Payroll Tax

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:17): A further supplementary, if I may, to the Premier: given the Premier's answer, is there any intention of the government to increase the payroll tax?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy) (14:18): It was just announced today that we are not increasing payroll tax. That was the move done by the Legislative Council and the members opposite. We will be administratively offering exgratia relief to small businesses. So what we expressed in the budget bill, which was a tax cut to 2½ per cent for people with payrolls of up to $1 million and then scaling up to $1.5 million, those tax cuts will remain in place in an ex gratia form. The only people who voted to abolish that tax cut were members opposite when they blocked it.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: One more utterance from the member for Schubert outside standing orders and he will be departing.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: As the Premier said, the whole idea of legislating the payroll tax cut was so that small businesses didn't have to pay the higher amount and then wait on a rebate in order to improve their cash-flow position and give them incentives to go out and employ more people, because there is a lot of momentum behind the South Australian economy—I have seen the unemployment figures today.

What we're seeing through the measures that we put into the parliament is that we had a process of a rebate, where businesses were paying the higher rate and then getting rebates. What we want to do now is make sure that they are paying the lower rate going forward forever so they can keep that extra money in their pockets all year round and use it when they need it. But what the opposition did was block that measure, and they blocked it on behalf of five Australian banks after saying that they would support it.

We don't trust the opposition in the parliament to support this measure because on so many occasions—22 June, 23 June, 24 June, 25 June, 26 June—on repeated occasions, on numerous occasions, the Leader of the Opposition said that he was supporting the budget bill because of long precedents held. He said he was going to support the budget as it was. He said that over and over and over again. Then he had one meeting with one bank and flipped. We have measures—

Mr GARDNER: Point of order: standing order 98, debate.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Newland is called to order and warned. The member for Chaffey is warned a first and second time, and the member for Hammond is warned a first time. I will listen to the Treasurer's remarks.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We announced this morning at a press conference that we would be, (1), passing on the payroll tax cuts that the opposition blocked in the upper house to South Australian small businesses despite the attempts of the opposition to block that. By passing those tax cuts, unfortunately we have to do it by ex gratia relief rather than do it legislatively because the opposition can't be trusted to pass the legislation because of the way they have breached the conventions. Given the amount of times the opposition have said that they would support budget bills and money bills—

Mr GARDNER: Point of order, sir: the minister is still debating.

The SPEAKER: What was the question?

Mr GARDNER: The question was from the—

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: The question was—

The SPEAKER: No, I will take it from the member for Morialta; he's making the point of order.

Mr GARDNER: The minister was talking about the opposition's point of view on a matter, and previous statements on a matter.

The SPEAKER: What was the question?

Mr GARDNER: The question was: will he be reducing payroll tax? The minister was referring to what the opposition said.

The SPEAKER: It is germane to that, what happened in the voting on the budget, so I don't uphold that point of order.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Wright is called to order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: When the budget was blocked by the opposition blocking the tax cuts to South Australian small businesses, we had to work out very quickly whether we asked businesses to pay that in arrears because we have no legal framework in place other than me offering every single individual business an ex gratia relief payment. That is, we will say, 'Pay the money and then we will pay it back to you.' The commissioner for taxation has come up with a scheme that allows us to offer this in an ex gratia way so South Australian businesses won't be penalised for what the opposition did to them in the other place.

The problem we have with legislating this measure is that the opposition on numerous occasions has said that money bills are sacred, that government should pass their money bills; it is their right. As the Premier quoted, the Leader of the Opposition said there is a 175-year history where the government's budget of the day gets passed. On 25 June, Mr Marshall said that the government of the day should be able to pass its budget bill, have supply to run mechanics of government. To his credit, he said this on 23 June, 'I'll criticise anybody who increases tax, but it's a budget measure, so it will go through.' That's what he said, the Leader of the Opposition.

When we try to attempt to repair the damage done to the budget by members opposite by blocking these tax cuts and revenue measures—it wasn't the only revenue measure they blocked. They also blocked a measure on a foreign surcharge for foreign investors in residential properties. So we now have to introduce legislation again today. The problem is, given what the Leader of the Opposition has said, what if Sally Zou rings up the Leader of the Opposition and says, 'I've donated $800,000 to the Liberal Party; I want you to block this measure.' We are running a risk with a reckless leader who is untrustworthy and is a risk to the people of South Australia.

Mr Whetstone: The old guttersnipe.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Wright is warned. The member for Chaffey, he has been required to withdraw this remark before, and yet in the next sitting week he is doing it again. That really calls for a naming, doesn't it?

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Not really, sir, I wouldn't think so.

The SPEAKER: I have always been attracted, as you know, by mandatory minimum sentencing. I would have thought the member for Chaffey would be leaping to his feet. I require him to withdraw and apologise for the remark he just made across the chamber.

Mr Whetstone: I withdraw and apologise.

The SPEAKER: No, it would be good if he stood erect and said it.

Mr WHETSTONE: I withdraw and apologise.

The SPEAKER: Thank you. That time the house could hear the member for Chaffey.

Mr GARDNER: Point of order: standing order 127, the Treasurer was imputing improper motive. He should withdraw and apologise.

The SPEAKER: I'm sorry, what was the imputation?

Mr GARDNER: The imputation was, sir, that the opposition was making policy based on a phone call with any one individual, for their best interest.

The SPEAKER: Was?

Mr GARDNER: Was making policy decisions based on a phone call with an individual for their interest—clearly imputing improper motive.

The SPEAKER: I think it was expressed in a hypothetical way—what if?

Mr GARDNER: I realise there was much going on in the chamber, but I encourage you to have a look at the Hansard.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Newland is warned a second and final time and so is the member for Hammond.

Mr MARSHALL: To provide further evidence, earlier in his contribution the Treasurer clearly impugned my—

The SPEAKER: No, he doesn't impugn it. He might impugn you, but he imputes proper motive.

Mr MARSHALL: Improper motive.

The SPEAKER: Improper motive.

Mr MARSHALL: Sorry, sir, you are quite right. He imputed improper motive when he said that we took one phone call from one bank and changed our position on this. When I said, 'Withdraw,' he said, 'Never.'

The SPEAKER: When?

Mr MARSHALL: In the chamber, sir.

The SPEAKER: I am sorry, what was the last bit?

Mr MARSHALL: I asked him to withdraw and he said, 'Never.' The reality is—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Wright is warned for the second and final time.

Mr MARSHALL: I asked the Treasurer to withdraw that comment and apologise.

The SPEAKER: Standing order 125 says that a member may be required to withdraw offensive or unbecoming words, as I just required from the member for Chaffey.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Elder is warned for the second and final time. I would ask the Treasurer to withdraw the imputation.

A Member may not…impute improper motives to any other Member.

Is the Treasurer saying that one phone call from one bank required—caused—is that the imputation?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The imputation, Mr Speaker, is that there were public statements before any lobbying by the Australian Bankers' Association. After the Bankers' Association, the banks lobbied the Leader of the Opposition and he changed his position. That's all I said, Mr Speaker. It is a fact. The opposition—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The disorder.

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Morialta will be seated.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: On the point of order, sir, I recall the Treasurer making that very same comment many times in this house before and it has never been challenged before. How can they argue that it is improper now, when previously they have never objected to it?

The SPEAKER: The member for Newland has taken a bogus point of order and will leave the chamber for 15 minutes under the sessional order.

The honourable member for Newland having withdrawn from the chamber:

The SPEAKER: The imputation in the way the Treasurer has explained it is permissible in the argy-bargy of politics. If the opposition want to bring me a rush of Hansard saying 'one call from one bank' I will deal with that when I see it.