Page 2156 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 21 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
in the research from a professional services firm—again, with additional cost to the company.
So while the ACT makes a small change to a policy and says that it will not have a major effect in the ACT, all the employers who are affected by the change have to become aware of it, analyse its implications and put any required changes to their payroll system in place.
It is about time that all Australian jurisdictions faced up to the harsh reality of their individualistic decision making and the consequences of this approach to Australia’s economic performance and, as I noted earlier, to the competitive position of our companies in comparison to those operating in other countries.
I would also like briefly to comment on one other matter. I raised in the briefing through my office the matter of proposed sections 83(1) and 83(2). Section 83(1) says that, if an employer is entitled to a refund of payroll tax, the employer must make an application for the refund. Section 83(2), on the other hand, says that if the ACT is owed additional payroll tax, the employer must pay this amount and no application is required.
I am assured by the government that in fact an employer who could be entitled to a refund would not have to apply for the refund; rather, the employer’s last return for a financial year would be “deemed” to be an application. I fail to see why the reality of this approach in practice cannot be reflected in the legislation, rather than having the fairly draconian approach of the employer having to apply—by implication with a separate application—to receive the refund to which they are entitled.
As the bill presently stands, employers are treated differently to the territory in this matter. It is something that the Treasurer might like to address in her closing remarks. Indeed, it is something that we will keep an eye on over time to see whether or not it does pose the problem that I fear.
With those comments, I reaffirm that the opposition will be supporting the Payroll Tax Bill.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (7.45): The Greens will be supporting this bill and certainly welcome the move to harmonise the payroll tax regime with other states, and particularly New South Wales. A significant majority of businesses who pay payroll tax in the ACT also have operations in a number of Australian jurisdictions and it makes sense to ensure that, to the greatest extent possible, the rules apply consistently and in harmony with one another, both to mitigate the risk of tax avoidance and for administrative simplicity both for private companies and for the commissioner.
Payroll tax is the single biggest own-source revenue item, so it is obviously particularly important that we have a robust scheme that is relatively straightforward and easy to apply. By and large, the provisions of the bill are exactly the same as those in New South Wales, with a couple of ACT-specific improvements. Particular reference should be made to the improved parental provisions as well as the broader
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video