Page 6262 - Week 19 - Tuesday, 17 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and we really ought not support it under these circumstances. It is an entirely inappropriate set of circumstances in which to do it now. The reality is that it is another one of Mr Collaery's political stunts.
MR DUBY (6.55): Mr Speaker, it is a red-letter day when Mr Moore and I seem to agree on all points. Again I rise to endorse the comments that have been made by Mr Moore and, indeed, to add some further comments which might be even more applicable. Mr Moore has not been a member of a government whilst this Assembly has been in place; I have.
Mr Berry: And with Bernard.
MR DUBY: Thank you very much. So have Mr Collaery, Mr Kaine and Mr Humphries. The fact is that this Act was passed in 1989 with the supposed arrangements which are apparently causing such difficulty in the community. Since 1989 there has been consistent pressuring and lobbying to have these matters removed. People are aware of that. There have been consistent letters, particularly from people in the building industry, saying that this is an unfair proposition. As Minister for Finance I took it upon myself to investigate those complaints with the Revenue Office.
The former Chief Minister says that if he had only known that Mr Collaery had such a feeling he could have done something in the joint party room. That may well be the case. I took the matter up with the Revenue Office and I asked for an expose of the claims that people were making that they were somehow being cheated or defrauded of money that they should not have to pay. I would not put it in such strong words as the Chief Minister has expressed tonight, but I came to the conclusion that these particular charges are simply taxes that people are required to pay under the payroll tax provisions. People are complaining because they are now caught in a net which they were not caught in before. I, for one, do not endorse the removal of these provisions, which will enable people to avoid what I regard to be their rightful duty to pay.
The point was raised, I think quite appropriately, about this being the right time and place to do it and the fact that Mr Collaery has said that this has been on the private members' notice paper for a week. I believe that it was introduced a week ago. The fact remains that it has been agreed by this Assembly that there will not be an additional sitting day after this day. I, for one, was not expecting any further private members' business. I had no idea until a matter of a half-hour ago when somebody whispered in my ear, "Are you going to support us on the payroll tax private members' Bill?".
The Bill was introduced last week. It was introduced, on my understanding, as a quite legitimate political ploy on behalf of the Residents Rally, so that they could say, "Look what we would have done if we could have".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .