Page 2849 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 19 September 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
expectations and procedures to make them consistent with a human rights based approach.
Having embarked on this project, though, it is incumbent on all levels of government to ensure that due scrutiny through the human rights lens is applied to their activities. That is of particular and obvious significance when it comes to the introduction of legislation. We note that this legislation came with its statement of compatibility with the human rights legislation, but it does not appear as though the issues raised by the scrutiny of bills committee were considered in that analysis or not considered important enough. Again, the problem here is that we never, ever see the thinking that goes into those compatibility statements; so again we will never, ever know.
Unfortunately, this bill was introduced on 24 August, which was the last sitting day of that two-week period, and now we are debating it, which is the next possible day it could have been debated. By the time that the scrutiny committee had finished its analysis and reported, the government was probably locked into the debate today. We shall see. In retrospect, I suppose I could have suggested that the government change the order of business last week, prior to the committee’s deliberations, on the presumption that there could well be issues that needed more consideration. However, I had hoped that the government would have held over the debate on the legislation until Thursday so that it could take into account the committee’s comments.
It surely would have been preferable if the government, with its commitment to human rights, had ensured that it had seen the comments from the scrutiny committee and had had time to respond and give members time to absorb that dialogue prior to debate. That would seem a respectful process that would have allowed the human rights scrutiny to be properly applied to the legislation. Consequently, I look forward to reading the government’s response to the scrutiny comments, and perhaps hearing it shortly from the Treasurer, but I am surprised that it comes too late to properly inform the process.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Minister for the Arts) (11.17): Mr Speaker, as members have noted, the Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill amends the Duties Act and the Taxation Administration Act to provide the changes required to introduce electronic lodgment and payment services. The ACT Revenue Office has been working towards increasing the availability of electronic services since the initiative was first announced in the 2005-06 budget. The development of the IT system to facilitate the online lodgment and payment service is progressing and it is expected that extensive testing by both revenue office staff and selected external users will commence in 2007.
The Law Society of the ACT is supportive of the new service and has provided useful feedback on the design of the system. A key element of the consultation on the development of the new service is a series of workshops and presentations for affected clients of the revenue office. Principals of ACT law firms, as well as from financial advisers and accounting firms that frequently interact with the revenue office, are invited to attend and receive documentation on the progress of the project as well as the detail of the system to be introduced. Further consultation with the law society and other stakeholders will occur prior to the implementation of the new system to ensure that it operates effectively and securely.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .