Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 10 Hansard (27 August) . . Page.. 2809 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

My colleagues and I have had plenty to say in the last few months about the government's performance, and have had many criticisms to level. Any issues that we feel have been a dishonouring of the government's election promises I detailed in my budget response on 27 June. I detailed a large number of those, and many other things that I would say represent some failure of performance on the part of the government. But I don't believe that any of that amounts to mistakes egregious enough to warrant the government's removal.

It is the opposition's view that the government ought to be able to live with its budget. In fact, I look forward to a number of features of this budget being put into operation and the community as a whole and the opposition in particular being able to see just how well or how poorly these decisions actually operate on the ground.

The Liberal opposition will not be blocking the budget. It will be, if it's required to, supporting the budget on any division taken on that subject. Of course, by "the budget" I mean the Appropriation Bill. The Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill, I will say very broadly, the opposition does not support and will oppose. I will give more detail of the party's position on that shortly, but essentially we are concerned about three matters.

Firstly, the increases in payroll tax and land rent amount to a tax on employment and on investment in the territory. To increase the payroll tax take is to make it more difficult, however marginally, for employers to employ. This opposition has said consistently for the last nine to 12 months that government must take a more proactive approach towards the creation of jobs if we are to avoid the territory losing its primacy in the Australian community as a high employment jurisdiction; that is, much effort must be made on the part of government to ensure that new ways are found of developing employment options.

To increase the take on payroll tax, whatever pretext might be put forward, is to make it harder to employ. May I say, it comes as a particularly galling decision on the part of the government, after five or six years in which the payroll tax impact on employers in the territory was consistently reduced, either by a reduction in the rate of payroll tax or a raising of the threshold in payroll tax. The opposition would be mildly discomfited, but not hysterical, if the government were to merely freeze the take it makes on payroll tax.

But, as the budget papers clearly show, it is increasing its take on payroll tax to the tune of something like $2.3 million. I think that is the most unfortunate, most regrettable decision in the context of a community which faces some uncertainty on the employment front in future years.

The second concern that the opposition has is that the government very clearly stated to the ACT community before the ACT election of last year that it would be able to afford its promises without increasing the tax take. Indeed, it said that it would be a low-taxing government. A decision to increase the tax take-not just in bald terms, or the number of dollars collected, but in real terms-in an area such as payroll tax, by virtue of conscious decisions made by the government to raise the level of taxation on individuals or corporations in those areas, is something that the community would regard, I think with justification, as a breach of promise. And the opposition in particular feels that the government should be held to account for promises of that kind.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .