Page 1362 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 10 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Had the Government not moved to amend the Payroll Tax Act, it would have imposed an increased burden on ACT payroll tax payers as a result of that change in definition. This maintains the payroll tax liability at its current level. Payroll tax being a fairly regressive tax, we support that.
As I mentioned, the effective date of this measure is 1 April 1994, so there is an element of retrospectivity contained in this Bill. Normally the Opposition would have difficulty with retrospective provisions in legislation, as we have had occasion to point out before. In this case, however, since the Commonwealth's redefinition of fringe benefits tax applies from 1 April, we are obliged, in the interests of our companies that have a payroll tax liability, to make this definition effective from that same day. For that reason, we have no objection to the retrospectivity in this case.
MR STEVENSON (4.11): Firstly, regarding the retrospective nature of the Bill, one would ask why the Federal Government does not give people in the States and in this Territory an opportunity to pass legislation in due time without requiring retrospective legislation. One would think that there is an obligation on the Commonwealth Government to do just that. I ask the Chief Minister to look toward that for the future, to see whether the Federal Government would be prepared to give us notice to prevent us from being in a hole and having to pass urgent legislation or legislation that we need to make retrospective.
I can understand why the legislation was introduced. However, on the general principle of payroll tax, it is amazing that with so many people not working in Australia we have a tax on employment. Mr Kaine mentioned something about it being to some degree repulsive. I think it is to a great degree. To say to businesses that if they employ a larger number of people you will tax them on the amount of their payroll is obviously to discourage employment.
Mr Berry: Go for a death duty, Dennis.
MR STEVENSON: Mr Berry says, "Go for a death duty". Why on earth would one do that?
Mr Berry: A wealth tax.
MR STEVENSON: Mr Berry suggests that we should have a wealth tax. Are there many people who have any wealth left, with the amount of plunder governments get up to?. It is getting to be a smaller and smaller number of a particular political party's mates these days, is it not? It is a sad thing that we tax people because they are successful in employment. Rather than changing around the payroll tax, it would be better to abolish it altogether.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (4.13), in reply: I thank members for their support of the Bill, Madam Speaker. The intention of it is quite clear, and that is to prevent the situation occurring where payroll tax payers in the ACT would become liable for increases in their payroll tax - not because of any action taken by this Government, which has control of their payroll tax, but because of action taken by the Federal Government in relation to fringe benefits tax.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .