Page 4002 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 17 November 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
confident that these amendments will not impact on what most in our community would consider to be charitable organisations.
If we go to the actual organisations outlined as being charitable organisations, the list includes animal welfare bodies, anti-discrimination bodies, aged-care organisations, charities relieving poverty, churches and other religious organisations, cultural institutions, early childhood and primary schools, environmental organisations, and hospitals.
Beyond these definitions, however, are organisations that can be considered peak bodies, professional associations, political parties and trade unions. The bodies captured by this new definition and that are large enough to pay wages above the current payroll tax exemption of $1.85 million dollars a year in Australia-wide wages—and that is quite a high threshold, I think you would agree: we are not talking about a local charity organisation here; we are talking about an organisation with a substantial payroll—will now be required to pay tax. It is a notion that I agree with—in a sense, paying their fair share of tax.
This is in some regards quite a complex area of tax law and legal definition, but I am reassured that there are both objection and appeal rights in the legislation—and, further, opportunities for organisations that may be formed in future to directly approach the Commissioner for ACT Revenue to seek the relevant exemptions they believe they are entitled to. It is important to note that there is a mechanism in the legislation for people to go to the revenue commissioner and seek a specific declaration of them as a charity.
There have been suggestions that certain organisations might not be covered that currently believe they are covered. In terms of the types of organisations that I read out before, I think the scope for an organisation to approach the revenue commissioner to seek a further declaration if they feel that they have been unfairly judged in this process points to the fact that there are adequate safeguards in this legislation to achieve the objective we all have in mind, which is that genuinely charitable organisations should have this exemption. It is a goal we want to deliver to enable them to use the dollars they receive as a charitable organisation to go as far as possible in achieving their charitable goals and not simply disappear in tax revenue.
Various questions have been raised in the last day or so. I note Mr Smyth’s observation about just-in-time legislation and my apparent complicity in that. I would remind Mr Smyth that it was I and my Greens colleagues who brought the change in standing orders to this place which requires that a piece of legislation cannot be debated in the same sitting period. So even a bill that is introduced on—
Mr Smyth: It was always the case.
MR RATTENBURY: No, it was a change to the standing orders last term, Mr Smyth. I am sure you recall it. I am happy to go back and check the records, but I recall it being a specific change to standing orders last term to exactly ensure that there is space between sitting periods. The fact that members may not focus on a bill until a party room meeting on a Monday or a Tuesday morning is a different matter from the matter of when it is introduced and debated.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video