Page 3239 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 22 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In relation to the argument that the commissioner is failing to exercise a discretion to de-group companies that are legitimately separate operations, the commissioner’s office made the point that any doubt that this is actually happening is quickly dismissed by the fact that these decisions are notifiable instruments and up for all to see on the legislation register. For the sake of completeness I have had that checked and there were eight in 2011.
What this motion is calling on the government to do is a little bizarre, I must say. Mr Smyth wants a part of the executive to stop enforcing the law and then, to add another sort of layer of strangeness, he wants to prevent any interest from being charged on anyone who breaches the law. This is the same as inviting every payroll tax payer not to pay their taxes for the next four months, with impunity. The idea of giving everyone a four-month interest-free holiday on their payroll tax liability is a little out there, I have to say.
If Mr Smyth wants to offer interest-free periods to the world, he should go and work for Harvey Norman. I reckon he has got a good chance at a gig on TV where he could spruik all the interest-free periods he liked and even throw in a set of steak knives. But the idea that he can stand up in this place and just give away what the community is rightfully entitled to is fundamentally ignorant of the way our system should work and it is economically negligent.
This year the budget estimate is that about $324.5 million will be paid in payroll tax. If the motion were passed and taxpayers were given a four-month holiday but would ultimately be liable for the same amount, which, given that Mr Smyth is not proposing to change the law, must ultimately be the case, the total cost in interest forgone to the budget would be about $5.4 million. Basically the Canberra Liberals want to give some businesses a $5.4 million subsidy—and I think that they should tell us what services they would cut to pay for it. Will they be taking this initiative to the election and will they have it fully costed by Treasury?
Our payroll tax rates are very competitive and have been recently reduced and the Greens believe that at this stage the right balance and thresholds have been put in place. If there was a problem and it was readily apparent that the law was leading to a poor outcome clearly contrary to the intention of the legislation, it may well be appropriate for the Assembly to take remedial action to give us time to fix the law. But I have yet to really see the evidence for that.
But, if there is a case and the law does need to be changed, then we go and do that considered work, we move ahead, we table the amendments and we change that law. That is the right way to do it—not with a motion that has been quickly thrown together in the heat of the moment by Mr Smyth without giving it the proper consideration that it needs. This would set an incredibly dangerous precedent and it is something that the Greens simply cannot support. We will not support this motion today.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video