Page 2314 - Week 07 - Thursday, 17 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ACT Magistrates Court level, placing the appropriate constraints on litigants to prevent any unwarranted exploitation with respect to the disclosure or the release of information for taxation purposes in legal proceedings.
As far as any financial impacts go, the government believes that this bill may result in a minor negative revenue impact, if at all, as excess duties from self-managed superannuation funds may be forgone. The benefits of updating the relevant legislation, however, outweigh this potential adverse financial impact which would, in practice, be a relatively insignificant amount of money.
In summary, the Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill introduces sensible and necessary amendments to existing legislation that reflect changes to the commonwealth regulatory environment, modern business practices and established protocols for taxation information disclosure. It is in this context that the opposition believes that the bill is a positive move and therefore supports it.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (11.46): The Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 is pretty straightforward and does not require much comment. The changes to the Duties Act and the Payroll Tax Act clear up some anomalies and seem fair. However, I hope the superannuation changes do not cause the possible loss of income foreshadowed in the explanatory statement because the ACT’s environment and the weakest members of our community cannot afford to bear the brunt of this government’s response to any further loss of income.
My main concerns with this bill relate to the taxation amendments, as there are major discrepancies between the views of the Treasurer and the scrutiny of bills committee. The central question is: is it fair for all taxation information to be withheld from the courts unless the Commissioner of Taxation decides, in his or her almost absolute discretion, that it is appropriate to do so? This seems to be the intended effect of these amendments.
The explanatory statement talks about ensuring clarity and certainty, which was missing in the definition of “confidential”. But this amendment goes far beyond merely ensuring clarity or certainty. It expands the category of exempt documents and information to be far wider than what is presently encompassed within the existing definition of confidential information. Perhaps the truth of the matter lies in the third justification given in the explanatory statement, which is the avoidance of litigation.
I am sure that all government agencies would like a special get out of court free provision to save them having to expend resources on answering troublesome subpoenas and summonses. But such pesky inconveniences are a consequence of living in a system that still operates largely under the rule of law. While these amendments may save the taxation office some money, there are wider implications that do not seem to have been addressed or possibly observed by the government or the department or, seemingly, by the human rights commissioner or whoever gave the compatibility statement.
The explanatory statement talks about the need to balance the right to privacy against the right to access all the information necessary for a fair trial. But as far as I can see there is no balance whatsoever if the matter in question is not related to the administration of a tax law. In these non-tax matters, the right to privacy has trumped the right to a fair trial,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .