Page 3422 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 11 October 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
TAXATION (ADMINISTRATION) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1994
Debate resumed from 15 September 1994, on motion by Ms Follett:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR KAINE (4.26): Madam Speaker, I think that I can safely say that only a Labor government could have introduced this Bill, because it provides a great deal for the Government and very few crumbs for the governed. The principal Act to which the Bill relates establishes machinery for collecting the funds that the Government needs to support the programs that it was elected to implement. That is fair enough. But the Taxation (Administration) (Amendment) Bill 1994 provides a gun to be held at the collective heads of the ACT taxpayers, especially those whose business activities earn the money that is being taxed. The purpose of the Bill is to plug gaps that the Government has perceived - not established as being real, but perceived - in the powers that the Assembly has given to the tax gatherers. No evidence has been presented to show that any of the problems that the Bill is aimed at preventing have, in fact, occurred.
The Bill says that the tax gatherers may breathe down the taxpayers' necks for as long as they like if they think that the taxpayers might have evaded any rightful obligations. It proposes to give the tax gatherers powers to come at taxpayers after the six years for which the Assembly, by law, requires taxpayers to keep their records. It proposes to give them the power to call taxpayers to account in such a way that the taxpayers have to prove the tax gatherers wrong, rather than the tax gatherers having to prove themselves right. I find it rather strange that these things are coming from a government that constantly talks about social justice. These amendments have the potential to turn honest business people into criminals. People can be fined or sent to gaol if they breach the principal Act. So, framing the Bill needs extreme care to achieve two objectives.
The Opposition has no problems with the objective of government, which is to ensure that the public purse receives all the revenue due to it. I emphasise the words "due to it". The objective of taxpayers, of course, is not the same. Their objective is to not be subjected to onerous compliance requirements or be treated like criminals until the Government has proved that the law has been broken. This Bill requires the taxpayer to prove that the law has not been broken. The Government justifies placing the onus of proof on the taxpayers on the ground that the taxpayers are best acquainted with their own affairs. Madam Speaker, that may be true; but it is still a cop-out, because it relieves the Government of any responsibility to first establish its case. The Opposition has difficulty with this course of action; but we note that it is consistent with Commonwealth and State tax law. One has to wonder, however, whether it is really required or justified. I suggest that, in the interests of social justice, the Chief Minister re-examine this matter.
Administrative discretions vested in officials can be a minefield, even when they are appealable to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Administrative discretions are the basis of clause 4 of the Bill. Proposed section 12B of the principal Act gives with one hand and takes back with the other. A taxpayer may apply for an extension of time in which to lodge a return; but the commissioner may refuse the application if he is not satisfied that it would be unduly onerous for the taxpayer to lodge a return by the due date under the relevant taxing law.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .