HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-06-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

POLICE (GST EXEMPTION) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 May 2013.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:32): I indicate that I am not the lead speaker on this bill, important as it is. Our shadow treasurer will be, I am sure, making a very significant and appropriate contribution on this bill. However, I do recall, when the bill came into the house, that there were a number of reports, the fees for them and the like, to which the GST would ordinarily apply.

Whilst the opposition, as I am reliably informed, is supporting this bill, it did occur to me at the time of considering the application of the bill as to what circumstances currently apply in the provision of police reports in motor vehicle accidents. Perhaps the minister, in his response on this bill, could cover my question.

When police reports are provided to a victim of a motor vehicle accident and/or their legal representative, they currently pay a fee to the police department for the provision of that record. When the police department provides copies of the police report in respect of that accident, they also provide a copy to the Motor Accident Commission in order for the commission to have the information to deal with the assessment and consideration of any claim by a victim.

My question is: is the fee that is charged by the police department to the Motor Accident Commission any different and, if so, what is the difference? Could we have some explanation as to why there is a difference in fee? This bill, as I understand it, will ensure that there is not a GST penalty applying to whoever is provided with the police report, but I invite the government to advise what the difference is to either of those players.

As I am sure the minister is aware, the parties need to have similar information and, on the face of it, they ought to be getting it at the same price. I am not sure about the reason why this is but, as I understand it, the Motor Accident Commission is provided with this information by the police department as a matter of course. There is a memorandum of agreement between the Motor Accident Commission and the police department to provide this information to that entity. I would appreciate some information on that in this debate. I will now listen with interest to what I am sure will be the succinct contribution of my colleague.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (17:36): The member for Bragg said she would be interested in listening to the contribution of her colleague—so will I. This is a very simple bill and the opposition is supporting the bill. We have no questions on the bill so this will be a short contribution regarding this matter. This is the Police (GST Exemption) Amendment Bill 2013 and is one of the minister's favourites, I know.

SAPOL currently provides a number of services to the public for which it charges fees. Some of these charges are imposed in accordance with legislation, for example, impounding or clamping vehicles or firearms, etc. Some fees are provided under individual contract, for example, police escorts for over-dimensional vehicles or police aircraft hire. However, there are some services that the police carry out that are under the authority of neither any legislation nor specific contract.

These relate solely to requests from the public for access to information in certain police records, namely, national police certificates, fingerprint reports, fingerprint and history checks, police incident reports, vehicle reports and apprehension reports. Amendments were recently made by the commonwealth government to A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999. The amendments state in part that a fee charged by a government agency to supply information that is not required to be provided under Australian law will be subject to GST.

As the aforementioned request for access to SAPOL records are not subject to any legislation they are liable for GST payments from that date unless they can be brought under South Australian law in the meantime. Effectively, what this bill does is to bring them under South Australian law so that those fees do not attract GST. Her Majesty's humble opposition supports the bill.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN (Napier—Minister for Finance, Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (17:38): This is a fairly straightforward piece of legislation to remedy, if you like, potential defects that have arisen because of changes in commonwealth government law. It is extremely straightforward, as the opposition has indicated, and I think we see this as having a fairly speedy passage through parliament.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN (Napier—Minister for Finance, Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (17:39): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT