Page 2174 - Week 10 - Thursday, 26 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
after the interests of workers by making it impossible for businesses to continue to run. If those businesses fail, workers lose their jobs and the economy goes into a state of depression. We do not want to see the ACT end up like a basket case.
As Mr Humphries also indicated, perhaps there is a lot of room here in the ACT to provide incentives to broaden the employment base. Such measures are being applied by other States in the Commonwealth and by governments throughout the world. It is interesting that even dogmatic socialism is going out in such countries as the Soviet Union.
I think we really need to look to ourselves here to ensure that we do not put unnecessary, needless barriers in the way of employers - which will impact badly on the ACT economy, lead to businesses going broke, and lead to workers being put out of jobs.
MS FOLLETT (Treasurer) (4.40), in reply: I would like to thank all of the members for their contribution to the debate on this very important matter and in particular to thank those speakers who have indicated that they support the thrust of this legislation, which, after all, is an anti-tax avoidance measure. It aims to provide for fairness in the payment of payroll tax by businesses in the ACT. I think that it is only fair to state that what we are seeking to do here is to provide a level playing field for all businesses in the ACT.
I do not think it is in any way fair or supportable that some businesses pay their full share of payroll tax and others, by means which this amendment seeks now to avoid, do not pay their fair share. I do not think anybody should support that, and I am surprised to find that there is some support for that kind of arrangement. The legislation does aim to close loopholes that exist in the payroll tax provisions in the ACT, to reduce the scams, and indeed simply to put everybody on the same footing.
Mr Kaine, in particular, made some interesting comments. He asserted that the budget was looking to small business to bail out the ACT economy. Now, to speak of small business in relation to payroll tax I find quite a surprising step for Mr Kaine to take. It is a fact that there is a threshold for the payment of payroll tax, and in the ACT that threshold is a wages bill of $432,000 per year.
In fact, unlike New South Wales, we have actually indexed the threshold for payroll tax in the ACT. So our threshold has risen and it has not in New South Wales. I would put to you, Mr Speaker, that a genuine small business would not very often have a payroll bill of over $432,000 per year. If it does, it is not a small business, in my view. So the Bill largely does not relate to small businesses.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .