Page 2318 - Week 07 - Thursday, 17 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
wages paid by means of instruction, which includes the electronic transfer, are included as wages for payroll tax purposes.
The amendment essentially extends the existing section of the Payroll Tax Act that determines where, and when, wages are paid for ACT payroll tax purposes. The provision simply updates the terminology to include wages paid by means of an instruction and it determines that wages are taken to be paid at the place where the account is credited and at the time when the account is credited.
The final amendment in the bill amends the Taxation Administration Act to provide greater protection of taxpayer information and certainty for tax officers administering the secrecy provisions contained in the act. The Standing Committee on Legal Affairs has made extensive comment on this amendment in scrutiny report No 26 of 5 June. I have responded to the committee in some detail, addressing its concerns in relation to rights issues and also purported inconsistencies between the ACT and the commonwealth.
Firstly I will address the rights issue. The existing section 99 of the Taxation Administration Act seeks to prevent a tax officer from producing confidential information to a court unless it is related to the administration or execution of a tax law. However, as this act does not define the term “confidential”, the tax officer is reliant on the common law definition to determine whether information required is confidential or otherwise. This can, and does, give rise to uncertainty. A tax officer may refuse to provide information that is later found to be not confidential; conversely, a tax officer may release information that a court or a taxpayer may consider in fact was confidential.
It is desirable to prevent the inappropriate release of taxpayers’ information in the first instance. It is also desirable to provide certainty and clarity to tax officers who administer the tax laws and prevent any litigation that may arise, should so-called confidential information be provided inappropriately.
The original policy intention to restrict disclosure to where it is necessary to do so for the purposes of the administration or execution of tax law has not been changed. The amendments strengthen the secrecy provisions by replacing the term “confidential” with the defined terms “protected document” and “protected information” and impose specific restrictions on disclosures to courts and tribunals. Protected information and documents are defined in the act to mean documents and information obtained or created, in the case of documents, in the administration or execution of a tax law.
I am aware that providing immunity to a tax officer in the circumstances specified in the amendment does engage the right to privacy and the right to a fair trial under the Human Rights Act, and this has been considered in the preparation of the legislation. A human rights compatibility statement has been provided, and the explanatory statement does address these issues. The committee explicitly acknowledges in scrutiny report No 26 that a territory law extending the occasions on which a person may refuse to disclose evidence to a court may avoid incompatibility with the Human Rights Act, either because the law is not incompatible with a fair trial or, if it is, the derogation is justifiable under the act.
The restrictions on disclosure by a tax officer to a court or a tribunal are considered to be a reasonable limitation of both the right to privacy and the right to a fair trial. The right
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .