Commonwealth of Australia Explanatory Memoranda Commonwealth of Australia Explanatory Memoranda[Index] [Search] [Download] [Bill] [Help]
2002-03
THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
OF AUSTRALIA
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ACIS
ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL 2003
EXPLANATORY
MEMORANDUM
(Circulated by authority of the acting Minister for
Industry, Tourism and Resources,
the Honourable Joe Hockey
MP)
ACIS ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL
2003
OUTLINE
The ACIS Administration Amendment Bill
2003 (the Bill) makes a series of substantial amendments
to:
• the ACIS Administration Act 1999.
The Customs
Tariff Amendment (ACIS) Bill 2003, which makes changes to the tariff schedule,
is complementary to the Bill, indeed, the tariff changes and the measures in the
Bill form one integrated package.
Automotive Competitiveness and
Investment Scheme (ACIS)
Overview of the Extended ACIS This
Bill implements the Government's post-2005 assistance package for the Australian
automotive industry. This package will deliver an estimated $4.2 billion to the
industry via ACIS, a Scheme that will be extended from its initial finishing
date in 2005, to the end of 2015.
Participants in ACIS earn incentives
for eligible production and investment in plant and equipment, and research and
development. Incentives are paid in the form of duty credits which can either
be used to offset customs duty liability on eligible automotive imports, or
alternatively the duty credits may be sold or transferred to another person or
company.
The post-2005 ACIS, like the pre-2005 Scheme, will be a
transitional assistance scheme that will encourage competitive investment and
innovation by firms in the automotive industry in order to achieve sustainable
growth as tariffs are reduced in line with trade liberalisation.
The
passage of this Bill will give Australian car and component manufacturers
long-term security to continue building on their current record production and
export levels. In effect, this Bill will give the Australian automotive
industry a decade of certainty allowing firms to plan for the cessation of all
taxpayer funded, industry specific support on 31 December 2015.
Funding Split On 13 December 2002, the Government publicly
announced details of the extension of ACIS until 2015. Included in this
announcement was an undertaking to split ACIS funding into two separate funding
pools in a ratio of 55:45 from the first quarter of 2003, the 55 being for motor
vehicle producers and the 45 for other ACIS participants. This split was
proposed to the Government by industry.
Given that the extended ACIS
runs until 2015, and that the automotive industry is continually restructuring,
there is merit in having flexibility to quickly adapt to new situations as they
arise. Locking a 55:45 split into primary legislation strongly reduces such
flexibility. Consequently, although the split has been incorporated into this
Bill, the details of the split, including the 55:45 ratio, will be set out in
subordinate legislation.
Productivity Commission Review The
announcement of 13 December 2003 also included a reference to an inquiry that
would be conducted by the Productivity Commission in 2008, for the purpose of
determining if changes are warranted to the legislated tariff reductions in
2010, taking account of conditions then existing in the international trade
environment. There is no provision for this review in the Bill, because such a
review is a matter for the Government of the time, and it would be inappropriate
for the current Parliament to attempt to bind its successors. The Government,
however, does not resile from its commitment to the review.
Research
and Development Fund The extended ACIS will also provide stronger
incentives for industry research and development. To this end the Bill
establishes a research and development fund within the motor vehicle
producers’ pool of funding. This fund will encourage vehicle producers to
invest in high-end research and development activities.
Disclosure
In line with good public policy, which allows for transparency in the
expenditure of public monies, the Bill provides for the Minister, in relation to
the extended ACIS, that is from 2006 onwards, to disclose the identity of a
participant in ACIS and the amount of ACIS assistance that a participant
received.
Tariff Reduction
The rate of customs duty
imposed on passenger motor vehicles and certain parts for passenger motor
vehicles, is 15 per cent. Under existing legislation this rate of customs duty
will fall to 10 per cent from 1 January 2005. A bill complementary to this
Bill, namely the Customs Tariff Amendment (ACIS) Bill 2003, provides for the
tariff rate to fall to 5 per cent from 1 January 2010.
Fuller details of
the tariff reductions are set out in the explanatory memorandum relating to the
Customs Tariff Amendment (ACIS) Bill 2003.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
ACIS
The post-2005 extension of ACIS is a ten
year program of budgetary assistance during which an estimated $4.2 billion will
be provided to the Australian automotive industry in the form of duty credits
which can be used to offset import duty. This $4.2 billion consists of:
assistance capped at $2 billion for the period 2006-10 inclusive: a further
amount capped at $1 billion for the period 2011-15 inclusive; and uncapped
assistance estimated at $1.2 billion.
It should be noted that underlying
the estimate of uncapped assistance are assumptions about the growth of the
automotive market in Australasia, the effect of free trade agreements and
exchange rate fluctuations. The estimate is based on projected sales value data
provided primarily by MVPs in relation to sales volumes extrapolated to 2010.
The Department will incur additional running costs as a result of the
extension of ACIS for a further ten years. These costs are estimated at $0.1
million in 2002-03 increasing to $2.4 million in 2015-16.
TARIFF
REDUCTION
The cost of revenue forgone by cutting the tariff from 10
per cent to 5 per cent with effect from 1 January 2010, is $290 million in
2009-10, with a full year effect of $640 million in 2010-11.
It
should be noted that it is difficult to predict the actual impact on revenue of
the proposed tariff cuts on motor vehicles and related components in 2010 and
after. A number of variables impact on the automotive industry, such as the
rate of growth in the motor vehicle market, consumer preferences, and exchange
rate fluctuations. These variables influence the price and amount of duty
payable on imported vehicles; thus these variables can alter the amount of the
actual tariff revenue foregone by the Commonwealth.
REGULATION
IMPACT STATEMENT
Introduction
The purpose of this
Regulation Impact Statement is to explore the merits of ceasing, continuing or
changing the current form of assistance to the automotive sector.
The
automotive sector enjoys a higher level of assistance than the bulk of
Australian industries. In order to facilitate a transition from a high tariff
environment, the Government developed the Automotive Competitiveness and
Investment Scheme (ACIS). The objective of ACIS is set out in S3 of the ACIS
Administration Act 1999 as:
...to provide transitional assistance to
encourage competitive investment and innovation in the Australian automotive
industry in order to achieve sustainable growth, both in the Australian market
and internationally, in the context of trade liberalisation.
Briefly,
ACIS provides about $2.8 billion in assistance to the industry over five years
from 2001-05. This is expected to prepare the industry for the fall of
automotive tariffs to 10% in 2005. Assistance is provided for production and
for investment (motor vehicle producers) and for research and development and
investment (supply chain).
The long lead times in the automotive sector
mean that investment decisions are taken many years ahead. Recognising that
uncertainty may adversely impact future investment, the Government initiated
early consideration of future automotive assistance arrangements, including the
rate of further tariff falls needed to attain Australia's free trade
commitments.
The Government referred the matter of future automotive
assistance arrangements to the Productivity Commission (PC). By a parallel
process, the Government also commissioned the Automotive Council, comprising key
industry participants, to report to it on industry issues and
perspectives.
The Productivity Commission Report provides a balanced
consideration of the merit of several forms of assistance. It provides the bulk
of the assessment of the options put forward in this Statement. Quotations set
out in the Statement are from the Productivity Commission Report unless
otherwise noted.
On 21 December 2001, the Government announced an inquiry into future
automotive assistance arrangements. The PC was to examine the operation of
current arrangements and to make findings about the appropriate form of any
future tariff and assistance arrangements. The inquiry formally commenced on
21 March 2002, with the Commission being given six months to provide its
findings.
The PC conducted its inquiry through discussions with parties,
release of a Position Paper and holding of a workshop to develop modelling. It
then invited submissions and held public hearings, before reporting to the
Government on 30 August 2002.
Briefly, the Commission found
that
• a settled path of future automotive assistance policy would
reduce uncertainty;
• tariff reduction to 5% could be achieved by
several means, but it preferred a reduction of 5% in 2010 as a means of
achieving this;
• continuation of ACIS after 2005 would facilitate the
reduction in the tariff rate;
• several options existed for extension
and level of funding of ACIS, with its preference for continuation of the
uncapped element of ACIS to 2015 and continuation of the capped element at $2
billion for a further five years.
The issue to be examined is not whether or by how much automotive tariffs
should be reduced. Industry specific tariffs are distortionary and there would
be benefits in resource allocation and lower prices from a reduction in such
tariffs. However, the issue of tariff reform is not irrelevant to consideration
of the form and duration of assistance arrangements in the automotive sector, as
past assistance has been tied to or closely associated with reductions in the
tariff rate of vehicles and automotive components.
The Government's
decisions in 1997 and 1998 provided a tariff pause for five years, ending with a
5% drop in the tariff to 10% in 2005. To facilitate the adjustment, existing
assistance provided through the then Duty Free Allowance was continued and a new
scheme, the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme (ACIS), was
initiated. The form of ACIS was also influenced by the tariff rate, as
incentives for production of motor vehicles are tied to the level of tariff on
passenger motor vehicles.
ACIS is a transitional measure designed to take
the industry into a lower tariff environment. There is, however, a need for the
industry to make a further transition from a tariff rate of 10% to 5%. The
issue is whether and how a further assistance package should be provided to
facilitate this transition to a tariff level equal to that prevailing for
industry generally.
While the Automotive Council recommended a
continuation of tariffs at 10 percent and the extension of ACIS to at least
2010, the Productivity Commission favours a drop in the tariff to 5% in 2010,
with the industry given a decade of policy certainty to 2015, at the end of
which industry specific assistance would cease.
The industry has
emphasised the need for the post 2005 assistance regime to establish a clear
policy path for at least five years and preferably for 10 years. Given the long
planning and investment horizons in the industry, the Commission considers this
to be a reasonable expectation. The range of broader pressures and
uncertainties facing the industry - particularly in relation to technological
change and future environmental policies - are already very considerable.
Providing a clear and extended path for assistance policy would serve to reduce
one source of uncertainty. Without clear policy directions, desirable
investment that would help to secure the industry’s future could be put at
risk (Productivity Commission Report, pXXVII).
This Statement assumes
that the Government is disposed towards a further reform of tariff levels and
that it is disposed towards reducing the level of assistance provided to the
automotive sector. The issue then is to develop a mechanism to enable the
automotive sector to transition to a low tariff environment free of ongoing
industry specific subsidies.
The objective of the proposed regulation is to provide an apparatus for
delivering a final round of transitional assistance to the automotive sector to
ensure its future sustainability.
Regulation is currently provided
through ACIS legislation and is administered by the AusIndustry arm of the
Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources.
The options considered in this Statement are:
• Ending ACIS at
its current expiry date of end 2005
• An unlegislated scheme more in
line with the predecessors to ACIS
• A reformed ACIS with differing
elements or emphases
• A broad continuation of ACIS into the
future
a. End ACIS at end 2005
This option could be
considered to be in line with the stated transitional nature of the original
ACIS legislation. It is the extent of the Government’s current
commitments made in 1997 and 1998. In support of this option, one could point
to the considerable assistance industry received through tariff protection, the
former Export Facilitation Scheme and the former Duty Free Allowance. Against
this is the Productivity Commission’s observation that too sudden closure
of ACIS accompanied by tariff reduction may have the effect of eliminating firms
that might be viable if the removal of assistance was more gradual. Because
exposure to ACIS can be no more than 5% of the previous year’s sales, it
is considered that there would be no differential exposure by businesses under
ACIS. In effect this would serve to somewhat limit the impact of the Scheme
finishing in 2005.
b. An unlegislated scheme
The
predecessors to ACIS were not legislative; rather they were largely
administrative schemes (albeit operating within customs and tariff legislation).
The advantage of administrative schemes is flexibility in changing to meet
evolving circumstances. Against this is a lack of transparency, a probable lack
of precision in terminology and reduced certainty to participants. The fact of
the current legislated scheme is also a factor against reverting to an
unlegislated arrangement.
c. Reformed legislated scheme
It
would be possible to formulate a successor scheme utilising a different
methodology or architecture to achieve the scheme’s stated objectives.
One option raised with the Productivity Commission is to provide vehicle
producers with access to incentives for research and development, in lieu of
current incentives for production of motor vehicles. It would also be possible
to change the mix of incentives to the supply chain. An example could be to
seek that research and development assistance only go to higher level research,
rather than principally to engineering development, as at present. While this
may change the emphasis of incentives, the PC focuses on the primary purpose of
ACIS:
...given its transitional role, extension of ACIS to a range of new
activities could be counterproductive. In the Commission’s view, the role
of ACIS is not to introduce new firms or activities to additional industry
assistance, but rather to facilitate the transition to lower assistance for
currently assisted firms (Productivity Commission Report, p175).
The PC
was also not persuaded that giving incentives for differing activities
necessarily encouraged or discouraged other desired activities:
In the
Commission’s view...it does not follow that vehicle producers’ own
use R&D is deterred because it is an ineligible activity. Given the
fungibility of duty credits, it may not matter a great deal whether the basis
for earning credits is related to production, R&D or investments in plant
and equipment.” ... “...the primary rationale for ACIS is to provide
transitional support. It is not a long term plan to underpin automotive R&D
- although it does eventually reward successful R&D by vehicle
producers.” ... “Perhaps most significantly, by compelling a
redirection of resources towards new R&D, such a change could distort the
capacity of some firms to use ACIS funds in a manner which best supported their
transition to lower assistance (Productivity Commission Report,
p177).
There would be substantial uncertainty and cost to industry and
government in a significant overhaul of ACIS. Data collection regimes have been
developed for ACIS and a substantial change may impose costs without necessarily
producing a major change in behaviour.
d. Broad
continuation
The current ACIS legislation expires at end 2005. An
option would be broadly to continue ACIS in its current form and to defer its
expiry to a later date or else to replicate its provisions in new legislation.
The advantage of this option is the familiarity of the form of ACIS to
participants and to regulators, a position likely to be strengthened by the fact
that ACIS has three more years to run. Against this is that the chance to start
with a fresh approach is foregone. Such a fresh approach might come to
different conclusions on form of assistance, levels of incentives, entry
thresholds and payment mechanisms.
A settled path for future automotive
assistance policy would serve to reduce one source of uncertainty impacting on
investment and production decisions in the industry. To this end, specification
of clearly defined assistance regime for the industry for the decade after 2005
is appropriate (Productivity Commission Report, p180).
Within the concept
of a broad continuation, there is still some flexibility for considering changes
that might improve ACIS’s performance. For example, the PC saw merit in
creating separate sub-schemes within a future ACIS to ensure types of
participants received assistance roughly in line with what they currently
receive. Otherwise, the MVP entitlements under ACIS would decline from 2005 in
line with the tariff reduction that year, while the supply chain would suffer no
such decline. The major industry associations have suggested that ACIS and its
successor contain separate pools for MVPs and the supply chain in the ratio of
55:45. This broadly reflects current activity and prospective increases in MVP
activity through domestic sales and particularly exports.
Further, broad
continuation could encompass some adjustment to levels and types of incentives,
provided such adjustments did not impact on incentives provided to other types
of participant. For example, if separate pools for MVPs and supply chain were
created, it would then be possible to excise some funds from the MVP pool and
use these funds to produce a fund for MVPs to encourage introduction of
particular technologies or research that may enhance the competitiveness of the
industry.
The PC put forward three options for continuing ACIS. All
options included continuation of the uncapped element of ACIS to 2015. The
three options for the capped element of ACIS were:
• $2 billion over
the years 2006-10, so providing a seamless continuation of ACIS;
• $2
billion in net present value terms over the years 2006-15, so providing
certainty over a longer period;
• $2 billion in net present value terms
over the years 2006-15, but with funding in the first five year tranche set at a
level twice that of the second five year tranche.
While favouring the
first option, the PC stressed that the other options would fall for
consideration if there was significant concern about the ability of the industry
to adapt to a 5% reduction in the tariff at 2010. The PC did not specify
discount rates or start or end dates for calculating the net present value of $2
billion. The PC was clear that the duration of funding would be limited to
2006-2015 and not exceed $2 billion however calculated. This suggests there is
no correct amount of assistance, rather the level is the minimum thought
necessary to achieve the tariff reduction objective within a specified
timeframe.
a) The option of ending ACIS from 2005 would have the effect of removing
subsidies of approximately $560 million per year for the automotive sector. In
looking at this option, the PC considered that the adverse impact on the
industry would be too severe to be sustained without causing significant damage
to many individual participants. It did not recommend this course.
While
parts of the Australian automotive industry are performing strongly in global
markets, there are still significant changes required if the industry as a whole
is to become competitive without substantial government support. Some of these
will involve changes to the composition and structure of production, some will
require a rebalancing of output between domestic and export markets, and some
will require changes in the industry’s operating practices (Productivity
Commission Report, pXXV).
... the assistance regime should provide the
industry with sufficient time to make the further changes necessary to secure
its longer-term future. Notwithstanding the already long period of support for
the industry, reducing remaining assistance too quickly after 2005 could put at
risk production that would have become internationally competitive in the longer
term under a more gradual transition process. Given the industry’s size
and linkages with the rest of the economy, the costs to the community from
‘over-shooting’ could be substantial (Productivity Commission
Report, pXXVI).
Withdrawal of ACIS support when the current scheme
expires at the end of 2005 would carry downside risks. It is clear that many
parts of the industry are still some way from being truly internationally
competitive. Hence, an immediate withdrawal of ACIS, in combination with
further tariff reductions, could be sufficient to precipitate the exit of firms
from the industry that would have become internationally competitive under more
accommodating transitional arrangements. Consistent with the current assistance
package, the Commission sees a continuation of ACIS after 2005 as a means of
facilitating a reduction in the tariff to 5 per cent (Productivity Commission
Report, pXXIX).
In the short term, the effect of this proposal would
likely be some exit from the industry by some participants, with consequently
higher welfare payments. In the longer term, however, the resultant effects of
this option on consumers, non-automotive firms and the broader community would
be minimal. However, firms exiting the industry could result in a contraction
in the industry and economic growth. This option would result in a substantial
cost and administration saving to Government. However, the exit of a
substantial number of firms from the industry in certain states could result in
calls for regional assistance.
The PC estimates that, in 2001, the
consumer tax equivalent of the tariff was around $1.9 billion, with around $1
billion appropriated by the Government in the form of tariff revenue (before
ACIS). Ending ACIS in 2005 would accordingly free up substantial funding which
could then be made available to the broader community (including tax
reductions).
b) The fact that ACIS will have been in legislation for five
years by 2006 suggests that the option of continuing with an assistance scheme,
but not having it legislated is not a serious option. In any event, the
definitions and the rules embodied in the current ACIS legislation would have to
be replicated in administrative schemes, for no net saving. Decisions made
whether through legislation or administratively would remain appealable to the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal. There seems little to commend this option.
The costs and benefits to consumers, non-automotive businesses and community
would be minimal.
c) A change in the fundamental architecture of ACIS
would involve costs and benefits, but not necessarily differing impacts. The
cost would be in developing and drafting new approaches to delivering assistance
to the industry. A cost to participants would be in developing an understanding
of new rules and procedures. There is already a healthy consultancy sector
servicing the industry in claiming ACIS credits. It is likely that changes to
the architecture of ACIS would continue to benefit this externality on the
scheme. The benefit would be in potentially encouraging more productive
investment or research and development, or in reducing assistance to less
productive activities.
