Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 19 June 2012
Page: 7061

Mr BRADBURY (LindsayAssistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (20:14): The shadow Treasurer has come forward and said that as a matter of principle those opposite do not support retrospective laws. The first point to make is that these laws are not retrospective; they are about confirming the application of laws in the way in which they have been understood, in terms of both the way the law has been expounded and administrative practice.

The second point that I would make and that I draw to the attention of the member for North Sydney is: so much for his suggestion that they do not support retrospective tax laws! I just want to name a handful of them: the Tax Laws Amendment (2006 Measures No. 3) Act 2006, the Taxation Laws Amendment Act (No. 3) 2002 and the Franchise Fees Windfall Tax (Collection) Act 1997. They say they do not support retrospectivity, but do not look at what they say; look at what they did in government.

Honourable members interjecting

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms K Livermore ): Order! I remind members that this is still a debate, and it will occur in silence.

Mr BRADBURY: I also just point out one simple fact. The shadow minister indicates that seven years is an outrageous period to go back. I simply make the point that in relation to the Tax Laws Amendment (2006 Measures No. 3) Act passed in 2006, the commencement of that act was 1 July 2000. So six years was okay on that occasion.

The case has been very strongly put in relation to these measures. We are opposed to this amendment and we wish to commend the bill in an unamended form to the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments be agreed to.