8
1
WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 1980
ON THE ALLOCATION SYSTEM BY WHICH PARENTS HAVE TO CHOOSE ALL THE SCHOOLS IN THEIR AREA, MISS BENNETT SAID THAT DESPITE THE TECHNIQUE OF OPTIMISATION, IT WOULD ENABLE PROPORTIONATELY VERY FEW PARENTS TO OBTAIN THE IR FIRST CHOICE OF SCHOOL FOR THEIR CHILDREN.
SHE ASKED WHETHER ANY STUDY WOULD BE MADE OF THE SCHOOLS WHICH WERE CONSISTENTLY AT THE BOTTOM OF PARENTS' LISTS AND WHETHER ANY SPECIAL ASSISTANCE WOULD BE GIVEN TO THEM TO
IMPROVE THEIR PERFORMANCE.
FEBRUARY 1980 DATE FOR BILL TO STOP TAX AVOIDANCE *****
THE INLAND REVENUE (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL, INTENDED TO STOP TAX AVOIDANCE THROUGH CONTRIVED BUSINESS CESSATIONS, WILL NOW ONLY APPLY TO THOSE ASSESSMENTS FOR 1979-80 RAISED AFTER FEBRUARY 27 THIS YEAR, THE DATE THE INTENTION TO AMEND THE LEGISLATION WAS ANNOUNCED,
THE AMENDED BILL WAS PASSED BY THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TODAY.
THE CHANGE WAS RECOMMENDED BY AN AD HOC GROUP OF UNOFFICIAL COUNCILLORS AND TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE VIEWS OF A NUMBER OF ORGANISATIONS REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY AND PROFESSIONAL BODIES.
SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF UNOFFICIAL MEMBERS DURING THE RESUMED DEBATE ON THE BILL, THE HON DAVID NEWBIGGING SAID THEY WOULD ACCEPT THIS AMENDMENT TO THE BILL ALBEIT WITH SOME RELUCTANCE.
MR NEWBIGGING GIVING REASONS FOR THEIR OBJECTION SAID: +BASICALLY WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF RETROACTIVE LEGISLATION IN INLAND REVENUE MATTERS EXCEPT UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
+ IN THE PRESENT CASE THE SO-CALLED LOOPHOLE HAS EXISTED FOR SOME TIME AND GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN AWARE OF IT, SO WE DO NOT FEEL THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE EXCEPTIONAL.
+WE BELIEVE THAT THE INTRODUCTION OF RETROACTIVE INLAND REVENUE LEGISLATION WOULD CAUSE UNNECESSARY UNCERTAINTY IN THE MANAGEMENT OF BUSINESSES GENERALLY AND UNDERMINE GOVERNMENT'S OWN CREDIBILITY, AND THAT THESE CONSIDERATIONS SHOULD OUTWEIGH THE COMPARATIVELY SMALL AMOUNT OF REVENUE LOST TO GOVERNMENT.+
MR NEWBIGGING NOTED THAT THE AMENDMENT GOES SOME WAY TOWARDS MEETING THE OBJECTION.
+HOWEVER, HE POINTED OUT, THERE MAY BE SOME WHO HAD FILED RETURNS BUT HAD NOT BEEN ASSESSED BEFORE FEBRUARY 27, 1980 WHO WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE ORDINANCE AND, FOR THEM, THE BILL WILL HAVE BEEN EFFECTIVELY RETROACTIVE.+
/IN REPLY
Page 10Page 11