John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)

I will try to be brief and not breach the time available. There is not much difference between both sides of the House in what we hope for from the implementation of the tax laws by the Revenue Commissioners. There is a general determination on all sides that illegality, impropriety and evasion should be rooted out and dealt with severely. The question arises as to the method by which that might be best done in the interest of the State and its citizens, and in the interest of fair play.

Coming back to a point made by Senator O'Toole, there have been major improvements over the past 15 years. The culture has changed dramatically. Perhaps there is still some way to go but at that time people who evaded tax were regarded as heroes in some quarters. A name and shame policy would not have been effective. It is effective now and there is a general desire on the part of the public to ensure everybody pays their taxes. Part of the reason for that is that the burden of tax on individuals has been greatly alleviated through successive Governments and the rates are lower. When we started talking about the need to reduce personal rates of taxation there was a general negative reaction to it on the basis that services would be reduced. The proposition put forward of increased revenue to the State was widely rejected at the time. Fortunately, that culture has changed.

There should be no need for further amnesties. The purpose of amnesties was to draw a line and it is correct to say, as Senator McDowell said — I can vividly recall it when the legislation was going through the House — that the penalties for false declarations would be so draconian nobody would make any attempt to avoid their responsibilities. That was put into the legislation to ensure the reservations in the Labour Party and elsewhere were dealt with. The Revenue has enormous powers with regard to those false declarations.

I also accept the proposition that some of these matters would be more appropriately dealt with through the Criminal Assets Bureau than by Revenue. The Revenue Commissioners do a very good job. Revenue is far more user friendly than many Departments. It is a model in terms of the clarity of the advice one gets, the fact that one gets rapid decisions and that it is very helpful, from my experience as a taxpayer, when one has reason to contact them. They are also sensitive to individuals.

To some extent Senator Higgins wants it both ways. He wants the poor man who came back from England with a few bob in his pocket and who is living in the west to be dealt with——