OPPOSITION Leader Andrew Holness has said that while the Jamaica Labour Party understood the imperatives of the Government in meeting the requirements of the Revenue Administration (Amendment) Act, it could not abdicate its responsibility to review the proposed changes.

Speaking in a marathon debate on the controversial amendments, which started a week earlier in the House of Representatives and ended close to 11 o’clock Wednesday night at Gordon House, Holness said:

“I want it to be clearly understood that we, on this side (of the House), understand the imperative of meeting these requirements. But, we cannot, as the people’s loyal alternative government, abdicate our responsibility to clearly review legislation, especially legislation that seeks to take away or diminish the rights of the average Jamaican.

“The Opposition will diligently examine all pieces of legislation that come before us, and where we see that the amendments are in the interest of Jamaica, we will give critical support. We have facilitated the passage of many bills that have come to Parliament, even those without proper notice. But, when we look at this supposed amendment to the Revenue Administration Act, we have great difficulty, great difficulty,” he said.

Holness objected to the definition of taxpayer in the bill being broadened to include persons who are of relevance to a treaty partner, in respect of the country’s international tax agreements.

“This stretches the jurisdiction of the Jamaican tax authority to now act as an agent for a foreign state against its own citizens. That’s a very dangerous amendment,” Holness warned.

Holness also criticised the inclusion of what the bill referred to as persons of relevance to a treaty partner, in respect of an international tax agreement.

“I think every Jamaican must be worried about this very loose term, and I urge the Government, in the strongest way, to consider an amendment to that section of the act,” he suggested.

He said that the use of the term “relevance”, and the addition of the clause which “gives the Government the opportunity to release information and possibly investigate someone by virtue of them being of relevance to our international partners” could be in breach of the Charter of Rights, which provides protection of every citizen of Jamaica in terms of the search of the person or property.

However, the Government chose to retain the subsection 2(b)(b) of the act which states that persons defined as a “taxpayer”, under the act, include those of relevance to a treaty partner, in respect of an international tax agreement

Attorney General Patrick Atkinson told the House that the protection referred to by the opposition leader was not an absolute right in the Constitution, and that if any taxpayer felt aggrieved by the provisions, they could still seek relief through the courts.

“I am confident that the court will give them justice, according to the evidence before it,” Atkinson said.

This statement was reinforced by Minister of Finance and Planning Dr Peter Phillips, who piloted the bill.

Phillips said that in 2010, the former solicitor general had advised the previous Government that while the Jamaican Constitution protects the rights of privacy for citizens, the right is not an absolute one.

“We agree with that position,” Phillips said.

The House of Representatives approved the bill on a 20-13 vote, in which each side voted strictly along party lines. Thirty members were absent.