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

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Wednesday, 12 September 1984
Page: 895

Senator HARRADINE —by leave-Senator Walsh has again misrepresented my situation in relation to these matters. Either he has done so deliberately or he does not know the difference between the 1982 Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act which related to Division 7 and primary company tax which was accruing and which was liable to be paid and the other measures which this Government has been proposing, which measures create new tax liabilities which never previously existed and which require them to be imposed retrospectively on the innocent and guilty alike. I remind Senator Walsh that he should be very careful about accusing me of these matters. I remind him also that on 14 December and 16 December last year, when there was a difference of opinion between us as to the legal implications of the Government's attempted repeal of the 'innocence clause'-sub-section 3 (12) of the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act-he was proven wrong. I want to nail it now and nail it clear so that those people outside who may wish to believe him understand that I have the legal backing for what I am saying. A Queen's Counsel's opinion which will be presented as part of my evidence in one of my legal actions states:

Two competing views have been advocated in the Senate upon the subject.

That is the subject about which Senator Walsh and I had a difference of opinion. The final page of the QC's opinion states:

I have therefore not been able to distil any viable legal basis for support of the advice apparently furnished by the Australian Taxation Office to Senator Walsh in the course of the Senate debate, and as earlier pointed out . . . It follows that the substance of the view espoused in the Senate by Senator Harradine concerning the legal effect of the proposed repeal was sound.

I again repeat to Senator Walsh that if he wants to continue in the coward's castle he will not be out on the front steps at half past three, and I challenge him to be there to put up or shut up.

Senator Cook —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. For the second time Senator Harradine has used the phrase 'coward's castle' in obvious reference to this place. I suggest it offends the dignity of the Senate to call it a coward's castle and that Senator Harradine should withdraw that expression.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Some personal reflections are out of order but a general reflection such as 'coward's castle' is not.