The PC takes the view that, on balance, it would
not be desirable to introduce new uncertainties into ACIS. It said:
The
Commission remains of the view that foreshadowing changes to a scheme that has
been in operation for less than two years would introduce undesirable
uncertainty about firms' future entitlements. There is already widespread
concern about uncertainty arising from the modulation arrangements used to
adjust firms' entitlements. Moreover, some of the proposed changes would add to
the complexity of the scheme and could be difficult and expensive to
administer.
The Commission considers that considerable weight should be
placed on avoiding uncertainty associated with significant changes in scheme
design-particularly, changes which could have major distribution consequences.
Thus, apart from seeing merit in the creation of separate capped funding pools
for vehicle and component producers - which would reduce uncertainty - it does
not consider another changes to the desired ACIS would be beneficial
(Productivity Commission Report, p178).
The impacts of this option on
consumers, non-automotive firms and the community would be minimal.
In looking at the allocation of the funding, the PC noted industry
submissions seeking the creation of separate pools splitting funding between
MVPs and the supply chain. The PC found that a 50:50 allocation of capped
assistance would be appropriate. This allocation was based on information
provided by the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources regarding the
current demand for assistance under ACIS. However, as the PC acknowledged in
its position paper, there is no science to such an allocation. More recent
figures supplied by industry to the Department suggest that other allocations
are possible. Industry has now agreed to a 55:45 allocation which is only a
minor deviation from the PC’s preferred position.
The impacts on
non-automotive firms would be minimal, given that ACIS assistance is limited to
passenger motor vehicles (and utilities). However, similar to consumers, there
may be some benefits derived from reduced domestic car prices, but balanced by
higher imported vehicle prices.
For motor vehicle producers and firms in
the automotive supply chain, ACIS assistance would provide significant leverage
for the competitiveness of the industry and be a major factor in determining its
long-term sustainability.
The continuation of ACIS broadly in its current
form would enable the streamlining of Government regulatory processes and
requirements, given that administrative arrangements for ACIS are already
established and operational.
The proposed regulation would be designed
to be WTO compliant with an indirect bearing on export performance.
The
continuation of ACIS would not result in any clear losers. Costs to consumers,
non-automotive businesses and the community would be minimal given that the
overall cost of continuing ACIS broadly in its current form would be fairly
neutral. For firms in the automotive industry, there would be some ongoing
compliance costs in respect to the legislation. However, this would not impose
an unnecessary burden, especially given that they would be receiving substantial
assistance through the Scheme.
The Government would incur ongoing costs
for administering the Scheme but given that administrative mechanisms are
established and operational, costs would be unchanged from the existing Scheme.
The exact funding profile for a ‘preferred option’ is subject to
decision by Cabinet.
RIS SummaryObjective: to provide a means of delivering a final round of transitional assistance to the automotive sector to ensure its future sustainability |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Alternative
|
Impact on |
Likely benefit/comment
|
||
|
|
Households |
Business
|
Government
|
|
|
End ACIS in 2005
|
Minimal effect. |
Possible firm closures in the automotive industry. Minimal effect on firms
in other industries given that ACIS only covers motor vehicles and
components.
|
Reduced costs, however, this could be neutralised by an increased burden on
the social security system following firm closures.
|
Too sudden closure of ACIS accompanied by tariff reduction may have the
effect of eliminating firms that might be viable if the removal of assistance
was more gradual.
|
|
An unlegislated scheme
|
Minimal effect. |
Reduced planning certainty for firms in the automotive industry. Minimal
effect on firms in other industries.
|
Administrative costs due to a lack of transparency and probable lack of
precision in terminology.
|
The fact of the current legislated scheme is a factor against reverting to
an unlegislated arrangement.
|
|
Reformed legislated scheme
|
Minimal effect. |
Could distort the capacity of some automotive firms to use ACIS funds in a
manner which best supported their transition to lower assistance. Modulation of
claims may neutralise the benefits of the change. Minimal effect on firms in
other industries.
|
More administrative costs than the existing ACIS with possible heavy
modulation of claims.
|
There may be substantial uncertainty and cost to industry and government in
a significant overhaul of ACIS. Data collection regimes are already in place
for ACIS and a substantial change may impose costs without necessarily producing
a major change in behaviour.
|
|
Broad continuation
|
Minimal effect. |
Increased planning certainty for firms in the automotive industry. Form of
the scheme would be familiar to firms.
|
Scheme would be familiar to administer. Administrative mechanisms are
already established and operational. Quantum and duration would be as
determined by Cabinet.
|
Fewer distortional effects to the industry than other options.
|
There has been no formal consultation on the proposed regulation, as a
decision on the regulation is Cabinet-in-confidence. However the PC process and
the work by the Automotive Council cover the same ground and in considerably
more depth than would be possible in a Regulation Impact Statement. Attachment
A to the PC’s Report sets out the names of the parties with which it
consulted and from whom it received submissions.
Options included in this analysis have included:
1. Ending ACIS
at its current expiry date of end 2005 - similar to the PC’s views,
this option is not recommended as it may eliminate firms that might be viable if
the removal of assistance was more gradual.
2. An unlegislated scheme
- this option is not recommended given the lack of transparency and precision in
terminology coupled with a reduced certainty to participants.
3. Reformed
legislated scheme - similar to the PC’s views, this option is not
recommended due to the potential to distort the capacity of some firms to use
ACIS assistance in a manner which best supported their transition to lower
assistance.
4. Broad continuation - similar to the PC’s views,
it is recommended that ACIS should be continued in its current form (whether by
extension of existing legislation or renewed legislation).
Given
assistance is to continue and it is desirable to tie as much as possible to the
tariff, it makes sense to continue the current scheme as per option
4.
There are not sufficiently strong grounds to warrant modifying the
design of ACIS with respect to its eligibility criteria or the basis for earning
duty credits (including any linking of payments to the achievement particular
outcomes, such as environmental and industrial relations objectives).
(Productivity Commission Report, p.180)
It is recommended that the
structure provided by ACIS be continued for a quantum and duration set by the
Government, with substantially the same architecture as currently operating.
The quantum and duration should be the minimum that enables the industry to
achieve successfully the transition to a lower tariff environment.
