Page 2644 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 24 August 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
But I just cannot believe that the Government can be so slack in its approach to something that really is a quite significant matter. It seems to have been dealt with by the Government in a cavalier fashion. Unless circumstances have changed, the law has to be in place by 1 September so that it achieves uniformity with the States and the Northern Territory. We support the Bill. As far as I am concerned, it can be taken in its entirety in the detail stage.
MR MOORE (4.56): Madam Speaker, I have a slightly different view from that of Mr Kaine. When I received a briefing on this Bill I was also provided with information on the amendments to be moved by the Treasurer. So perhaps Mr Kaine had been briefed much earlier than I had. I note that that was the case with Ms Szuty as well. Madam Speaker, I am going to make some comments on behalf of Ms Szuty because she has lost her voice. She is unable to speak; but she whispered to me a couple of things. I am not going to whisper them back to the Assembly in the same way as she did, although the temptation is great.
With respect to amendment No. 1 - the penalty change from six months to 12 months - Ms Szuty asked those briefing her whether that was consistent across Australia. The reason for asking the question was that this is a mutual recognition Bill, and therefore it would be appropriate, as far as she was concerned, to have that sort of approach. The answer she was given was that, first of all, it was a consistent approach to criminal penalties across legislation in the Territory. That was the reason for changing from six months to 12 months. The answer that she was provided with in writing from the senior policy officer included these paragraphs:
A survey of other stamp duty jurisdictions (NSW, WA, VIC, SA and TAS) has revealed that they do not have specific penalty provisions for the offences identified in the supplementary Bill. We are penalising persons who use a CHESS participant's identifier number without the authority of the participant, which is a situation that could create a stamp duty liability for a participant, without their knowledge or consent.
Most other jurisdictions indicated that they would seek to penalise this situation using their general penalty provisions. The level of penalty that they could impose varies between jurisdictions, therefore it is impossible for the ACT to introduce a penalty that achieves consistency with all States and Territories.
This situation can be addressed as part of the project to rewrite the stamp duties legislation. Five jurisdictions including ourselves are participating in this project, and the CHESS provisions will be reviewed with the objective of achieving a greater level of uniformity where possible.
So, that concern with the clause is handled in that way.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .