House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2023-09-26 Daily Xml

Contents

General Practitioner Payroll Tax

Mr COWDREY (Colton) (14:21): My question is again to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer received any advice or modelling regarding extra revenue the new treatment of payroll tax on contractor GPs will generate and, if so, how much?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Treasurer) (14:21): No, I don't believe I have received any of that modelling. In fact, the advice that has been provided to me by Treasury is that not only have they not undertaken any modelling but it's very difficult for them to undertake any modelling. While I have pointed out to the house that we've got many medical practices, and in particular general practitioner medical practices, that are registered for and paying payroll tax, there is no set of assumptions—

Mr Cowdrey interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Colton!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —that exists, to my knowledge, within Treasury or RevenueSA to understand the number of general practice medical practices which are not registered for payroll tax and are above the tax-free threshold, understanding how many of those practices have GPs and how many have other workers—whether they are nurse practitioners, receptionists and other people who might work in their practice—how many employees that is, to give an estimate of what the taxable wages could be and hence what the payroll tax liability could be.

I can understand the basis of the question, because it is not the first time it has been raised with me. It has been raised by both the royal college and the AMA, but we don't have an estimate. This is not a move which is designed to garner more revenue. This is about making sure that we are applying the legislated payroll tax in an even-handed and consistent manner for those people who are obliged to pay it.

We have given very significant concessions to date to make sure that we've got as smooth a process to bring general practitioners who are not meeting their payroll tax obligations into compliance over a longer period of time. I have committed and demonstrated to the royal college that I will work with them through that process. We are making RevenueSA staff and Treasury staff available to conduct information sessions and what have you to provide direct information to general practitioners about how all of this works, what the time frames are.

In fact, the other thing I should point out is that in the most recent meeting I had with the royal college only last week we said that we would be prepared to provide that amnesty from payroll tax obligations for the entirety of this current financial year out to 30 June next year on the basis that general practitioners who believe they may be liable for this tax would come forward and register with RevenueSA to start that important engagement process so they can understand how payroll tax works and what it might mean for their business.

The royal college made it clear to me on Wednesday that they wanted some more time for that registration process. We had provided the first three months of this financial year and they have asked for an extra two months. I said to them that I would be happy to extend that period of time. They made that request to me on Wednesday and I have said that I was open-minded about that. I'm going back to them to confirm that.

The AMA said something similar to me. They weren't specific about what time frame they wanted. But if the royal college, directly representative of general practitioners, thinks that an extra two months is helpful, of course we are happy to provide that. The more time and the more effort that we can put into this process to help these general practitioners come into compliance the better. The government is not seeking to be unreasonable. We are trying to help them meet these longstanding obligations and I remain committed to doing that.