Page 4604 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 6 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Taxpayers who do not pay their taxes are in a very different position. They are not carrying out their duty. In fact, they may be attempting to do anything but their duty. They may be attempting not to pay their taxes and not to meet their responsibilities to the rest of the community. There may be cases where an error has been made by a taxpayer. There may be cases where there has been a misunderstanding. But, Madam Speaker, I believe that we cannot say that the Commissioner for Revenue and the non-taxpayer are in equatable positions. The Commissioner for Revenue, in my opinion, is doing his duty. The non-taxpayer or the late taxpayer is not. So, they are not in comparable positions. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I believe that it is appropriate to have a penalty in one case and not in the other.
I would also like to say that, with such a huge differential as Mr Kaine suggests in his amendment, it may well be that we could find taxpayers manipulating the situation to take advantage of a 17 per cent interest payment. Some of these matters go to many thousands - even millions - of dollars, and it could well be worth the while of a taxpayer to pursue the matter through the AAT and so on, with the distinct intention of getting 17 per cent from the Revenue Commissioner. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility, Madam Speaker. I understand Mr Kaine's motivation in this. Indeed, on the surface of it, what he is proposing looks like a fair thing. But when you scrape away at that surface, look at our tax regime overall, look at the relative positions of the tax commissioner and the taxpayer, then I think that members would agree that Mr Kaine's amendment - understandable as it may be - would not make for an equitable outcome for the ACT.
MR DE DOMENICO (8.56): Madam Speaker, I have been listening very intently to what the Chief Minister has said. Can I say that her arguments are very poor?
Mr Berry: No, you cannot say that.
MR DE DOMENICO: Well, I am going to, Mr Berry. I just have.
Mr Lamont: Then you would be wrong again.
MR DE DOMENICO: I will say it again, if you like. I have listened to what the Chief Minister has said and to the interjections from the peanut gallery as well, and what the Chief Minister has said does not make any sense. Let us have a look at what the Chief Minister did say. The Chief Minister said that the taxpayer should be penalised - or that there ought to be some sort of penalty provision in there as a disincentive for people not to do the right thing. Can I use that same argument with the Chief Minister? There should be, perhaps, a disincentive the other way, to make sure that taxpayers also are treated fairly and equitably. That is one argument. She talked about a deliberate penalty.
It just goes to show you how interested Mr Lamont is, when he is making gesticulatory actions about puffing certain substances. Mr Lamont, I think this is a very serious piece of legislation - - -
Mr Lamont: Go out and water your tomatoes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .