

- Title
TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1998
In Committee
- Database
Senate Hansard
- Date
27-05-1998
- Source
Senate
- Parl No.
38
- Electorate
WA
- Interjector
CHAIRMAN
- Page
3151
- Party
ALP
- Presenter
- Status
Final
- Question No.
- Questioner
- Responder
- Speaker
Cook, Sen Peter
- Stage
In Committee
- Type
- Context
Bills
- System Id
chamber/hansards/1998-05-27/0010
Previous Fragment Next Fragment
-
Hansard
- Start of Business
- PARLIAMENTARY ZONE: NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF AUSTRALIA
-
TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1998
-
In Committee
- Margetts, Sen Dee
- Minchin, Sen Nick
- Margetts, Sen Dee
- Kemp, Sen Rod
- Margetts, Sen Dee
- Cook, Sen Peter
- Margetts, Sen Dee
- Kemp, Sen Rod
- Margetts, Sen Dee
- Kemp, Sen Rod
- Kemp, Sen Rod
- Margetts, Sen Dee
- Kemp, Sen Rod
- Cook, Sen Peter
- Murray, Sen Andrew
- Margetts, Sen Dee
- Cook, Sen Peter
- Murray, Sen Andrew
- Margetts, Sen Dee
- Cook, Sen Peter
- Kemp, Sen Rod
- Cook, Sen Peter
- Murray, Sen Andrew
- Division
- Procedural Text
- Third Reading
-
In Committee
-
NATIONAL TRANSMISSION NETWORK SALE BILL 1997
NATIONAL TRANSMISSION NETWORK SALE (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1997 - CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION
- MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
- DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
-
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
-
Minister for Resources and Energy: Farm Assistance Package
(Faulkner, Sen John, Parer, Sen Warwick) -
Gold Industry: Native Title
(O'Chee, Sen Bill, Parer, Sen Warwick) -
Employment Services
(West, Sen Sue, Ellison, Sen Chris) -
Education: Funding
(Allison, Sen Lyn, Ellison, Sen Chris) -
Minister for Resources and Energy
(Conroy, Sen Stephen, Parer, Sen Warwick) -
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
(Brown, Sen Bob, Alston, Sen Richard) -
Trusts: Taxation
(Cook, Sen Peter, Kemp, Sen Rod) -
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
(Macdonald, Sen Sandy, Alston, Sen Richard) -
Minister for Resources and Energy: Farm Assistance Package
(Murphy, Sen Shayne, Parer, Sen Warwick)
-
Minister for Resources and Energy: Farm Assistance Package
- ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
- ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
- ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
- TELSTRA
- PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
- ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
- ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
- PETITIONS
- NOTICES OF MOTION
- AUSTRALASIAN POLICE MINISTERS' COUNCIL
- COMMITTEES
- ORDER OF BUSINESS
- COMMITTEES
- ORDER OF BUSINESS
- FOREIGN POLICY
- CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION
- INDIA: NUCLEAR TESTING
- COMMITTEES
- MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
- COMMITTEES
- CHILD SUPPORT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1998
-
NATIONAL TRANSMISSION NETWORK SALE BILL 1997
NATIONAL TRANSMISSION NETWORK SALE (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1997 - DOCUMENTS
- ADJOURNMENT
- Adjournment
- DOCUMENTS
- UNPROCLAIMED LEGISLATION
-
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
-
Export Finance Investment Corporation
(Brown, Sen Bob, Parer, Sen Warwick) -
Natural Heritage Trust
(Brown, Sen Bob, Hill, Sen Robert) -
Ministerial Code of Conduct
(Brown, Sen Bob, Hill, Sen Robert) -
Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs: Qualitative and Quantitative Research
(Ray, Sen Robert, Ellison, Sen Chris) -
Commonwealth Employment Service
(Faulkner, Sen John, Ellison, Sen Chris) -
Department for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs: Advertising
(Faulkner, Sen John, Ellison, Sen Chris)
-
Export Finance Investment Corporation
Page: 3151
Senator COOK (9:42 AM)
—Last night, when this debate was drawing to the witching hour, there was some ambiguity in the position of the opposition in the sense that I said I was disposed. Let me clarify the ambiguity: I support the proposal of the government and I do not support the proposal of the Greens. I have great admiration for the tenacity and fighting spirit of Senator Margetts. It is on display again this morning, and one should admire and respect that. However, from the opposition's point of view, large remitters are not downtrodden people and are, by definition, large organisations remitting big licks of money to the Australian tax system.
The time value of that money that is remitted is important and cannot be swept aside in this argument. If it comes by way of cheque, the Tax Office does not actually receive the money until it is cleared, which may be several days or a week or more after the cheque has been signed. That might seem to be a small point. Given the volume and amount of money concerned, it is actually quite an important point. To transfer these funds in an efficient way is what the amendment is about.
I do not think that anyone will argue that large remitters lack the capacity to do this. In fact, the government has just announced that 98 per cent of them do have the capacity to do this, and I do not think we are imposing an unfair imposition on the other two per cent by doing it this way. In any case, it is with the approval of the Tax Commissioner. Therefore, one imagines an interactive process between the larger remitter and the Tax Commissioner so that the efficiency elements are best dealt with having in mind the capability of the company concerned. But on what side of the argument do you fall—for it or agin it? We fall on the side for the government's position because we do not see the particular imposition. We do think the time value of money is important. This guarantees that that issue is best addressed here.
We are moving forward, too, in terms of electronic commerce. This is an element of electronic commerce that is being implemented through the tax system. If anything, one praises the tax system for being aware of modern technological and business practice and in moving with the times in this amendment, not against it. We therefore support it.