Page 2211 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 6 June 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
people regard it as a double, or even triple, form of taxation, after they have built up goodwill, to have to pay tax on it. That may be an area of concern that Mr Stevenson alluded to, but I note that he has had since 3 May, when this Bill was tabled, to bring any concerns to our notice.
In that regard we are indebted to the Australian Legal Group for providing us with a comprehensive viewpoint on the legislation and for attending on us here, with the Minister for Finance and other advisers in the Assembly, for a comprehensive discussion of how we could see this legislation impacting.
This is a new ground for the Territory. I think it is prudent to go this way at this stage. Obviously there will be a lessened impact in the third category, which I have not got to yet - the conveyancing category; the business goodwill, vehicles and stock category; and then the marketable securities category, which is the category where the sale carries shares or unit trust elements. In that category there is certainly a 0.6 per cent taxing rate. It is a lower rate in the end than you would have in New South Wales under the all-in regime.
The all-in regime has often been criticised by the small business people as hurtful. I believe we have offered here no great encouragement to the big business barons that some ideologues opposite me might see, but a responsible taxing regime which, given that this is its first year of operation, will certainly be subject to review as it progresses. I am not so naive as to suggest that, having introduced a new tax regime, we will not come up with anomalies or will not have to review certain situations.
I want to assist my colleague Mr Duby, because he has not been a conveyancing solicitor himself, by putting down the imputation or allegation that the Leader of the Opposition made, that somehow or other this Bill facilitates big business and the conservative capitalist image. It does no such thing. If anything - and I trust that those who read Hansard will note this - it is serving the little man, the small businessman, and it ill behoves us to add too much more weight to that area. I know the Leader of the Opposition laughs and could not care less about small business, but we do on this side of the house.
MR STEVENSON (4.43): The Attorney-General said that this Bill serves the little man, the small businessman, and indeed it does. But what we need to ask is: serves them with what? It serves them with yet another tax that will make it more difficult for them to survive in an extremely difficult economic climate. If someone asked me how to get involved in a small business, the answer would be to buy a large business and wait. I do not know how many people here have been involved in business, but I have for some considerable time - and not just as someone who was involved in running them, but as someone who has been
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .