Page 2137 - Week 10 - Thursday, 26 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS FOLLETT: Following that, the front page of the Canberra Times, in its excellent reporting style, carried precisely the same story. I do not believe it is possible that anybody could have misunderstood that. However, following that, Mr Speaker, as you know, the Government formed a budget consultative committee which included representatives of the business sector. That budget consultative committee met on a number of occasions, and CARD was on that committee. It raised its concerns about payroll tax generally, but there were no specific concerns raised in relation to those matters there.
Mr Collaery: You did not give us a specific proposal.
MS FOLLETT: The peak organisations which did make submissions to the budget consultative committee were CARD, the Master Builders Construction and Housing Association and the Building Owners and Managers Association. None of them specifically raised any concerns about the announced payroll tax measures, although I would put it to the Assembly that the wording that is contained in the initial budget statement makes abundantly clear the intention of the legislation that is currently before us.
Subsequently there were discussions which took place between Treasury officials and representatives of the Australian Society of Accountants, the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Law Society. The proposals were discussed in detail. The reason for the discussions taking place between those bodies was that they represent the principal advisers to employers in respect of payroll tax obligations, and they were therefore considered to be the most appropriate bodies to provide comment on the implementation of the proposals. There was also a meeting with the Motor Trades Association, which was convened specifically to discuss the proposals for motor vehicle traders to collect tax on the sales of vehicles, but all of the revenue proposals were canvassed at that meeting.
An invitation was issued by the ACT revenue office to CARD to attend a briefing specifically on the revenue proposals of the budget, and that meeting was arranged for 9 August. CARD cancelled the briefing at short notice and advised that it would seek to reschedule it if it were required. The meeting was not rescheduled. Treasury officials attended meetings with CARD to discuss the Government's proposals generally, but again there were no specific objections raised. More recently, the under treasurer met with Messrs Winnel, Snow and Kleinig on 12 September to discuss the budget, but again specific objections were not raised to the revenue proposals.
Again, today, there have been further meetings between Treasury officials and CARD and some of its associated organisations. Once the particular concerns that had been raised were brought to light we were at pains to have them discussed. But it must be said that the general intention
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .