Senator MURRAY (12:48 PM) —In rising to speak on the Customs (Tariff Concession System Valida tions) Bill 1999 , I was amused by two things. Firstly, Senator Cooney and I discussed how the shifting sands of truth, light and justice move. He was vigorously opposed to me just now, and I am now vigorously opposed to him. The second thing I was amused by was his willingness to refer to the many years the parliamentary secretary has been in this place.

Senator Patterson —No, on Scrutiny of Bills and Regs and Ords.

Senator MURRAY —My mother always said to me that you never refer to years, and when she died I discovered that she had always told us the wrong age!

I understand that the purpose of this bill is to remove any doubt about the validity of certain decisions made by officers of the Australian Customs Service in relation to the tariff concession system. The tariff concession system allows for goods to be imported at a concessional rate of duty, essentially in circumstances where there are no local manufacturers of substitutable goods.

In November 1995 the Chief Executive Officer of Customs generally delegated his powers and functions in relation to the tariff concession system to certain officers of Customs. In July 1996 the government made changes to the tariff concession system. Those changes resulted in amendments to the Customs Act, including the introduction of additional powers and functions. New delegations were not sought for powers that were added to sections of the act which were already the subject of the November 1995 instrument. It was thought at the time that that instrument was sufficient.

However, doubt was raised over the sufficiency of the delegations in relation to the tariff concession system in a recent hearing of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. In response to this, the Chief Executive Officer signed two instruments on 31 May 1999. The first revoked all delegations for the tariff concession system; the second issued a new delegation covering all the powers and functions in relation to the tariff concession system. Both instruments took effect on 1 July 1999. The consequence of all this is that certain decisions and actions taken in relation to the tariff concession system subsequent to the July 1996 changes to the act may—and I stress `may'—have been subject to inadequate delegations.

This bill will remove any doubt about the validity of decisions made between July 1996 and 31 May 1999. The retrospective validation will not apply to tariff concession matters raised in the AAT as at 1 June 1999 where a customs decision relied on an insufficient delegation or person who, as at 1 June 1999, had already applied for a refund of duty based on an insufficient delegation.

The problem that the Democrats have with this bill is the arbitrary cut-off date. If you applied for a refund of duty because of the inadequate delegation before 1 June 1999, then you were okay. If you have just discovered that you would have had a right to a refund, then it is too late. In other words, same classes of taxpayers are being dealt with in a different way. The Democrats are not comfortable with the backdating of the cut-off date. It should be made clear that people who potentially had the right to obtain a refund of duty were not given notice of that right and, as far as I am aware, the Customs Service did not publicly advertise prior to 1 June 1999 that from that date the rights to refunds would be extinguished.

I will be moving an amendment in the committee stage which has been circulated. It will seek to amend the 1 June 1999 cut-off date to the date on which this bill commences. This amendment would have the affect of allowing anyone who has claimed a refund or commenced review proceedings in the AAT before the commencement date to continue with their application. The right to obtain a refund will be cut off only from the date of commencement.

I understand, from what Senator Cooney has said, that the Labor Party will not support me in that amendment, essentially for the reason that they feel they must deal with the bill in the Senate in precisely the same way as they have dealt with the bill in the House of Representatives. Also, because this issue was not raised with them before the bill was dealt with in the other chamber, they cannot at this time change their position. If that summary of your situation is untrue, I am sure you will tell me but, if that is correct, I think it indicates an inflexibility which is regrettable. The Australian Democrats will take the amendment on the voices and will be supporting the passage of the bill thereafter.