Implementation of the recommended option will be through legislated
amendments to the existing ACIS framework or new legislation replicating the
provisions of ACIS. In addition to changing the expiry dates in ACIS to achieve
the duration the Government decides on, there will be decisions on transitional
issues mentioned above.
It is proposed that review of the operation of
the ACIS successor would occur in 2008 and again about two years before its
expiry. The Government would specify that from the time of expiry, there would
be no further assistance to this industry beyond that made available to
industries in general.
Compliance costs for business would be fairly
minimal given that the Scheme would be continuing in broadly the same form.
Firms would already have sufficient knowledge of the Scheme in order to meet
their regulatory obligations.
ACIS ADMINISTRATION
AMENDMENT BILL 2003
NOTES ON CLAUSES
Clause 1 Short Title
1. Clause 1 provides for the Act to be cited
as the ACIS Administration Amendment Act 2003.
Clause 2 Commencement
2. Clause 2 provides for the commencement of
the ACIS Administration Amendment Act 2003.
Clause
3 Schedule(s)
3. Clause 3 provides for the Schedule to the Act, in
particular it provides that the Act specified in the Schedule, in this case the
ACIS Administration Act 1999 (the Act) is amended or repealed as set out
in the Schedule.
Schedule 1 Amendment of the ACIS Administration
Act 1999
Item 1 Subsection 4(1) - (Overview of the
Act)
4. A very minor amendment necessitated by the renumbering of a
section in the Act for the purpose of improving clarity.
Item 2 After
subsection 4(1) – (Overview of the Act)
5. This change inserts
into the Act a statement that the ACIS assistance program is being extended from
its current five year term to include an additional two five year
stages.
Item 3 Subsections 4(2) and 4(3) – (Overview of the
Act)
6. These subsections, which set out the amount of ACIS
assistance to be given to the Australian automotive industry, and the limits on
that assistance, are repealed. They are replaced with subsections detailing the
new amounts of assistance, the limits on that assistance, and the fact that a
new type of assistance will be available, namely assistance for motor vehicle
producers undertaking research and development (referred to as type J investment
credit). Also included in this item is a minor technical amendment clarifying
the terminology regarding the limit, set out in section 54 of the Act,
concerning the maximum assistance available to an ACIS
participant.
Item 4 Subsection 4(6) - (Overview of the
Act)
7. A minor amendment adding a reference to the additional type
of assistance that is to be available in the extended ACIS, namely type J
investment credit.
Item 5 Subsection 4(7) - (Overview of the
Act)
8. A minor amendment adding a reference to the additional type
of assistance that is to be available in the extended ACIS, namely type J
investment credit.
Item 6 Subsection 4(8) - (Overview of the
Act)
9. A minor amendment adding a reference to the additional type
of assistance that is to be available in the extended ACIS, namely type J
investment credit.
Item 7 Subsection 6(1) –
(Definitions)
10. This amendment makes reference to the fact that
ACIS will no longer be a single five year program, but rather will consist of
three five year stages.
Item 8 Subsection 6(1) –
(Definitions)
11. This amendment defines the time period of ACIS
Stage 1.
Item 9 Subsection 6(1) –
(Definitions)
12. This amendment defines the time period of ACIS
Stage 2.
Item 10 Subsection 6(1) –
(Definitions)
13. This amendment defines the time period of ACIS
Stage 3.
Item 11 Subsection 6(1) (definition of ACIS year)
– (Definitions)
14. This amendment notes that the extended ACIS
will cease in 2016.
Item 12 Subsection 6(1) (definition of duty
credit) – (Definitions)
15. A minor amendment adding a
reference to the additional type of assistance that is to be available in the
extended ACIS, namely type J investment credit.
Item 13 Subsection
6(1) – (Definitions)
16. This amendment results from the fact
that, because ACIS will no longer be a single five year program, but rather will
consist of three five year stages, the duty credits (the form in which
assistance is provided under ACIS) associated with each stage of ACIS will
expire one year after the end of each ACIS stage.
Item 14 Subsection
6(1) (definition of final quarter) –
(Definitions)
17. This amendment makes reference to the fact that
ACIS will no longer be a single five year program, but rather will consist of
three five year stages.
Item 15 Subsection 6(1) (paragraph (b) of the
definition of modulated credit) – (Definitions)
18. In
the existing Act the term “modulation” means both: a pro-rata
reduction in the value of claims for assistance to ensure that ACIS funding cap
is not exceeded; and limiting total ACIS assistance so that no participant
receives an amount greater than 5 per cent of total sales in any one year. This
amendment repeals a definition of “modulated credit”. This
amendment is part of a process to reduce confusion by clarifying terminology.
Item 16 Subsection 6(1) (definition of modulated uncapped
production credit) – (Definitions)
19. This amendment
repeals a definition of “modulated credit”. This amendment is part
of a process to reduce confusion by clarifying terminology (see note under item
15).
Item 17 Subsection 6(1) –
(Definitions)
20. This amendment adds a reference to the Research and
Development scheme which will, in ACIS Stage 2, provide a new form of assistance
to motor vehicle producers undertaking research and development (referred to as
type J investment credit).
Item 18 Subsection 6(1) –
(Definitions)
21. A minor amendment adding a reference to the
additional type of assistance available in ACIS Stage 2, namely type J
investment credit.
Item 19 Subsection 6(1) –
(Definitions)
22. A minor amendment adding a reference to the
additional type of assistance available in ACIS Stage 2, namely type J
investment credit.
Item 20 Subsection 10(1) – (Determination of
entitlement to modulated credit between participants)
23. This
amendment alters references to “modulated credit”. This amendment
is part of a process to reduce confusion by clarifying terminology (see note
under item 15).
Item 21 Subsection 10(2) – (Determination of
entitlement to modulated credit between participants)
24. This
amendment alters references to “modulated credit”. This amendment
is part of a process to reduce confusion by clarifying terminology (see note
under item 15).
Item 22 Subsection 40(1) – (Rules concerning
returns)
25. This amendment takes account of the fact that ACIS will
no longer be a single five year program, but rather will consist of three five
year stages.
Item 23 Subsection 40(1) – (Rules concerning
returns)
26. This amendment takes account of the fact that ACIS will
no longer be a single five year program, but rather will consist of three five
year stages.
Item 24 Subsection 40(4) – (Rules concerning
returns)
27. This amendment takes account of the fact that ACIS will
no longer be a single five year program, but rather will consist of three five
year stages.
Item 25 Subsection 41 – (Working out unmodulated
credit - Overview)
28. This amendment alters references to
“modulated credit”. This amendment is part of a process to reduce
confusion by clarifying terminology (see note under item 15).
Item
26 Subsection 42(1) – (Secretary to work out unmodulated production credit
for each MVP)
29. A minor change clarifying that the Secretary works
out the unmodulated uncapped production credit, a form of ACIS assistance, that
is to be issued to motor vehicle producers that are participants in ACIS. Also
included in this item is an amendment clarifying the terminology regarding the
limit, set out in section 54 of the Act, concerning the maximum assistance
available to an ACIS participant.
Item 27 Subsection 52(1) –
(Overview of Part – Modulation of unmodulated credit)
30. A
minor amendment adding a reference to the additional type of assistance that is
to be available in the extended ACIS, namely type J investment credit. Also
included in this item is an amendment clarifying the terminology regarding the
limit, set out in section 54 of the Act, concerning the maximum assistance
available to an ACIS participant.
Item 28 Subsection 53 – (Stage
caps on ACIS)
31. The existing section 53 of the Act, which referred
only to the five year ACIS program 2001-05, is repealed because ACIS is being
extended to two further five year stages.
32. A new section 53 of the
Act, setting out the funding in each of the now three stages of ACIS is inserted
into the Act. This new section 53 states that ACIS assistance will be split
into separate funding pools in Stages 2 and 3, with one of these pools reserved
for motor vehicle producers, and the other reserved for participants in ACIS who
are not motor vehicle producers (this division into funding pools is a direct
response to representations of industry). The new section 53 also sets out that
there will be a Research and Development Scheme available for motor vehicle
producers, the funding for which will come from the funding pool reserved for
motor vehicle producers. This Research and Development Scheme is the origin of
the new type of assistance that will be available in the extended ACIS, namely
the type J investment credit referred to earlier.
33. This item also
inserts an entirely new provision, section 53A, into the Act. This section is
necessitated by the change of ACIS from a single five year scheme, with a single
corresponding ledger, into three five year schemes, each with its own
corresponding ledger.
Item 29 Subsection 54(1) – (5% of sales
limit on participants)
34. These are minor changes clarifying the use
of the word “modulated”, and inserting a reference to the additional
form of assistance that will be available under ACIS (type J investment credit).
These changes make it clear that ACIS assistance is provided in respect of a
particular year, but not necessarily in that particular year. Also included in
this item is a minor technical amendment clarifying the terminology regarding
the limit, set out in section 54 of the Act, concerning the maximum assistance
available to an ACIS participant.
Item 30 Subsection 54(2) – (5%
of sales limit on participants)
35. These are minor changes
clarifying the use of the word “modulated”, and inserting a
reference to the additional form of assistance that will be available under ACIS
(type J investment credit). These changes make it clear that ACIS assistance is
provided in respect of a particular year, but not necessarily in that particular
year. Also included in this item is a minor technical amendment clarifying the
terminology regarding the limit, set out in section 54 of the Act, concerning
the maximum assistance available to an ACIS participant.
Item
31 Subsections 54(4) – (5% of sales limit on
participants)
36. A minor technical adjustment to make the definition
of “sales value” given in this subsection accord with the definition
given in subsection 6(1) of the Act.
Item 32 Subsections 55(1) –
(Minister must make modulation guidelines)
37. This amendment takes
account of the fact that ACIS will consist of three stages, and that assistance
given under ACIS is adjusted (a process referred to as modulation) with respect
to each stage of ACIS.
Item 33 Paragraph 55(1)(a) – (Minister
must make modulation guidelines)
38. This amendment alters repeals a
reference to unmodulated credit (a form of ACIS assistance). This amendment is
part of a process to reduce confusion by clarifying terminology (see note under
item 15).
39. The repealed paragraph is replaced with two separate
paragraphs; one referring to unmodulated credit for motor vehicle producers in
ACIS, and the other referring to unmodulated credit for ACIS participants who
are not motor vehicle producers. These two new paragraphs will allow the
Minister to modulate (that is adjust) assistance for ACIS participants who are
motor vehicle producers differently from assistance for participants who are not
motor vehicle producers. This gives the Minister the flexibility to give
different sectors of the Australian automotive industry different levels of
assistance. This amendment arose from requests from industry.
Item
34 Paragraph 55(1)(c) – (Minister must make modulation
guidelines)
40. This amendment repeals a paragraph made superfluous
by the amendment in the preceding item.
Item 35 After subsection 55(1)
– (Minister must make modulation guidelines)
41. This amendment
is necessitated by the amendment under item 33, which allows the Minister
to give different sectors of the Australian automotive industry different levels
of assistance. This amendment requires the Minister to make guidelines
regarding the different levels of assistance, and for the treatment of
liabilities that arise as a result of incorrect claims for
assistance.
Item 36 Subsection 55(2) – (Minister must make
modulation guidelines)
42. This amendment, necessitated by the
preceding amendment, requires the funding limits of ACIS to be taken into
account in the making of guidelines.
Item 37 Paragraph 55(2)(b)
– (Minister must make modulation guidelines)
43. This amendment
takes account of the fact that ACIS will no longer be a single five year
program, but rather will consist of three five year stages, each with its own
funding.
Item 38 Subsection 55(3) – (Minister must make
modulation guidelines)
44. A purely mechanical change to make
reference to the fact that there now will be guidelines issued under two
subsections, not just one.
Item 39 Section 56 – (Secretary to
modulate capped production credit for each MVP)
45. A technical
change repealing the existing section 56 and replacing it with one in which the
use of the term “modulated” is clarified.
Item 40 Sections
57 – (Motor vehicle producers credit)
46. This amendment takes
account of the fact that ACIS will no longer be a single five year program, but
rather will consist of three five year stages, each with its own
funding.
Item 41 At the end of section 57 – (Secretary to
modulate investment credit for each motor vehicle producer)
47. A
minor amendment adding a reference to the additional type of assistance that is
to be available in the extended ACIS, namely type J investment
credit.
Item 42 Section 59 – (Secretary to modulate investment
credit for each participant in ACIS that is not a motor vehicle
producer)
48. This amendment takes account of the fact that ACIS will
no longer be a single five year program, but rather will consist of three five
year stages.
Item 43 After Part 5 – (Research and Development
Scheme)
49. This amendment inserts a new part into the existing Act
which sets out that in ACIS Stage 2 a new type of assistance will be available
to motor vehicle producers who are participants in ACIS, namely assistance for
undertaking research and development (that is, type J investment credit). The
assistance will take the form of a competitive grants Research and Development
scheme, the operation of which may be varied over time.
