b) is meant to be about sporting organisations only, as I understand it. Proposed sections 201A and 201B are meant to catch other organisations.

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