Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2009 Week 13 Hansard (Thursday, 12 November 2009) . . Page.. 4990 ..
The current use of an employee’s bank account to determine the location of a payroll tax liability can result in some absurd examples. For example, if an employee resides in the ACT, works across the ACT and New South Wales borders during a month and holds a bank account which is domiciled in Queensland, then any payroll tax application to the wages paid to that employee is payable to Queensland. ACT and New South Wales roads, resources and municipal services are used during the course of the employee’s working, yet the tax is payable to a totally unrelated jurisdiction.
The new nexus provisions implement changes to make payroll tax payable in the territory where the employee resides in the territory. This will only apply to an employer who pays wages to an employee working in more than one jurisdiction during the month. In cases where the worker does not reside in Australia, payroll tax will be paid to the jurisdiction where the employer’s registered Australian business number is located. These new arrangements will provide greater clarity to affected employers and will reduce potential compliance costs that could otherwise arise for employers under the existing arrangements.
The amendments are made as part of this government’s commitment to the national payroll tax harmonisation and demonstrate the ability of the ACT to agree upon and enact sensible national reform. I thank members for their contributions and their support, and I commend the Payroll Tax Amendment Bill to the Assembly.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
Justice and Community Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 (No 3)
Debate resumed from 17 September 2009, on motion by Mr Corbell:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (4.04): The opposition will support this bill. It makes a number of relatively minor but necessary amendments to various acts and regulations, usually of a technical nature or to clarify intent. I will address only a couple of the specific amendments.
Amongst other things, the amendments to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 make it the responsibility of the applicant to seek a review of an ACAT decision in the Supreme Court if the appeal president refuses on certain defined grounds to deal with an appeal. It also provides that the tribunal must remove a matter to the Supreme Court on application by the parties, or that it can do so if considered appropriate and if a party applies for this to happen. Finally, the amendment to the