Page 2796 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
that is, he is a sole trader - then the builder does not pay payroll tax. If the two bricklayers, as a partnership, employ the labourer, then the builder does not pay payroll tax. If the three work as a partnership, known as a "buddy gang" in the building industry, then the builder does pay payroll tax. This is unjustifiable and unfair. If they were to change their way of operation, then the commissioner would undoubtedly say that the change was for the purpose of avoiding payroll tax and would challenge the change on the basis that it was a contrived arrangement to avoid payroll tax. Clearly, this anomaly must be rectified to ensure that the liability to pay payroll tax is the same, irrespective of operating structure.
Madam Speaker, it is interesting to compare the position with respect to partnerships in the ACT with that in other States that have payroll tax on service contracts. Victoria, for example, is in the same position as the ACT, although I believe that the new government there is going to be rectifying that very shortly. It is the only other Australian jurisdiction which has not allowed an exemption for buddy gangs. In New South Wales buddy gangs are excluded from the operation of the Act, and that is revenue circular PT11. In Tasmania and South Australia, if work is performed on site by two or more partners, then the commissioner accepts that the legislation does not apply. Madam Speaker, there is no justification for the position in the ACT to be any different to that in New South Wales. Many builders, as you are well aware, operate in both the ACT and New South Wales.
The question could be asked: Should it be legislation or revenue rulings? The ACT is the only Australian jurisdiction to rely upon rulings instead of legislation for the main exemptions from payroll tax on service contracts. This results in considerable uncertainty and allows the commissioner to have wide discretionary powers in complex areas that are best left to the legislature. Madam Speaker, for that reason I commend this Bill to the house.
Debate (on motion by Ms Follett) adjourned.
HUMAN RIGHTS IN UGANDA
MR HUMPHRIES (10.36): I move:
That this Assembly, noting -
(1) that the Ugandan Government has committed itself to and has implemented improvements in human rights education in the face of a legacy of problems as Uganda recovers from more than 20 years of massive human rights violations, division and conflict;
(2) that armed opposition groups have committed human right violations in Uganda;
and noting -
(3) that, despite the promises to respect human rights, violations have continued under the present Ugandan Government including dozens of massacres of civilians;
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .