Page 3235 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 22 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
began in mid-2000, so there was nearly 12 years before the decision was made on the objection.
The administration of a significant area of business policy with such delays as these is not conducive to effective business management. At a broad territory-wide level, these instances are not indicative of a business-friendly environment. There are also entity-specific concerns arising from these delays. It is very difficult for any business to be certain of its true operating position with clear implications for determining the appropriate financial management of the business and the tax position of the business if there are outstanding decisions on payroll tax matters that are lasting years and years. And there could be implications for directors if there are claims that certain directors are considered to be liable for payroll tax liabilities. Quite simply, delays like these are unconscionable.
As a member of parliament, however, I am particularly concerned when I hear that legislation is not being administered consistently and where decisions of courts and tribunals are being ignored or reversed. In the instance of the administration of the legislation, I am concerned that the ACT Revenue Office has set out the definitive position on particular matters and people and entities have made decisions on their commercial activities relying on that information. And yet the ACT Revenue Office has subsequently withdrawn the publicly released information and changed its interpretation of the facts. This is a completely untenable environment in which businesses have to make commercial decisions. It is not a business-friendly environment.
Equally, where a court or tribunal has made a decision, this must be respected by the administrative unit and applied appropriately. If there is reckoned to be a problem with the decision of the court or tribunal, it needs to be resolved by the parliament and not by administrative fiat or, in this case, the ACT Revenue Office. Again, this is a completely untenable situation facing businesses as they attempt to operate in a very competitive environment.
As I reflect on the list of concerns, I am amazed. These are matters that go to the heart of how the ACT payroll tax regime operates in practice, and they also raise serious concerns about the role of the executive and the judiciary. If there are serious concerns with these types of matters, this should be an issue of paramount concern to the ACT government for a number of reasons. In proposing this motion, therefore, I propose two actions: first, that there be no further legal action initiated by the ACT Revenue Office until the government has clarified the way in which payroll tax legislation is to be administered; and, second, in relation to any payroll tax matters, that no penalties by way of interest be charged to any claimed liability for payroll tax during that period.
These two proposals are intended to give the government the opportunity to resolve any issues with respect to the application of payroll tax to ACT businesses while, at the same time, ensuring that businesses are not penalised for this hold on any legal action. I would also make a plea to the ACT Revenue Office and to all agencies of the ACT government—try talking to people and entities with whom you are meant to be working. It is invariably much easier and far less costly to resolve matters by talking with each other.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video