Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 10 Hansard (27 August) . . Page.. 2817 ..
Mr Quinlan: Just make your point, Gary. Everything you are saying now, you said in the previous speech. And yet you are speaking again, for whatever reason. I do not know why.
MR HUMPHRIES: That is not true, Mr Speaker.
The point I want to make about retrospectivity, Mr Speaker, is that the budget was brought down on 25 June, just five days before the end of the financial year. The changes made to payroll tax were made for the same pay period-or that same potential or up-coming pay period-in which they were announced. So the amount of notice given to companies to change their arrangements was very small.
Mr Quinlan: They did not know about it before? We did not discuss it in public for a couple of weeks, Gary?
MR HUMPHRIES: No. We asked the government to indicate clearly that it would retain the raising of the threshold which had been foreshadowed by the previous government. Incidentally, you had gone to the election effectively indicating that you did not propose to change-because none of your detailed financial statements made reference to changing the payroll tax threshold.
I think employers were entitled to assume that, because you could pay for all of your promises without having to increase taxes, you were therefore going to keep the same level of payroll tax take.
Mr Quinlan: It is the long bow in logic-so we will do nothing for a year.
MR HUMPHRIES: A foolish mistake! That was not the case. The government has, in fact, increased its take on payroll tax. The point I am making in this debate-and it is a new point-is that that change took place at almost the last possible minute before the beginning of the new financial year and the operation of the new arrangements.
Unfortunately, there would have to have been some hasty reorganisation of company accounting to cope with that. It is not a fair way of treating business. I do not think businesses will be encouraged to see this territory as a place where they can base themselves for future growth. Now, more than two months later, we are putting that in place again. I think it is an unfortunate signal.
As I understand it, the exemptions being provided for in the area of land tax are being widened. Indeed, they are being widened even beyond what was proposed when the government introduced the bill. For example, we raised in the Estimates Committee the issue of a disabled family member who is accommodated in a house owned by a trust or company which is not rented, but provided for that person. The minister indicated that that was going to be taken care of.
Mr Quinlan: It was always going to be taken care of.
MR HUMPHRIES
: It was not mentioned in the original budget papers or in the presentation speech. That is the reason the issue was raised. I am pleased to hear that it was always going to be taken care of, but I am curious as to how that is going to happen.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .