|
|||
|
|||
|
 |
|
| (1) | (a) | At the commencement of each Parliament, a Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills shall be appointed to report, in respect of the clauses of bills introduced into the Senate, and in respect of Acts of the Parliament, whether such bills or Acts, by express words or otherwise: | |
| (i) trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties; | |||
| (ii) make rights, liberties or obligations unduly dependent upon insufficiently defined administrative powers; | |||
| (iii) make rights, liberties or obligations unduly dependent upon non-reviewable decisions; | |||
| (iv) Inappropriately delegate legislative powers; or | |||
| (v) Insufficiently subject the exercise of legislative power to parliamentary scrutiny. | |||
| (b) | The Committee, for the purpose of reporting upon the clauses of a bill when the bill has been introduced into the Senate, may consider any proposed law or other document or information available to it, notwithstanding that such proposed law, document or information has not been presented to the Senate. |
SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE FOR THE SCRUTINY OF BILLS
THIRD REPORT OF 1998
The committee presents its Third Report of 1998 to the Senate.
The committee draws the attention of the Senate to clauses of the following bills which contain provisions that the committee considers may fall within principles 1(a)(i) to 1(a)(v) of Standing Order 24:
Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Charges Bill 1997
Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1997
Insurance Laws Amendment Bill 1997
Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 1997
This bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 26 November 1997 by the Attorney-General. [Portfolio responsibility: Attorney-General]
The bill proposes to impose charges for the classification of publications, films and computer games and for related services.
The committee dealt with this bill in Alert Digest No. 18 of 1997, in which it made various comments. The Attorney-General has responded to those comments in a letter dated 13 March 1998. A copy of that letter is attached to this report, and relevant parts of the response are discussed below.
In Alert Digest No. 18 of 1997, the committee noted that Clause 13 of this bill, if enacted, would provide for the various charges set out in the Schedules to this bill to be amended by regulation with no limit on such charges being prescribed by the bill. This raised the question of whether this clause may be considered to delegate the legislative power of Parliament inappropriately.
An inappropriate delegation enables the executive, by regulation, to make laws that ought be made by Parliament.
For this reason, the committee has consistently drawn attention to legislation which provides for the level of a 'charge' to be set by regulation. This creates a risk that the charge may in fact become a tax. It is for Parliament to set a tax rate and not for the makers of subordinate legislation to do so. Where the level of a charge needs to be changed frequently and expeditiously the question arises as to whether this can best be done by regulation rather than by statute. If a compelling case can be made out for the level to be set by subordinate legislation the committee seeks to have the enabling Act prescribe a maximum figure above which the relevant regulations cannot fix the charge or, alternatively, a formula by which such an amount can be calculated. The vice to be avoided is taxation by non-primary legislation.
Accordingly, the committee sought the advice of the Attorney-General on these issues.
Pending the advice of the Attorney-General, the committee drew Senators' attention to the provision, as it may be considered to delegate legislative power inappropriately, in breach of principle 1(a)(iv) of the committee's terms of reference.
The Attorney-General has responded as follows:
The Committee seeks my advice on clause 13 of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Charges Bill 1997 (`the Charges Bill') which allows the charges in the Schedules to the Bill to be amended by regulation. In particular, the Committee is concerned that it is for the Parliament to set a tax rate and not for the makers of subordinate legislation to do so.
As I said in my Second Reading Speech on the Bills, the Charges Bill gives effect to the Government's decision, in the May 1997 budget context, that from 1 July 1998 full cost recovery would be introduced for the Office of Film and Literature Classification (`OFLC') by changes to the charging structure for those using its services.
As the Speech made clear, implementation of the Government's decision requires the charges for classification and related services provided by OFLC to be imposed as a tax. The charges are therefore included in a separate Bill as required by the Constitution. The collection of the charges is provided for in the complementary Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 1997.
The approach reflected in the Charges Bill was only arrived at after careful consideration. This included paying due regard to the proposition that the level of the charges should be set in primary legislation. It was for this reason that the initial charges were included in Schedules to the Bill, so that they could be imposed by the Parliament.
The charges reflected in the Charges Bill are not a general Government revenue raising measure. As the accompanying documentation makes clear, the sole purpose of the Charges Bill is to generate sufficient revenue to pay for the full operating cost in any one year of the OFLC.
The services provided by the OFLC are application based. As will be noted from the Schedules to the Charges Bill there is a very wide range of charges to be imposed for the services provided.
The requirement that the revenue from classification and related services cover the full operational cost of the OFLC in any one year will mean that the charges, or some of them, will need to be varied from time to time. Although the costs associated with running the OFLC have remained fairly constant over recent years and, in fact, are estimated to fall slightly for the coming financial year, there is no assurance as to the revenue to be generated from classification services in any one year. Indeed, the experience has been that when charges rise the number of applications drop and thus the revenue gained from them falls. It will therefore be necessary to adjust the charges to make up for the shortfall. A small organisation like the OFLC has very limited capacity to reduce its cost base at short notice to accommodate reductions in workload.
It would have been the preference of the Government to set the initial charges in regulations made under the enabling Act with some formula or ceiling placed on the charges in the primary legislation. However, given that the revenue to fund the operations of the OFLC must be obtained from a broad range of application based charges, no satisfactory formula could be devised to set the tax rate nor could any realistic figures be arrived at to put a ceiling on that tax. The position of OFLC does not lend itself to the approach reflected in other Commonwealth taxes such as a levy on production of particular goods or a percentage tax on income.
Consideration was given to inserting a formula in the primary legislation (in the context of setting the charges by regulation) along the lines of `the charges to be prescribed by regulation shall not exceed the estimated cost of the operations of the OFLC in any one year'. However, this was considered too imprecise to provide a satisfactory solution to the problem raised by the Committee. Further, to remove any doubt about the validity of the charges a provision would need to have been included to the effect that notwithstanding that the formula was breached, for example if revenue unexpectedly exceeded estimates in a particular year, the charges prescribed were still valid.
An alternative also considered was to include in the Bill an upper level charge beyond which the regulations could not prescribe a charge. However, this would involve including an artificially high figure and would send quite the wrong message to the industry. It was also recognised that the figure for certain media might vary quite significantly depending on the proposed review of the structure of the charges which I subsequently announced.
It is, I think, not realistic to expect the Government to have to return to Parliament every time any of the myriad of charges in the Schedules need to be amended to take account of changed circumstances. In my view the approach reflected in the Charges Bill is appropriate in light of the circumstances I have outlined.
With the initial charges set by Parliament in the Schedules it is, of course, open to Parliament to disallow in the future any regulations altering those charges. In so saying, I acknowledge that disallowance of regulations is not the same for Parliament as being able to deal with the passage of primary legislation. I am also aware that disallowance of regulations leaves intact any action taken under those regulations, including the payment of higher charges, before the disallowance takes effect. However, this period need not be long and Parliament still retains the ultimate control over the level of the tax to be imposed.
I appreciate and support the underlying philosophy reflected in the Committee's report on this Bill but in the absence of any viable alternative I consider that the approach reflected in the Charges Bill represents, in the circumstance of this case, an appropriate compromise.
I would, of course, welcome any further comments the Committee may wish to make on this important issue.
The committee thanks the Attorney-General for this comprehensive response.
This bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 26 November 1997 by the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. [Portfolio responsibility: Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs]
The bill proposes to amend the following Acts:
The committee dealt with this bill in Alert Digest No. 18 of 1997, in which it made various comments. The Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs has responded to those comments in a letter dated 4 March 1998. A copy of that letter is attached to this report, and relevant parts of the response are discussed below.
In Alert Digest No. 18 of 1997, the committee noted that item 1 of Schedule 2 to this bill, if enacted, would enable the Minister to issue guidelines in relation to courses to be offered at the Maritime College without, however, any provision for these guidelines to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
The committee noted that the explanatory memorandum points out that the amendment proposed by this item would bring the Maritime College legislation into conformity with that for all other tertiary education institutions. In respect of these, section 13 of the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 enables the Minister to issue guidelines but although the guidelines are apparently legislative in character, they are not subject to disallowance by Parliament.
Accordingly, the committee sought the advice of the Minister on whether consideration should be given to making the guidelines proposed in this item and the guidelines issued under section 13 of the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 subject to disallowance by Parliament.
Pending the Minister's advice, the committee drew Senators' attention to the provisions, as they may be considered insufficiently to subject the exercise of legislative power to parliamentary scrutiny, in breach of principle 1(a)(v) of the committee's terms of reference.
The Minister has responded as follows:
I understand that the Committee is concerned that, in my capacity as responsible Minister, I could issue guidelines relating to fee charging at universities that may be legislative in character without their being subject to disallowance by Parliament.
Item 1 of Schedule 2 of HELAB proposes to amend section 32 of the Maritime College Act 1978, by inserting a new section 32. New subsection 32(2) provides a power to issue guidelines in respect of vocational education and training courses. New subsection 32(1)(a) makes reference to fees in section 13 of the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 (HEFA).
It appears that there are two sets of guidelines in question. One set is issued under section 13 of the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 (HEFA) in relation to undergraduate and postgraduate fee charging. The second set, specifically mentioned in HELAB, relate to the charging of fees for the provision by the College of courses of technical and further education.
In response to the committee's question as to the appropriateness of these guidelines becoming disallowable instruments, I do not consider that either of the guidelines are sufficiently legislative in character to be deemed as disallowable.
Higher Education Funding Act 1988
I note that section 13 of HEFA is not presently the subject of consideration by the Parliament. However, previously there has been lengthy discussion in the Senate with regard to guidelines issued under section 13 of HEFA. These undergraduate fee charging provisions were included in HEFA via the Higher Education Legislation Amendment Act 1996 (HELA). During the parliamentary debate, Senators examined the appropriate content of the legislation, these guidelines and whether the guidelines should be disallowable. It was agreed by the Senate that specific details would be included in the legislation (HEFA), rather than the guidelines as was originally proposed, to provide adequate Parliamentary scrutiny if ever the circumstances were to be changed. It was then agreed that if this level of detail was contained in the legislation it was not necessary to make the guidelines disallowable.
As a result, the legislation is very prescriptive about the charging of fees, particularly undergraduate fees. For instance, the legislation states that the guidelines issued must:
The legislation gives higher education institutions the flexibility to enrol domestic fee-paying undergraduate students in award courses while, at the same time, protecting undergraduate course provision for HECS-liable students. The guidelines issued under section 13 are instruments merely affecting the application of the legal rule, in a way contemplated by the law, rather than an instrument affecting the substantive content of the rule.
The guidelines issued by the minister, under section 13, do not set fee levels. Currently the market determines the level of undergraduate and postgraduate fees. On some occasions, for instance in the case of overseas students, an indicative minimum course fee is prescribed but it remains the responsibility of the institution to set the actual fee.
Maritime College Act 1978
Schedule 2 of HELAB, aligns the Australian Maritime College (AMC) undergraduate and postgraduate fee charging arrangements with all other Australian universities. Currently, the Maritime College Act 1978 (MCA) mirrors the provisions in HEFA but it is preferable to cross reference the fee charging provisions in the MCA to those in HEFA as is the case in other university legislation. The amendment will ensure that all public universities refer to the same legislative provisions and guidelines relating to university undergraduate and postgraduate fee charging.
The second set of guidelines in question by the committee relate to the charging of fees for the provision by the College of courses of technical further education. The power to issue these guidelines is not a new power and is restated as it appears currently in the legislation. Again, the guidelines implement the law contained in the MCA. The legislation allows the College to charge fees in relation to courses of vocational education and training under the proviso that the person has earned a living and that it is not their initial vocational qualification. The guidelines provide clarification regarding which vocational courses are recognised within the meaning of this provision.
All guidelines issued under HEFA are notified in the gazette ensuring public access. In addition to this my Department publishes annually an Administrative guidelines manual for higher education institutions on HECS and FEES. Attached for your information is a copy of the current guidelines for the charging of undergraduate and postgraduate fees.
The committee thanks the Minister for this response.
This bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 4 December 1997 by the Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet) to the Prime Minister. [Portfolio responsibility: Treasury]
The bill proposes to amend the following Acts:
The committee dealt with this bill in Alert Digest No. 1 of 1998, in which it made various comments. The Assistant Treasurer responded to those comments in a letter dated 10 March 1998. The committee discussed this response in its Second Report of 1998 and made further comments concerning the inclusion of possible limitations on the exercise of search and entry powers. The Assistant Treasurer responded to those comments in a letter dated 22 March 1998. A copy of that letter is attached to this report, and relevant parts of the response are discussed below.
In Alert Digest No. 1 of 1998, the committee noted that proposed subsection 80(1), to be inserted in the Insurance Act 1973 by item 5 of Schedule 2 to this bill provides:
Entry on premises
(1) If the Commissioner or the inspector, while investigating the whole or a part of the affairs of a designated security trust fund, believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary for the purposes of the investigation to enter land or premises occupied by:
(a) the trustee, or a former trustee, of the fund; or
(b) the custodian, or a former custodian, of the fund; or
(c) the investment manager, or a former investment manager, of the fund;
the Commissioner or the inspector may, at all reasonable times, enter the land or premises and may:
(d) examine books on the land or premises that relate to the affairs of the trust fund or that the Commissioner or inspector believes on reasonable grounds relate to those affairs; and
(e) take possession of any of those books for such period as the Commissioner or inspector thinks necessary for the purposes of the investigation; and
(f) make copies of, or take extracts from, any of those books.
This power of entry and search is not subject to any requirement that the officer obtain a judicially sanctioned search warrant before entering the premises.
The committee recognised that, in this respect, subclause 31(1) does not differ from similar provisions in taxation laws. For example, the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 contains a provision (section 263) of similar effect. Another example occurs in the Superannuation Contributions Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997.
There would appear, however, to be no basis in principle for giving officers enforcing insurance laws greater powers than officers enforcing criminal law where a judicially sanctioned warrant is generally required. The committee was also interested to receive advice on what might constitute “reasonable grounds” for exercising the power of entry.
Accordingly, the committee sought the advice of the Treasurer on this issue.
Pending the advice of the Treasurer, the committee drew Senators' attention to the provision, as it may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties, in breach of principle 1(a)(i) of the committee's terms of reference.
On 10 March 1998, the Assistant Treasurer responded as follows:
I understand the Committee has concerns that proposals contained in Item 5 of Schedule 2 of the ILAB, in particular proposed subsection 80(1) which contains a power for entry onto premises without a search warrant, may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. In response to the Committee's concerns, I draw your attention to the following.
The main purpose of the ILAB is to amend the prudential supervisory arrangements under the Insurance Act 1973 for Lloyd's of London (Lloyd's) to improve the security arrangements for Lloyd's underwriters' Australian policyholders. The amendments set out in this Bill will change the regulatory requirements for Lloyd's underwriters in Australia so as to accommodate the initiatives in Lloyd's `reconstruction and renewal' plan while at the same time substantially enhancing the regulatory protection for Lloyd's underwriters' Australian policyholders and bringing the supervision of Lloyd's more into line with that of corporate insurers in Australia. A key element of the new arrangements is the proposed creation of a series of designated security trust funds (DSTFs) which will be funded to the extent of outstanding Australian policyholder liabilities.
Proposed subsection 80(1) allows the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (the Commissioner), or an inspector appointed by the Commissioner, a power of search and entry over the premises of a trustee, custodian or investment manager (or former trustee, custodian or investment manager) of a DSTF when undertaking an investigation of the affairs of such a fund. The proposed subsection is not subject to a requirement that the Commissioner, or the duly appointed investigator, obtain a search warrant before entering such premises.
The proposed subsection 80(1) is consistent with similar powers of the Commissioner under subsection 54(1) of the Insurance Act 1973, relating to the investigation of corporate insurers. Moreover, section 140 of the Life Insurance Act 1995 and section 268 of the Superannuation (Industry) Supervision Act 1993 also give the Commissioner similar powers. These powers underpin the prudential regulation role of the ISC, which sometimes requires swift and decisive intervention into the affairs of insurance companies and superannuation entities in order to safeguard policyholder or member entitlements. In this regard, proposed subsection 80(1) is consistent with the objective of the Bill to more closely align the supervision of Lloyd's with that of corporate insurers in Australia and is consistent with other ISC administered prudential regulation more generally.
Further, under proposed subsection 68(1), Item 5 of Schedule 2 of ILAB the Commissioner may, by written instrument, require Lloyd's to ensure that there are such security trust funds arrangements in existence as are specified in, or ascertained in accordance with, the instrument. This instrument is currently being drafted and will require, among other things, that the Commissioner may only approve a trustee if that trustee is a corporation. In addition, as a matter of policy, it is likely that the role of custodian and investment manager (who will only be able to be engaged with the prior consent of the Commissioner) will be fulfilled only by corporate entities. Accordingly, the powers of search and entry will be exercised only upon a limited class of corporations and will not affect the personal rights and liberties of individuals.
I note that the Committee has also sought information as to what would constitute `reasonable grounds' for the purposes of entering onto premises under proposed subsection 80(1). These powers of entry can only be used in the most serious of circumstances. In particular, only a DSTF which is under investigation by the Commissioner or by a duly appointed inspector can be subjected to the power. Proposed section 79 sets out the circumstances and procedures for instigating an investigation of a DSTF and under this section, the Commissioner or investigator would need to be satisfied that the DSTF did not constitute, or is unlikely to constitute, an adequate security for the class of insurance liabilities secured by the fund, or that Lloyd's, or the trustee of a DSTF, has contravened a provision of Part VII of the Insurance Act 1973.
In summary, effective prudential supervision demands an appropriate balance between the capacity for the prudential regulator to intervene quickly, and procedural considerations which protect the rights and liberties of the companies/directors concerned. In an environment of rapid capital mobility and electronic funds transfers, the need for the Commissioner to formally apply for a search warrant could delay or unduly impede critical stages of an investigatory process, and thereby potentially jeopardise the security of policyholder/member interests. When balanced against the threshold checks and balances for instigating an investigation in proposed section 79, the imperatives of prudential supervision and the requirements that the basis and timing of any entry onto premises or land be `reasonable', the Government considers that proposed section 80(1) is appropriate.
I trust that the above information is useful in the Committee's deliberations regarding concerns over specific provisions of the ILAB.
The committee thanked the Assistant Treasurer for this comprehensive response and noted that several precedents for this type of provision were listed. The fact that there are precedents for a course of action is a weighty factor in deciding whether or not the Senate's attention should be drawn to a matter. But it is not a conclusive factor and other considerations may lead the committee to comment on a particular piece of legislation.
The committee noted the Assistant Treasurer's comments on how the legislation is intended to operate and, in particular, the expectation that the roles of trustee, custodian and investment manager will be filled only by corporate entities. The committee was concerned, however, that there is no express limitation in the bill confining the exercise of these powers to corporate entities. The committee, therefore, requested the Treasurer to consider the possibility of an amendment to the bill to limit the exercise of search and seizure powers to premises other than residential premises.
Pending the advice of the Treasurer, the committee continued to draw Senators' attention to the provision as it may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties, in breach of principle 1(a)(i) of the committee's terms of reference.
On 22 March 1998, the Assistant Treasurer responded as follows:
I note that the Senate Standing committee for the Scrutiny of Bills (the Committee) has continuing concerns over proposals contained in Item 5 of Schedule 2 of the ILAB. In particular, the Committee is concerned that proposed subsection 80(1), which contains a power of entry onto premises without a search warrant, may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. I note further, that the Committee has requested the consideration of an amendment to the ILAB in the Senate. The proposed amendment will provide that the Commissioner, or an inspector appointed by the Commissioner, must not use the powers under proposed subsection 80(1) to enter onto residential premises without the consent of the occupier.
I trust that the above information now addresses the Committee's concerns.
The committee thanks the Assistant Treasurer for the proposed amendment.
This bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 29 October 1997 by the Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet) to the Prime Minister. [Portfolio responsibility: Treasury]
The bill proposes to amend the following Acts:
The committee dealt with this bill in Alert Digests Nos. 16 and 17 of 1997. A letter was forwarded to the Treasurer on 13 November 1997 inviting a response to concerns the committee had with regard to retrospectivity. A letter dated 3 December 1997 was received from the Assistant Treasurer in response to this issue. A further letter was forwarded to the Treasurer on 27 November 1997 inviting a response in relation to a submission received from KPMG, Chartered Accountants which expressed concerns about certain aspects of the bill. A letter dated 6 February 1998 has been received from the Assistant Treasurer in response to these concerns. A copy of that letter is attached to this Report and relevant parts of the response are discussed below.
In Alert Digest No. 16 of 1997, the committee made various comments. The committee noted the retrospectivity associated with the press release of the Treasurer but was under the impression that the retrospectivity was limited to the date of the press release, 29 April 1997.
The KPMG submission, however, raises issues in relation to the retrospective effect of the legislation which escaped the committee's notice. In particular, the submission suggests that :
The committee notes that the KPMG submission has been forwarded to the Treasurer. Nevertheless, the committee seeks the Treasurer's advice on the issues raised in this submission.
Pending the Treasurer's advice, the committee drew Senators' attention to the provisions, as they may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties, in breach of principle 1(a)(i) of the committee's terms of reference.
The Assistant Treasurer has responded to the KPMG submission as follows:
You sought the Treasurer's advice in relation to a submission given to you by KPMG concerning the proposed measures contained in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No 6) dealing with artificially created capital losses.
The KPMG submission claimed that the measures are retrospective, that such an effect is unjustified and that their retrospective application to early balancing companies is unfair. As a result, you were concerned that the provisions may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties, in breach of principle 1(a)(i) of the committee's terms of reference.
The proposed legislation is not retrospective and will not unduly trespass upon the personal rights and liberties of taxpayers. The legislation is designed to close a loophole under which corporate groups could use the capital gains tax (CGT) roll over provisions to obtain capital losses far in excess of the actual economic loss suffered by the group. The legislation is designed to allow the corporate group the benefit of the actual economic loss while denying the use of any excess loss. For losses created prior to 3pm 29 April 1997 (the time of announcement of the measures), the legislation does this by identifying the amount by which the capital losses created by a company, as a result of the roll over, exceeds the losses that would have been available to that company if the roll over had not occurred. Consequently, the proposed legislation does not reverse any offsetting of a capital gain with an artificial loss which occurred in a previous income year.
The measures do not apply to losses already offset by a company with a 30 June balancing date against capital gains in the 1995-96 or an earlier year of income. Contrary to being unfair to early balancing companies, the proposed legislation contains a concession for early balancing companies. Such companies are able to offset capital losses created prior to 3pm 29 April 1997 against capital gains in the 1996-97 income year as well, provided they have lodged their tax returns for that year before 3pm 29 April 1997. The legislation thereby gives companies in this category an additional income year, compared to ordinary balancing companies, in which to offset the artificial losses, provided that the returns have been furnished before the announcement of these measures.
I should point out that while the schemes used to create these capital losses may not be as objectionable as the `bottom of the harbour schemes', they will in most cases involve a deliberate tax avoidance motive. The creation of artificial capital losses of this type involves a deliberate series of steps and would not, ordinarily, be an innocent occurrence. Even if the additional capital losses, over and above the actual economic loss, were innocently created, the fact remains that they are not genuine economic losses.
Moreover, the amount of losses artificially created by these schemes pose a serious and continuing risk to the integrity of the revenue base. They allow corporate groups to artificially avoid their fair share of the tax burden.
The committee thanks the Assistant Treasurer for this response and for his assistance with the Bill.
The committee notes from the Assistant Treasurer's response that, rather than being unfair to early balancing companies, the proposed legislation contains a concession for such companies. Early balancing companies are additionally able to offset capital losses created prior to 3pm 29 April 1997 against capital gains in the 1996-97 income year, provided that they have lodged their tax returns for that year before 3pm on 29 April 1997.
However, the committee understands from the KPMG submission that some early balancing companies may not have lodged their tax returns so soon after the end of their substituted tax year.
Therefore the committee continues to draw Senators' attention to the provision, as it may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties, including those of shareholders, in breach of principle 1(a)(i) of the committee's terms of reference.
Barney Cooney
Chairman
