Page 2158 - Week 10 - Thursday, 26 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
increased taxes. It is a limited resource which must not be squeezed to the point of bankruptcy. The Government seems to forget that it is the consumer that will ultimately pay.
The Government thinks that it can absolve itself from any responsibility by stating to the community that it did not increase any rates and charges, but rather that it is the business people that are hitting them with the increased prices.
The Canberra community is intelligent and is well informed and will, I know, realise that it is the Government that is really responsible for increased costs. If this Government is really serious about its consultation process why did it not consult? It was only yesterday, as a result of the Liberal attack on this legislation, that the Government realised not only that it did not carry out its consultation but that industry groups in this city were very angry.
I received several copies of letters to you, Chief Minister, late yesterday afternoon from business representations. I quote from a letter from CONFACT:
We request that we be granted an urgent appointment with you in order that an adequate consultative process can be entered into by the private sector concerning this proposed legislation.
I quote from part of another from MBA dated 25 October:
The Association sent to your office this morning a comment on the Payroll Tax (Amendment) Bill 1989 currently before the Assembly.
We pointed out that the amendments appear to have serious consequences for business in the ACT and that there has been no consultations with industry representatives to explain the objectives and implications of the proposed changes.
The Australian Small Business Association also sent a note to the Chief Minister, saying:
It is our objective to fully represent the interests of our members and to assist you by contributing to the work of government in these important issues, but we must have the time to do so. We would therefore ask that the proposed Payroll Tax Legislation be postponed to allow a reasonable time for consultation.
CARD's letter was even more scathing on the consultation process. It said:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .