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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 7 Hansard (6 June) . . Page.. 2079 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

The minister asserted that the definition of "not-for-profit organisation" excludes the situation where, on the dissolution of an organisation, there is a distribution of assets to members. I have read that definition a couple of times, and I cannot see that it says that. It says that to be a not-for-profit organisation an organisation must have "a constitution prohibiting the organisation from making a distribution in money, property or any other way to its members other than for salary or allowances". How does that permit the distribution of assets to members on dissolution of the organisation? It seems to me that that would be excluded. Is there any other reason why this definition of a not-for-profit organisation cannot be used?

The Treasurer went on to point out that in proposed section 201A there are a number of grounds for exemption that are included in the present bill but others that are not. But the Treasurer has not explained why those provisions are not appropriately in the bill. For example, why should insurance against theft of money from an organisation or its members not be exempt from the payment of stamp duty? It is a cost an organisation might meet. Why should it not have an exemption for it? If the Treasurer could answer those questions, it would assist the process of deliberation.

Mr Quinlan: I did.

MR HUMPHRIES: Sorry, I did not understand the-

Mr Quinlan: Yes, I know. You were reading.

MR HUMPHRIES: I was reading what you had given me as you were saying it. You pointed out that some of the paragraphs in proposed section 201A (1) contained matters that are included in the government's proposals and that some contained matters outside the government's proposals, but I do not think you said why being outside the government's proposals was a problem.

Why is it, for example, that insurance against theft of money from an organisation or its members is not a matter that this Assembly should not allow to be exempt from stamp duty. I do not think you explained that in your speech. If you did, I apologise, and I am happy for you to explain now why that is the case.

I have a question for Ms Dundas as well. Her proposed section 201A (1) states, "The following insurances are exempt from duty under this chapter if purchased by or for an eligible organisation," and lists a number of categories of insurance. I assume that organisations will often buy a single insurance policy covering a wide number of issues, some of which might fall in this list and some which might not fall in this list.

How does an organisation fare with obtaining an exemption from duty if some of these items are in the policy and some are not? Is it the intention that Treasury should divide the eligibility for exemption so that part of the policy is exempt from duty and part is not? If that is the case, and there is a single premium for the whole policy, how will they work out which part of the premium should be exempt and which part should not?

If I could have some answers to those questions, it would help me to confirm my view.

Mr Quinlan: What are you trying to do?

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