Page 188 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 17 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Kaine: How did Mr Collaery get into this?
MR LAMONT: It is exactly the same proposal as he put up and as was defeated by you in the last Assembly.
Mr Kaine: As far as I know, this is Mr De Domenico's Bill.
MR LAMONT: But it is exactly the same. You suggested that Mr De Domenico had gone out and spoken to people in the industry. I suggest that he has probably spent some of the time, when he has not been plotting to overthrow you, in looking through old Hansards to try to come up with new matters. The amendment proposed by Mr De Domenico has to be taken into account and placed in the context of Mr Collaery's Bill, which Bill Mr De Domenico has now resubmitted. Madam Speaker, the amendment proposed should not be supported because - - -
Mr De Domenico: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Mr Lamont has alleged that I reintroduced a Bill put in by Mr Collaery. I do not even know what Mr Collaery is doing at the minute, nor do I care. I suggest that Mr Lamont get his facts straight. He is wrong again, and I think he should withdraw that insinuation.
MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you for that clarification, Mr De Domenico.
MR LAMONT: I suppose I should withdraw it. At least Mr Collaery would have understood what it was that he was actually submitting. Madam Speaker, we should not support this proposal, because it is a somewhat obvious attempt to introduce into the Payroll Tax Act a set of criteria for employment agents separate to that which is in place for employers under the service contract provisions. The inconsistencies, having been introduced, will be used to argue for the adoption of the same provisions as are contained in Mr De Domenico's private members Payroll Tax (Amendment) Bill, copied from Mr Collaery.
This amendment should not be supported, for the same reason as Mr De Domenico's Bill will not be supported and for the same reasons as the Government opposed Mr Collaery's Payroll Tax (Amendment) Bill in 1991. He is in fact laying the groundwork for the debate on his private members Bill, the main purpose of which is to capitulate to the noisy demands of members and employers within the building industry who seek to avoid their payroll tax obligations. It is therefore important to look beyond Mr De Domenico's amendment to the Government's Bill and examine it in this wider context.
Madam Speaker, let me first address some quite unnecessary provisions which serve only to deflect attention from the real purpose behind the amendment. Mr De Domenico's only justification for seeking to have these provisions inserted in the ACT legislation is that they are in the New South Wales legislation. One might have expected him to at least try to justify the provisions he proposes on some policy grounds. He has not. As far as Mr De Domenico is concerned, it is justification enough that the New South Wales legislation contains such provisions or that the Chief Commissioner of New South Wales State Revenue has so ruled. One wonders what Mr De Domenico imagines the role of this Assembly to be if he in fact gives so much cognisance to what happens in New South Wales.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .