Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2261 ..
Mr Moore: It may seem like only two years to you, but to us it feels like 21/2.
MRS CARNELL: I can understand that. Do you want to know how long it actually feels to me? No, we will not get into that. Mr Speaker, I am very pleased that those in the Assembly support this approach. I am very pleased that Mr Whitecross owns it - that Mr Whitecross owns both the reductions and the increases that are part of this approach - and I thank Mr Whitecross for the new system.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
Debate resumed from 17 June 1997, on motion by Mrs Carnell:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR WHITECROSS (Leader of the Opposition) (8.30): Mr Speaker, Labor will be supporting this Bill, which institutes a tax equivalent regime for Territory-owned corporations. This Bill provides the legislative framework through which the Government can administer a system of tax equivalents for TOCs. The TOC Act, as it is currently, does not provide adequate guidelines for separate income tax and sales tax equivalents, the timing of payments, appeal rights and penalties. The Bill ensures that such taxes can be assessed and paid. It is in accordance with the national competition reforms which the Follett Government signed onto in 1994. These tax arrangements will ensure that government businesses are subject to the same tax requirements as the private sector, creating a more competitive business environment. Labor supports the Bill.
MR MOORE (8.31): Mr Speaker, I rise to support this Bill, which, as I see it, imposes effectively a phantom tax liability on government business entities, which in turn puts them on an equal commercial footing with private business. That is a concept that I am comfortable with. It certainly fits into general competition policy. So, provided that you accept that conceptual policy - and indeed I do - then the Bill has no difficulty.
There is a question I have about the proposed new section 30G, on page 5. Where the commissioner is satisfied that things are fair and reasonable, then there is the ability to waive or find remissions or refunds. I have not quite understood why that is the case, and I wonder whether the Chief Minister would mind explaining that provision to me. I do not think it undermines the character of the Bill, but it is one that I was more curious about than anything.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .