Page 2650 - Week 08 - Thursday, 14 August 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the contract, you are then liable for damages. The success of this exemption has been that it has given these people flexibility and it really has created a very special market in the ACT. Last time I saw it, we have double the number of the national average of IT workers in the ACT. That is because, first and foremost, the presence of the federal government, but secondly, it is because of the arrangements that exist here.
If you want to change the arrangements and you have got the numbers, that is fair. What is not fair is, because of the way this tax is being implemented, the cost is simply being passed on to these firms as if they had turnovers of $1.8 million, which they clearly do not. It is iniquitous. The government do not have to pass this bill tonight. The obvious intention is that it will now have a commencement date of either 1 January or 1 July next year. We can adjourn this debate and you can go away and have a think about it. Or, if you are desperate to have the revenue and you want to pass it, at least make it a 1 July start for the sake of thousands of people who will be affected by this. My understanding is that there are more than the 1,000 contractors the Treasurer has estimated. The fact that nobody knows is a flaw in the preparation for the introduction of this bill.
The fact that the only consultation has been with the peak body that represents some organisations but certainly not the small organisations or the independents or the sole trading-type individuals indicates that this process is flawed. We should have a clear indication of how much the government is going to raise. One estimate I saw was the government would make $40 million a year out of this tax because that is the true extent of the number of people in this industry. Again, you have got the numbers; if you want to change the exemption, go for your life. But do not do it in an arbitrary way that was ill-informed, not consulted on and delivered as a fait accompli—“We’ve changed this. And by the way, it starts three weeks from now, even though you’ve signed contracts.” That is a despicable way to go about business and it is not how government should behave.
We talk now about the government being the model litigant. What about the model citizen and the model business operator as well and acting a little bit more ethically? If you want to change something, give people some notice so they can get their affairs in order. It would be appropriate when we get to the detail stage that, rather than starting on 1 January, we move it back to 1 July next year, if you want to proceed with it. That would be the fair thing to do. I ask you, Chief Minister, through you, Madam Speaker, to please consider that the start date should be 1 July next year.
We know from the Treasurer’s questioning in estimates that it was not the intention that workers take pay cuts. The reality is, members, that when the nine of you opposite vote for this, you are cutting the take-home pay of at least 1,000 people in the Treasurer’s estimate. From what I am told it may be two or three or four times that number of people. You tonight are taking money out of people’s household budgets. One of the first emails I read was from a single parent:
My 1 year contract runs through to 8 July 2015, so the payroll tax change on 1 January 2015 would still result in a significant reduction to my salary next year (which as a single parent raising 2 kids, will be difficult to absorb). Ideally the change would commence on 1 July 2015 to allow me to try and negotiate a higher rate with the Commonwealth government for an extension to the contract.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video