Page 4081 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 24 November 1993

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

MR HUMPHRIES: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether Cadbury chocolates are any indication of the sort of chocolate that Mr Berry might have been able to buy, the sort that says proudly on its back wrapper, "Product of Australia". Mr Berry, how many nurses and staff members politely refused your offer of a chocolate because they hated your guts?

MR BERRY: What we wanted was some boxes of good quality chocolates and I think we got good quality. If I had had the opportunity to buy Australian ones at the same time, that would have occurred; but I needed them in a hurry because it was an important award. I have to say to you, Mr Humphries, that nobody refused them.

Mr Humphries: That is not true. We have been told that people refused. Telling lies, Wayne.

Mr Berry: I think we will have to - - -

MADAM SPEAKER: Order! Mr Stevenson is the only one standing, so Mr Stevenson has the question.

Mr Stevenson: What does that mean?

MADAM SPEAKER: However, Mr Stevenson, you have just been trumped here. Mr Berry has not finished.

Mr Berry: I raise a point of order. I think Mr Humphries said something about me lying. Of course, he will have to withdraw that in due course.

MADAM SPEAKER: Please withdraw that, Mr Humphries.

Mr Humphries: Madam Speaker, I think there are some nurses in the hospital who might back me up on this one; but, until they bring their stat decs forward, I withdraw.

Land Tax

MR STEVENSON: My question is to the Chief Minister and it concerns land tax. About 10 years ago a young man built a home and, until the last year, has been working seven days a week, 14 to 16 hours a day, and has been living with his parents most of the time. He was charged land tax and sought an exemption, but it was not granted. He had not been renting the place. Until September this year it did not have a certificate of compliance. It has no floor coverings, has bare cement and has old sheets on the windows. It was certainly not bought as an investment property. He is getting married in January next year and will move into the home. Firstly, one would ask: Why was he not granted an exemption? He was living most of the time with his parents because he had some chance of being looked after due to the amount of time he was working. Secondly, the Revenue Office told him, when he applied for at least a pro rata refund on land tax paid to June next year, that there would be none although he would be living in the property from January. The first point is that it seems unreasonable to not grant an exemption in the first place. Secondly, it is obviously unreasonable not to grant a pro rata refund.

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