Item
44 Subsection 61(1) – (The ACIS ledger and it maintenance –
Overview)
50. A minor amendment adding a reference to the additional
type of assistance that is to be available in the extended ACIS, namely type J
investment credit.
Item 45 At the end of section 62 - (Establishment
and maintenance of ACIS ledger)
51. This amendment takes account of
the fact because ACIS will no longer be a single five year program, but rather
will consist of three five year stages, there will be three ACIS ledgers –
one for each ACIS stage.
Item 46 Section 63 - (Information to be kept
in ledger)
52. A minor amendment adding a reference to the additional
type of assistance that is to be available in the extended ACIS, namely type J
investment credit.
Item 47 Subsection 64(1) - (Entry of credit in the
ledger)
53. This amendment is necessitated by the fact that ACIS will
no longer be a single five year program, but rather will consist of three five
year stages, and a new type of assistance will be available in ACIS Stage 2,
namely type J investment credit.
Item 48 Subsection 64(2) - (Entry of
credit in the ledger)
54. A technical amendment clarifying the
process of modulation (see note under item 15).
Item 49 At the
end of subsection 64(2) - (Entry of credit in the ledger)
55. This
amendment is necessitated by the fact that ACIS will no longer be a single five
year program, but rather will consist of three five year stages.
Item
50 Subsection 64(3) - (Entry of credit in the ledger)
56. A technical
amendment clarifying the process of modulation (see note under item 15).
Item 51 At the end of subsection 64(3) - (Entry of credit in the
ledger)
57. Technical changes necessitated by the fact that ACIS will
no longer be a single five year program, but rather will consist of three five
year stages, and the need to clarify the process of modulation (see note under
item 15).
Item 52 At the end of section 64 - (Entry of credit in the
ledger)
58. A minor amendment adding a reference to the additional
type of assistance that is to be available in the extended ACIS, namely type J
investment credit.
Item 53 Section 65 - (Effect of entering modulated
credit in the ledger)
59. A minor amendment adding a reference to the
additional type of assistance that is to be available in the extended ACIS,
namely type J investment credit.
Item 54 Paragraph 66(aa) -
(Circumstances in which the Secretary must amend the ledger)
60. A
very minor amendment necessitated by the renumbering of a section in the Act for
the purpose of improving clarity.
Item 55 Paragraph 66(e) -
(Circumstances in which the Secretary must amend the ledger)
61. This
amendment repeals a paragraph for the purpose of replacing it with two new
subsections (see next item). This will make it clearer how errors are to be
fixed in the ACIS ledger, now that ACIS will no longer be a single five year
program, but rather will consist of three five year stages, each with its own
ledger.
Item 56 At the end of section 66 - (Circumstances in which the
Secretary must amend the ledger)
62. This amendment inserts two
additional subsections into the existing Act to make it clear how errors are to
be fixed in the ACIS ledger, now that ACIS will no longer be a single five year
program, but rather will consist of three five year stages, each with its own
ledger. Also included in this item is an amendment clarifying the terminology
regarding the limit, set out in section 54 of the Act, concerning the maximum
assistance available to an ACIS participant.
Item 57 Subsection 68(1)
- (Person may apply to Secretary to fix an error in ledger)
63. This
amendment takes account of the fact as ACIS will no longer be a single five year
program, but rather will consist of three five year stages.
Item 58 At
the end of subsection 68(2) - (Person may apply to Secretary to fix an error in
ledger)
64. This amendment takes account of the fact as ACIS will no
longer be a single five year program, but rather will consist of three five year
stages.
Item 59 At the end of section 68 - (Person may apply to
Secretary to fix an error in ledger)
65. This amendment takes account
of the fact as ACIS will no longer be a single five year program, but rather
will consist of three five year stages.
Item 60 Subsection 69(1) -
(Electronic access to ledger)
66. This amendment takes account of the
fact that, because ACIS will no longer be a single five year program, but rather
will consist of three five year stages, the duty credits (the form in which
assistance is provided under ACIS) associated with each stage of ACIS will
expire one year after the end of each ACIS stage.
Item 61 After
subsection 69(1) - (Electronic access to ledger)
67. This amendment
takes account of the fact that, because ACIS will no longer be a single five
year program, but rather will consist of three five year stages, there will be a
ledger associated with each ACIS stage.
Item 62 Subsection 70(2) -
(Secretary to notify owner of credit quarterly of changes to
ledger)
68. A minor technical alteration to correct a reference in
the Act to other sections of the Act.
Item 63 Sections 71 and 72 -
(Period in which entries in ledger to be made)
69. This amendment
clarifies when the Secretary may amend the ACIS ledger, now that ACIS will no
longer be a single five year program, but rather will consist of three five year
stages, each with its own ledger. Note that section 72, which stated the
self-evident fact that the Secretary was not required to amend the ACIS ledger
after ACIS had finished, is redundant and is being repealed and not replaced.
Item 64 Section 74 - (Dealing in and use of duty credit -
Overview)
70. This amendment, necessitated by the next item, inserts
into the overview of Part 7 a reference to the use of duty credits (the form of
assistance provided under ACIS) in the extended ACIS.
Item 65 After
Division 1 of Part 7 - (Dealing in and use of duty credit -
Overview)
71. The extended ACIS will consist of three stages, not a
single five year scheme. To avoid a situation where duty credits (the form of
assistance provided under ACIS) which were issued in the first year of ACIS
Stage 1 are used to offset import duty paid in the last year of ACIS Stage
3, a situation which would present considerable administrative difficulties,
ACIS duty credits will be deemed to expire one calendar year after the ACIS
stage in which they are issued.
72. It also should be noted that, for
the sake of clarity, section 75A, which deals with when duty credits may be
used, is now to be renumbered so that it forms part of section 74A, a section
which sets out other details relating to the use of duty credits.
Item
66 Division 2A of Part 7
73. A very minor amendment necessitated by
the renumbering of the former section 75A in the Act for the purpose of
improving clarity (see note under Item 65).
Item 67 Subsection
76(1) – (Minister may limit use of modulated investment
credit)
74. This minor amendment makes it clear that a notice issued
to limit the use of modulated investment credit remains in force for the period
specified in the notice.
Item 68 Paragraph 76(1)(ca) – (Minister
may limit use of modulated investment credit)
75. A very minor
amendment necessitated by the renumbering of a section in the Act for the
purpose of improving clarity.
Item 69 Subsection 77(1) –
(Minister may limit use of certain production credit)
76. This minor
amendment makes it clear that a notice issued to limit the use of certain
production credit remains in force for the period specified in the
notice.
Item 70 Paragraph 77(1)(ca) – (Minister may limit use of
certain production credit)
77. A very minor amendment necessitated by
the renumbering of a section in the Act for the purpose of improving
clarity.
Item 71 Paragraph 100(d) – (Order in which credit to be
offset)
78. This amendment alters a reference to
“modulated” credit. This amendment is part of a process to reduce
confusion by clarifying terminology (see note under item 15).
Item
72 At the end of section 100 – (Order in which credit to be
offset)
79. A minor amendment adding a reference to the additional
type of assistance that is to be available in the extended ACIS, namely type J
investment credit.
Item 73 Subsection 109(4) – (Update of
business plan)
80. This amendment extends the requirement by ACIS
participants to provide business plans. The extended ACIS will consist of three
stages, not a single five year scheme, and as assistance is provided under ACIS
based on the business plans provided by participants, there is a need to extend
the requirement for business plans.
Item 74 Subsection 109(5) –
(Update of business plan)
81. This amendment stipulates that the
business plans, required by the preceding item, are 5 year plans.
Item
75 Subsection 109(5) – (Update of business plan)
82. The
extended ACIS will consist of three stages, not a single five year scheme and
this amendment removes the original finishing date for ACIS.
Item
76 After paragraph 111(f) – (Review of decisions affecting duty
credit)
83. This amendment adds references to
“unmodulated” credit. This amendment is part of a process to reduce
confusion by clarifying terminology (see note under item 15).
Item
77 Subparagraph 111(g)(i) – (Review of decisions affecting duty
credit)
84. This amendment repeals a reference to
“modulated” credit. This amendment is part of a process to reduce
confusion by clarifying terminology (see note under item 15).
Item
78 At the end of section 111 – (Review of decisions affecting duty
credit)
85. Technical changes to add references to the additional
type of assistance that is to be available in the extended ACIS, namely type J
investment credit.
Item 79 Paragraph 112(3)(b) – (Limitations on
implementation of court decisions concerning duty credit
decisions)
86. A minor amendment adding a reference to the additional
type of assistance that is to be available in the extended ACIS, namely type J
investment credit.
Item 80 Subsection 112(3) – (Limitations on
implementation of court decisions concerning duty credit
decisions)
87. The current Act states that a court decision awarding
additional ACIS funding to a plaintiff cannot be given effect to if all the ACIS
funding already has been allocated. The extended ACIS will consist of three
stages, not a single five year scheme, consequently the Act will be amended to
provide that a court decision awarding additional ACIS funding to a plaintiff
cannot be given effect to if all the ACIS funding, in the ACIS stage the
court’s decision relates to, already has been allocated. Moreover, since
duty credits (the form of assistance provided under ACIS) will be deemed to
expire one calendar year after the ACIS stage in which they are issued (see note
under item 65), a court decision must be made within one calendar year after the
ACIS stage it relates to, otherwise the extra assistance the court’s
decision purports to award to a plaintiff would be in the form of expired duty
credits.
Item 81 Paragraph 112(4)(a) – (Limitations on
implementation of court decisions concerning duty credit
decisions)
88. A minor change clarifying terminology.
Item
82 Paragraphs 112(4)(a) and (b) – (Limitations on implementation of court
decisions concerning duty credit decisions)
89. A minor change
clarifying terminology.
Item 83 Paragraph 113(3)(b) –
(Limitations on implementation of AAT decisions concerning duty credit
decisions)
90. A minor amendment adding a reference to the additional
type of assistance that is to be available in the extended ACIS, namely type J
investment credit.
Item 84 Subsection 113(3) – (Limitations on
implementation of Administrative Appeal Tribunal (AAT) decisions concerning duty
credit decisions)
91. The current Act states that an AAT decision
awarding additional ACIS funding to a plaintiff cannot be given effect to if all
the ACIS funding already has been allocated. The extended ACIS will consist of
three stages, not a single five year scheme, consequently the Act will be
amended to provide that an AAT decision awarding additional ACIS funding to a
plaintiff cannot be given effect to if all the ACIS funding, in the ACIS stage
the AAT’s decision relates to, already has been allocated. Moreover,
since duty credits (the form of assistance provided under ACIS) will be deemed
to expire one calendar year after the ACIS stage in which they are issued (see
note under item 65), an AAT decision must be made within one calendar year after
the ACIS stage it relates to, otherwise the extra assistance the AAT’s
decision purports to award to a plaintiff would be in the form of expired duty
credits.
Item 85 Paragraph 113(4)(a) - (Limitations on implementation
of AAT decisions concerning duty credit decisions)
92. A minor change
clarifying terminology.
Item 86 Paragraphs 113(4)(a) and (b) -
(Limitations on implementation of AAT decisions concerning duty credit
decisions)
93. A minor change clarifying terminology.
Item
87 After section 115 (Minister may publish information relating to
participants)
94. Disclosing how public monies are expended is good
public policy. Accordingly this amendment allows the identity of an ACIS
participant, and the amount of ACIS assistance they received, to be disclosed by
the Minister. These new disclosure requirements apply prospectively only.
Item 88 Participants in ACIS
95. The extended ACIS will
consist of three stages, not a single five year scheme. To avoid placing an
administrative burden on participants in ACIS, current participants remain in
extended ACIS, unless of course they notify the Secretary that they no longer
wish to be part of ACIS, or alternatively they cease to meet the qualifications
of an ACIS participant.
Item 89 Modulations made under section 56 of
the ACIS Administration Act 1999
96. A savings provision that
ensures that the changes made by this amending Act, to the way in which
assistance is provided under ACIS, do not invalidate actions taken to provide
assistance under the original Act before it was amended.
Item
90 Application of amendments in items 80-85
97. This amendment
provides that any plaintiff already seeking redress from a court or the AAT
regarding ACIS, may proceed under the legislation as it currently stands. The
rationale behind this, is that the original legislation is the legislation they
commenced their action under (it should be noted that we are unaware of any ACIS
cases currently before the any court or the AAT).
Item 91 Application
of amendment in item 86
98. This amendment makes it clear to ACIS
participants that from the commencement of ACIS Stage 2 in 2006, the benefits
they receive under ACIS may be disclosed by the Minister. This gives ACIS
participants sufficient time to adjust to the disclosure
requirements.