XN000022-1987-05-06 — Page 26

WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 1987

24

ESTATE DUTY BILL INTRODUCED

*****

A BILL SEEKING TO GIVE LEGISLATIVE EFFECT TO THE PROPOSAL IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR TWO CONCESSIONS RELATING TO ESTATE DUTY WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TODAY (WEDNESDAY).

MOVING THE SECOND READING OF THE ESTATE DUTY (AMENDMENT) BILL 1987, THE ACTING FINANCIAL SECRETARY, THE HON JOHN YAXLEY, SAID THE AMENDMENTS APPLIED IN RELATION TO THE ESTATES OF PERSONS DYING ON OR AFTER APRIL 1, 1987 AND THE ESTIMATED COST TO THE REVENUE WAS $25 MILLION PER ANNUM.

+TO REDUCE THE INFLATIONARY ELEMENT INHERENT IN THE RISE IN ASSET VALUE IN RECENT YEARS, CLAUSE 6 ADDS A NEW SEVENTEENTH SCHEDULE REDUCING THE RATES OF DUTY PAYABLE ON ESTATES VALUED BELOW $5 MILLION,+ MR YAXLEY SAID.

+THE EFFECT OF CLAUSE 3 OF THE BILL IS THAT PROPERTY, WHICH NOTIONALLY PASSES ON DEATH FOR THE PURPOSES OF ASSESSING ESTATE DUTY, WILL NOT INCLUDE GIFTS INTER VIVOS MADE BY THE DECREASED WHICH, IN THE CASE OF ANY ONE DONEE, DID NOT EXCEED IN THE AGGREGATE $100 000, HE SAID.

THE EXISTING EXEMPTION APPLIED TO GIFTS NOT EXCEEDING $50 000, HE ADDED.

DEBATE ON THE BILL WAS ADJOURNED.

-

THREE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED TO DANGEROUS DRUGS ORDINANCE

*****

THREE AMENDMENTS TO THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ORDINANCE WERE INTRODUCED BY THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY, THE HON DAVID JEAFFRESON, TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL MEETING TODAY (WEDNESDAY).

THE AMENDMENTS SEEK TO INTRODUCE CERTAIN PRESUMPTIVE LEVELS IN RESPECT OF ANY FORM OF FOUR SPECIFIED DANGEROUS DRUGS SO THAT A PERSON FOUND IN POSSESSION OF MORE THAN THESE LEVELS MAY BE PRESUMED TO HAVE HAD THE DRUGS IN HIS POSSESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRAFFICKING TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON FOUND IN DIVAN OR ESCAPING FROM ONE IS PRESUMED TO KNOW THE NATURE OF THE DRUG HE HAS BEEN TAKING; AND TO SET OUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE COURTS NEED NOT CONSIDER A DRUG ADDICTION TREATMENT CENTRE REPORT.

MOVING THE SECOND READING OF THE DANGEROUS DRUGS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1987. MR JEAFFRESON SAID THAT THE REASON FOR AMENDING THE PRESUMPTIVE LEVELS WAS THAT IN CASES OF POSSESSION OF DRUGS FOR UNLAWFUL TRAFFICKING. THE LAW AT PRESENT DID NOT LAY DOWN ANY PRESUMPTIVE LEVELS FOR CERTAIN DANGEROUS DRUGS FOUND OTHER THAN IN TABLET OR CAPSULE FORM.

/LIFECIFICALLY, THERE