"In talking to Mr. Imlack Smith, the bank manager, a slim and sallow gentleman of dressy appearance but quiet demeanour, he violently wrenched the conversation to the subject of the gold standard, from which it was merely a step to goldfish." (G.K. Chesterton, The Song of the Flying Fish)
Why Montfort Tadier was prohibited from asking a question
This is an examination of the facts, looking at Hansard, on the day when Deputy Tadier left the States Chamber claiming the Bailiff had “silenced him”.
Standing orders of the States of Jersey have this:
Questions with notice to be answered orally
Any member of the States may, within the time allowed by the presiding officer for the purpose, ask one or more supplementary questions relating to the subject matter of the question.
The presiding officer shall rule a supplementary question out of order if –
(a) the contents of the questions contravene standing orders; or
(b) the question is not concise.
Now we come to Hansard for the day:
Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the application of the Goods and Services Tax (G.S.T.) de minimis clause applied to internet purchases: (OQ.174/2019)
Will the Minister advise the Assembly whether she intends to remove the de minimis exemption clause from G.S.T. (goods and services tax) on internet purchases?
Notice that is the question, and supplementary questions under standing orders should only be those “relating to the subject matter of the question”
Various answers and supplementary questions followed on the de minimis limit. And then we had this:
Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade: Does the Minister agree that one of the reasons that G.S.T. is so controversial fundamentally, whether it is to do with de minimis or generally, is that G.S.T. is a fundamentally regressive tax in that somebody who has to spend all of their income on-Island on the essentials of life will be paying a higher rate of G.S.T. effectively than those who do not spend all of their income? Therein lies the fundamental problem.
Now that’s pushing the limits a bit. The original question was about removing de minimis and this is widening the scope of that question.
Deputy S.J. Pinel: No, I do not agree. I think G.S.T. is one of the more broad, fair and simple taxes inasmuch as everybody pays it. Even tourists pay it so I do not agree with the Deputy on this one.
Deputy M. Tadier: Supplementary, if I may.
The Bailiff: That was really not a follow-up question. A supplementary question on the question which was first lodged by Deputy Ahier ...
Notice how the Bailiff, in keeping with Standing Orders, is gently reminding Deputy Tadier that supplementary questions should relate to the subject matter of the question.
Deputy M. Tadier: This is a follow-up question on one of the themes that the Minister has raised. She said that she is committed to a level playing field when it comes to taxation and that is a principle presumably she follows in her policy making. Does that extend to the inequality between 1(1)(k)s who pay 1 per cent of tax and other locals who pay 20 per cent of tax?
The Bailiff: That is not a supplementary on G.S.T.
Deputy M. Tadier: Is this simply about punishing those with the least ability to purchase ...
The Bailiff: Thank you, Deputy.
Deputy M. Tadier: ... who are forced to go overseas?
The Bailiff: That is not ... will you sit down please? Deputy, will you please sit down? That is not a supplementary on de minimis exemptions from G.S.T.
At which point Deputy Tadier stormed out of the Assembly, stating that he had been silenced by the Bailiff, and claiming that the Bailiff’s application of States rules meant he was ‘unable to do his job’!
But as the Bailiff said: “Supplementary questions are in order if they relate to the matter. If they don’t relate to the matter, the purpose of question time is not accomplished,’”
Conclusions
The presiding officer shall rule a supplementary question out of order if –
(a) the contents of the questions contravene standing orders; or
(b) the question is not concise.
Now we come to Hansard for the day:
Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the application of the Goods and Services Tax (G.S.T.) de minimis clause applied to internet purchases: (OQ.174/2019)
Will the Minister advise the Assembly whether she intends to remove the de minimis exemption clause from G.S.T. (goods and services tax) on internet purchases?
Notice that is the question, and supplementary questions under standing orders should only be those “relating to the subject matter of the question”
Various answers and supplementary questions followed on the de minimis limit. And then we had this:
Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade: Does the Minister agree that one of the reasons that G.S.T. is so controversial fundamentally, whether it is to do with de minimis or generally, is that G.S.T. is a fundamentally regressive tax in that somebody who has to spend all of their income on-Island on the essentials of life will be paying a higher rate of G.S.T. effectively than those who do not spend all of their income? Therein lies the fundamental problem.
Now that’s pushing the limits a bit. The original question was about removing de minimis and this is widening the scope of that question.
Deputy S.J. Pinel: No, I do not agree. I think G.S.T. is one of the more broad, fair and simple taxes inasmuch as everybody pays it. Even tourists pay it so I do not agree with the Deputy on this one.
Deputy M. Tadier: Supplementary, if I may.
The Bailiff: That was really not a follow-up question. A supplementary question on the question which was first lodged by Deputy Ahier ...
Notice how the Bailiff, in keeping with Standing Orders, is gently reminding Deputy Tadier that supplementary questions should relate to the subject matter of the question.
Deputy M. Tadier: This is a follow-up question on one of the themes that the Minister has raised. She said that she is committed to a level playing field when it comes to taxation and that is a principle presumably she follows in her policy making. Does that extend to the inequality between 1(1)(k)s who pay 1 per cent of tax and other locals who pay 20 per cent of tax?
The Bailiff: That is not a supplementary on G.S.T.
Deputy M. Tadier: Is this simply about punishing those with the least ability to purchase ...
The Bailiff: Thank you, Deputy.
Deputy M. Tadier: ... who are forced to go overseas?
The Bailiff: That is not ... will you sit down please? Deputy, will you please sit down? That is not a supplementary on de minimis exemptions from G.S.T.
At which point Deputy Tadier stormed out of the Assembly, stating that he had been silenced by the Bailiff, and claiming that the Bailiff’s application of States rules meant he was ‘unable to do his job’!
But as the Bailiff said: “Supplementary questions are in order if they relate to the matter. If they don’t relate to the matter, the purpose of question time is not accomplished,’”
Conclusions
It is patently obvious that Deputy Tadier is using the question to change subject. The supplementary questions have to refer back to the original question, and his final one did not.
“Does that [a level playing field] extend to the inequality between 1(1)(k)s who pay 1 per cent of tax and other locals who pay 20 per cent of tax?” is not a question which has anything to do with de minimis exemptions from G.S.T..
And Deputy Tadier must be aware that he is bending the rules: “This is a follow-up question on one of the themes that the Minister has raised.”
Now it’s clear that “level playing field” in the replies by the Minister refers to a level playing field on G.S.T. between online and local retailers, and yet Deputy Tadier tries to smuggle in a completely different question.
So the Bailiff was not preventing the Deputy from doing his job, but by applying standing orders, was in fact telling him he was not doing his job properly by obeying the rules of the House. An elected speaker would have done just as the Bailiff did.
So the Bailiff was not preventing the Deputy from doing his job, but by applying standing orders, was in fact telling him he was not doing his job properly by obeying the rules of the House. An elected speaker would have done just as the Bailiff did.
Why Montfort Tadier was prohibited from asking a question? Because he didn't follow standing orders on the proper use of supplementary questions and tried to twist the subject to ask a question about something else entirely.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment