Page 3239 - Week 10 - Thursday, 16 September 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We have already spoken about the petrol harvest. This Government is hypocritical with its 7c a litre fuel franchise tax. At the last sitting I stood up and defended some of the service stations that were working on margins that were unheard of in business; yet this Government then had the hypocrisy to say that the service station operators were profiteering and pushing up the price of petrol. If you want to hit them, hit the majors, not the small operators. Businesses once again are hit hard with this petrol tax. Petrol is a major part of the cost of transport, particularly transport used by small business.
The people on the other side are the so-called champions of the workers. I will give you a nice example of what they are championing. If a person wishes to give away a share nominally worth, say, $1 to one of his employees, it will cost that owner $1.49, because he has to pay 49c in fringe benefits tax for something that he gives away so that his worker can share in his profit. How can you encourage any employer to give shares away to his employees if he has to pay 49c in fringe benefits tax for something that he gives away? What a retrograde step!
Mr Connolly: What is the relevance of this to the ACT budget? We do not impose fringe benefits tax.
MR WESTENDE: I did not say that the ACT applied it, but people of your ideology apply it.
Mr Lamont: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker, on the ground of relevance.
Mr Kaine: I take the point of order, Madam Speaker, that Mr Lamont is not even sitting in his seat.
MR WESTENDE: The hindrance to business is seemingly endless.
Mr Lamont: I rise to a point of order for the second time this afternoon, Madam Speaker - in the proper seat. My point of order relates to relevance. We do not impose fringe benefits tax. That may have escaped Mr Westende.
MR WESTENDE: I said "people of your ideology".
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! Mr Westende, continue.
MR WESTENDE: Take quality assurance. I understand that this Government, in conjunction with the Federal Government and various State governments, is going to insist on quality assurance. That is fair enough. I am all in favour of quality assurance. It is an excellent idea, an excellent requirement; but should it be necessary to pay for it? Most goods being sold today are required to be quality tested. An industry I have some knowledge of uses the AFRDI to test furniture. Most governments require that furniture be AFRDI tested. Fair enough. We have to be members and we have to pay for the test. But quality assurance costs you a minimum of $15,000. Maybe that is fair enough too, but then you have to pay an annual fee of $6,000 to $8,000 to continue to be registered under a quality assurance program. Do not tell me that that is not something from the ACT, because your own NIES department specifies that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .