Page 1259 - Week 04 - Thursday, 4 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
monthly threshold to register with the revenue commissioner and, if they do not, to be fined up to 250 penalty units or about $25,000 for an individual, or $250,000 for a corporation, if he or she fails to register within seven days of the end of the month.
However, our argument is that, since section 16 of the Payroll Tax Act 1997 requires every employer whose monthly wages paid exceeds the tax-free threshold to submit a payroll tax return, nothing is to be gained from the additional requirement for this registration. It is just more paperwork for the sake of more paperwork. There is no better outcome. Why can’t the payroll tax return lodged be deemed to be an automatic registration? Current practice is for an end-of-year adjustment in payroll tax payments to take account of variations in wages paid from month to month.
The system is self-correcting and there is nothing to be gained from making it more onerous by having to register within seven days. The former Treasurer’s argument for the government’s bill was that registration for payroll tax would bring the ACT into line with every other jurisdiction and with the registration requirement of other ACT returns for taxes. So we will not be in line with everybody else; who cares? If they have got more paperwork, get rid of it. Honour your commitment in the economic white paper to be unashamedly the most pro-small business jurisdiction in the country. It is a perfect opportunity, Treasurer—perfect opportunity, Chief Minister.
The former Treasurer claimed as benefits the opportunity to obtain greater levels of information from companies and the increased capacity of the revenue office to target compliance activities. Those benefits, of course, are only for the bureaucracy. But they are another cost imposed on business. The government’s proposal is antibusiness. It adds to paperwork, red tape and compliance costs. It is antibusiness because for the first time it threatens individuals with penalties of $25,000, and corporations with penalties of $250,000, simply if they fail to comply within seven days with the registration demand. By removing this, we benefit business. There is no real downside for government, and I suspect it will save the government some processing costs at the same time. So I hope the government will see the logic of this and oppose their own clause.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Minister for the Arts) (5.50): The government will support clause 24. The Leader of the Opposition completely misunderstands the nature and effect of the clause.
The proposed registration requirements would provide very important tools for the revenue office to ensure compliance with what is a major tax line, particularly here in the ACT. It is current revenue office practice that all new payroll tax lodgers complete a registration form when they become liable to pay payroll tax. However, it is not compulsory and employers can refuse. More often than not, they simply fail to register with the revenue office. This amendment to the legislation will ensure that employers provide the revenue office with information relevant to their payroll tax liability that will assist the revenue office to target non-compliance activities. It will bring the ACT into line with every other jurisdiction in Australia.
This amendment simply formalises the current practice and will not, as the Leader of the Opposition alleges, create additional paperwork for currently registered payroll taxpayers. I think it is incredible that the Liberal Party overlook the plain words and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .