Mrs AAGAARD - 2004-03-31
Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition said he would abolish payroll tax, stamp duty and bank debits tax. Can the Treasurer advise the House of the cost to Territory taxpayers of these promises made by the Opposition Leader, and what effect the implementation of these policies would have on the Territory?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nightcliff for her question. It truly is an important question for both members of this House and Territorians to understand. I can confirm that, yesterday on 8TopFM, the Leader of the Opposition did make the comment, raised by the member for Nightcliff in her question, that he would abolish taxes. In other words, he promised to remove from the Territory budget almost $200m worth of revenue: $96m for payroll tax, $97.1m in stamp duty, and $6.3m in debits tax.
The question for Territorians is not how his government would operate without this almost $200m in revenue - the question is irrelevant - because government simply would not be able to operate. If you take it in context, out of $351m sourced in own revenue, the Leader of the Opposition and an incoming CLP government would simply remove $200m own-sourced revenue. That is not the question. The question becomes: what taxes and charges will the Leader of the Opposition levy to make up the revenue that he forgoes with the abolition of these taxes. Further, he also has to tell Territorians what jobs he will slash, what services he will reduce, what programs he will abolish, what agencies …
Mr Dunham: Whether population will reduce, whether taxes – this sounds like you, Syd. Taxes have gone up under you, population has dropped under you.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, you know the standing orders about referring to people not by their names but by their electorate. Your interjection was out of order. Treasurer, continue.
Mr STIRLING: He also needs to tell Territorians what agencies he will abolish in their entirety, because that is the measure of what you would have to do in order to overcome this wipe-out of revenue. We have to lead, Madam Speaker. In a recent press release, the Leader of the Opposition was referring to a land tax that he wanted to review. I suspect that he will end the Territory’s resistance to new forms of taxes and he will do what other states have done: he will follow the Productivity Commission report into home ownership, which told states to up their land tax. That is what the Productivity Commission did. I suspect that was where he got the lead from. The fact is, we do not have a land tax, and a land tax would be a huge …
Mr Mills: You like your taxes. We have a land rich tax that you introduced!
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition.
Mr STIRLING: … impediment to development in the Territory …
Mr Mills: Misrepresenting the…
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, that is twice I have spoken to you.
Mr STIRLING: It would impact far more broadly than payroll tax does, because payroll tax does not go anywhere near small business. This would impact on small business. In New South Wales, if you take a small business under 15 employees, the impact of that land tax on their operations is something like $12 600. In Victoria, it is something like $6500. That would be a tax that no small business has ever paid in the Northern Territory but, under an incoming CLP government, they would have to find that.
He might look at a fire services levy - another one that all other jurisdictions outside the Northern Territory have. He might look to impose that to regain the revenue that he is giving up. Again, it would be a tax that goes far beyond medium and large business to every business - small as well - and that, in New South Wales and Victoria, to the effect of about $8500 per annum. The great irony in this is, of course, that small business does not pay payroll tax at all.
The bank debit tax that he referred to is going, under this government, from 1 July 2005. Therefore, you have to say that, faced with those realities, small business in the Territory would be significantly worse off under a CLP government that would simply have to raise new taxes to replace the revenue that this promise would remove.
Jobs would go because you simply would not have the revenue for government spending. Where would you go? The big agencies: Education and Health. They would be peeled back; they are the two biggest areas of government and that would be the first place that the government would have to look to. Would schools close? You would have to think highly likely. Would the extra police …
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The question should have been out of order because it calls for an opinion from the minister. We have sat and listened to this hypothetical garbage for long enough. He is simply giving an opinion on something that has no substantive basis.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, you know the rules regarding questions. There is no point of order.
Mr STIRLING: Would schools close? Almost definitely.
Madam SPEAKER: However, we would like shorter answers.
Mr STIRLING: I will wrap up quickly. Would the program of extra police being funded through the extra $75m over the next three years be continued? Very, very unlikely. This would be a major attack on business, particularly small business. It is immune from payroll tax now. It would mean broader taxes, it would mean introduction of new and insidious taxes, and it would belt the hell out of small business.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nightcliff for her question. It truly is an important question for both members of this House and Territorians to understand. I can confirm that, yesterday on 8TopFM, the Leader of the Opposition did make the comment, raised by the member for Nightcliff in her question, that he would abolish taxes. In other words, he promised to remove from the Territory budget almost $200m worth of revenue: $96m for payroll tax, $97.1m in stamp duty, and $6.3m in debits tax.
The question for Territorians is not how his government would operate without this almost $200m in revenue - the question is irrelevant - because government simply would not be able to operate. If you take it in context, out of $351m sourced in own revenue, the Leader of the Opposition and an incoming CLP government would simply remove $200m own-sourced revenue. That is not the question. The question becomes: what taxes and charges will the Leader of the Opposition levy to make up the revenue that he forgoes with the abolition of these taxes. Further, he also has to tell Territorians what jobs he will slash, what services he will reduce, what programs he will abolish, what agencies …
Mr Dunham: Whether population will reduce, whether taxes – this sounds like you, Syd. Taxes have gone up under you, population has dropped under you.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, you know the standing orders about referring to people not by their names but by their electorate. Your interjection was out of order. Treasurer, continue.
Mr STIRLING: He also needs to tell Territorians what agencies he will abolish in their entirety, because that is the measure of what you would have to do in order to overcome this wipe-out of revenue. We have to lead, Madam Speaker. In a recent press release, the Leader of the Opposition was referring to a land tax that he wanted to review. I suspect that he will end the Territory’s resistance to new forms of taxes and he will do what other states have done: he will follow the Productivity Commission report into home ownership, which told states to up their land tax. That is what the Productivity Commission did. I suspect that was where he got the lead from. The fact is, we do not have a land tax, and a land tax would be a huge …
Mr Mills: You like your taxes. We have a land rich tax that you introduced!
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition.
Mr STIRLING: … impediment to development in the Territory …
Mr Mills: Misrepresenting the…
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, that is twice I have spoken to you.
Mr STIRLING: It would impact far more broadly than payroll tax does, because payroll tax does not go anywhere near small business. This would impact on small business. In New South Wales, if you take a small business under 15 employees, the impact of that land tax on their operations is something like $12 600. In Victoria, it is something like $6500. That would be a tax that no small business has ever paid in the Northern Territory but, under an incoming CLP government, they would have to find that.
He might look at a fire services levy - another one that all other jurisdictions outside the Northern Territory have. He might look to impose that to regain the revenue that he is giving up. Again, it would be a tax that goes far beyond medium and large business to every business - small as well - and that, in New South Wales and Victoria, to the effect of about $8500 per annum. The great irony in this is, of course, that small business does not pay payroll tax at all.
The bank debit tax that he referred to is going, under this government, from 1 July 2005. Therefore, you have to say that, faced with those realities, small business in the Territory would be significantly worse off under a CLP government that would simply have to raise new taxes to replace the revenue that this promise would remove.
Jobs would go because you simply would not have the revenue for government spending. Where would you go? The big agencies: Education and Health. They would be peeled back; they are the two biggest areas of government and that would be the first place that the government would have to look to. Would schools close? You would have to think highly likely. Would the extra police …
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The question should have been out of order because it calls for an opinion from the minister. We have sat and listened to this hypothetical garbage for long enough. He is simply giving an opinion on something that has no substantive basis.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, you know the rules regarding questions. There is no point of order.
Mr STIRLING: Would schools close? Almost definitely.
Madam SPEAKER: However, we would like shorter answers.
Mr STIRLING: I will wrap up quickly. Would the program of extra police being funded through the extra $75m over the next three years be continued? Very, very unlikely. This would be a major attack on business, particularly small business. It is immune from payroll tax now. It would mean broader taxes, it would mean introduction of new and insidious taxes, and it would belt the hell out of small business.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016