Page 3427 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 11 October 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
have to pay more tax than they would otherwise have to pay, to make up for these tax evasions. I do not believe that we should offer any comfort to cheats by setting a period, after which they may go scot-free. So, I do not support the comments that Mr Kaine made there. I put it to the Assembly that the honest taxpayers, who have nothing to hide, will not be affected by this kind of provision and, indeed, they would have no reason to keep their records beyond the six years required by the Act.
Madam Speaker, I believe that the provisions of the Taxation (Administration) (Amendment) Bill are reasonable. They will affect the way in which unpaid taxes are recovered and returns are lodged for assessment and the period in which assessments can be amended; but the amendments to the Act are also made to recognise, just on a technical matter, the repeal of the Companies Act. This is basically a housekeeping Act. I believe that the concerns that Mr Kaine has raised can all be refuted. Having said that, I would like to add that, as I have said many times, our revenue legislation is pretty much under constant review. Where it is found to be adversely affecting taxpayers in a way that is not reasonable or in a way that was not intended by this Assembly, I am open to changing that legislation. Indeed, I have done so on many occasions. So, I commend this Bill to the Assembly. I will undertake to keep it under review. I regard it as a necessary compliance Bill, but also one which tidies up a few aspects of the tax Act and one which provides increased mechanisms for taxpayers which will make it easier and less onerous for them to comply with the ACT's legislation.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Detail Stage
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole
MR KAINE (8.12): Madam Speaker, I move:
Page 3, line 8, clause 5, paragraph (a), omit "6", substitute "4".
I listened with interest to the Chief Minister's rebuttal of the points that I made in the in-principle debate. The only clause of the Bill to which I indicated an intention to move an amendment was the one dealing with this matter. The Chief Minister asserted that my interpretation of section 170 of the Commonwealth Income Tax Assessment Act was wrong. I can only quote the advice that was submitted to me jointly by the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants and the Institute of Chartered Accountants. I think that they are more inclined to be correct, in terms of the interpretation of the tax Act, than the Chief Minister's public servants. Their advice states:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .