Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 7 Hansard (6 June) . . Page.. 2076 ..

MS DUNDAS (continuing):

I also believe that my proposed list of exempted insurance policies will cover all types of insurance currently held by those non-profit bodies. I propose that the minister be permitted to specify additional categories of exempt insurance as provided in the bill, but I believe that the list of categories I have developed encompasses all policies currently held by amateur sporting associations.

I am aware that it was not the immediate intention of the government to exempt organisations from duty on insurance premiums other than for public liability cover. However, I think the granting of a broader exemption would be a welcome sign that the Assembly recognises the hardship being experienced by non-profit organisations. On Tuesday the Assembly was able to grant special funding regimes to women's sporting organisations. So, let us broaden the things that we are doing for the community in insurance.

Broadening the exemption will also simplify administration of the exemption, as almost all sporting organisations have insurance policies combining a range of insurance types. These policies do not usually indicate what portion of the policy relates to public liability, as opposed to directors' and officers' liability or other categories of liability. Apportioning the duty charge would place an additional burden on the ACT Revenue Office.

In conclusion, my amended proposal would not significantly increase the burden on the minister or the Assembly. As I have mentioned, most community organisations are already wholly exempted from duty, independent of the exercise of ministerial discretion. My amendment would automatically exempt all needy sporting organisations, independent of ministerial discretion. I do not believe that the residual ministerial power to make guidelines and grant exemptions would need to be used in many, if any, instances.

I seek the Assembly's support for what I believe is an important amendment to make this bill more workable for community organisations and make the government more accountable.

MS TUCKER (6.23): This amendment responds to concern that the bill is quite vague in specifying the details of the circumstances in which the duty exemption will be provided. The bill merely sets up the power for the minister to determine disallowable guidelines for exempting from duty a premium for public liability or other general insurance.

The minister's presentation speech and the EM outline that the contents of the guidelines on that exemption would be provided to ACT-based amateur sporting and community groups which run on a not-for-profit basis. If the government was so clear about who was getting the exemption, then I wonder why this was not included in the bill. It is annoying that the Assembly is being asked to support a bill which just sets up a framework for action and not the action itself without having seen the proposed guidelines, even if only in draft form.

Ms Dundas has responded to this deficiency by attempting to define in the bill the organisations eligible for exemption and the types of insurance covered. She is putting in the bill what the government intended to do in the guidelines, although I note that she

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .