Page 1797 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 2 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
areas; we all know that trying to get tradesmen is very hard. This is an area where the government needs to do more work. Right now that does not seem to be working incredibly well.
Another area that our government should be looking at is the federal government business framework. With the businesses that I am most connected with, I admit that their major government business issues relate to the commonwealth government, not the ACT government. I admit that I do not have very close connections with the hospitality industry and the construction industry, which would have more of those.
There are a lot of business issues with the federal government. One of the ACT government’s roles should be to advocate with their parliamentary colleagues in the house on the hill and say: “These are the things that are making it harder, especially for small business. You always know when BAS is due. Does it have to be as hard as that? They don’t just want the money; they want all the paperwork as well. Can we do something to make it easier?” The other thing to mention is integration with the area surrounding the ACT. The ACT is an island and we need to make all of these things work in that regard.
Moving along, the motion refers to a red tape reduction panel. We would absolutely agree with that. I think everyone would agree with that. One of the obvious examples of that was the government’s draft outdoor cafe policy, which was hastily retracted because it specified things like the design of the outdoor furniture. It was utterly crazy. It went far beyond what the government should have done. Focusing on that sort of thing means we do not focus on the useful regulations, and I do believe the government has a role in useful regulations. In the same example, useful regulations ensure that cafes do not encroach on walkways, particularly so that disabled and visually impaired people are still able to get around.
With payroll tax reform, again, we need to see the details. We have no idea what the government is proposing on this. But it is worth noting the Henry tax review recommendation that payroll tax reform should be based on the value-add of labour whereas the current levy is on the value of labour. The Greens, and I am sure the Liberal Party also, very much look forward to seeing the Quinlan tax analysis. I hope that will have something in it about payroll tax reform. I hope we do not have to wait until the budget but we probably will.
The next point in Ms Porter’s motion is about better government compliance support. If what that means is that some of the millions of regulations which are useful are actually enforced rather than just passed, that is probably a good idea. One thing I am particularly aware of, of course, is the trolley legislation. It was my motion; it was passed with the support of the Labor Party. I cannot remember the Liberal Party’s views at the time. It has not been enforced. There is no point in just having regulations. We have to enforce them.
With respect to advice and business mentoring, I am pleased that the government will be continuing its successful programs. The combination of BusinessPoint and Lighthouse seem to be working very well. The next point in the motion acknowledges local small to medium sized enterprises in procurement decisions. Why are we
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video