HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-04-11 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Motions

Payroll Tax

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. C. Bonaros:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be established to inquire into and report on matters concerning payroll tax in South Australia, with particular reference to:

(a) the effectiveness of the current payroll tax system in promoting economic growth and job creation and its alignment with the overall economic goals of the state;

(b) evaluation of the payroll tax threshold and rates, including consideration of an annual review;

(c) incentives to promote regional employment and investment;

(d) opportunities for industry-specific incentives to support the growth and sustainability of key sectors;

(e) the impact of recent payroll tax decisions on independent general practitioners and the general practice sector, including the exacerbation of workforce challenges and reduced access to health care;

(f) the effect of grouping provisions on independently operated but co-branded businesses across various industry sectors;

(g) retrospective payroll tax liability determinations;

(h) compliance challenges faced by businesses;

(i) payroll tax systems in other jurisdictions to identify best practices and potential areas for reform and alignment;

(j) and any other related matters.

2. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council.

(Continued from 7 February 2024.)

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:16): I am sorry to break with the moment of collective kumbaya we had moments ago and indicate that I am not in a position to support this push for yet another committee from the Hon. Connie Bonaros. We have talked extensively about the fact that this parliament is overburdened with committees at the moment and the Hon. Connie Bonaros, whilst I understand she does have a significant passion in this area, is seeking to add another committee to the burgeoning list. For us in the Greens we do not see this as being appropriate at the moment.

I do recognise the concerns that the Hon. Connie Bonaros articulated in her speech, when she introduced this push for a committee, when she talked about healthcare workers. I submit to you, Mr President, that we do not require a committee because we have already passed a resolution of this chamber asking the government to take action on healthcare workers and the impact of payroll tax on the healthcare sector. We do not need an inquiry to know what to do; we have already asked the government to step up and take action.

I do not consider an inquiry to be appropriate in this circumstance. I understand the Hon. Connie Bonaros will be disappointed with my position on that, but I have also faced the bitter disappointment that comes from not always getting my committees over the line so I understand her pain. In this instance, we are not able to support this referral.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (17:18): I rise to speak on the motion to investigate the negative impacts payroll tax is having on SA small business, but I indicate that I will only support it if it is expanded to include other state government taxes prohibitively affecting the livelihoods of South Australians. I will move some amendments in my name to do just that, as the current proposed inquiry is too one-dimensional, with its focus only on the ramifications payroll tax has on small business, but, as the Hon. Robert Simms has indicated, if I do not support this we have already moved a motion to the effect anyway.

If parliament is to genuinely and accurately investigate the negative impacts one particular tax is having on our economy, I think it only makes sense to broaden that inquiry to look at other taxes placing a handbrake on this state moving forward and the livelihoods of people living in it. I support that element of the inquiry, as our small business sector is the engine room of the state's economy, employing tens of thousands of South Australians; however, stamp duty and the controversial land tax reforms introduced by the former Liberal government and vehemently opposed by the then Labor opposition are also having significant impacts not only on the state's economic growth but also the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of South Australians.

I find it more than a little hypocritical that Labor was one of the fiercest critics of the land tax reforms when in opposition but have done absolutely nothing since winning government to repeal or wind back those reforms. As for payroll tax, well, we all know that the Premier labels it as a tax on jobs. As with all other taxes, they are drunk on the increased revenue streams the new land tax laws are generating. With cost-of-living expenses now at an all-time high, I believe it is timely these heavy-handed taxes are reviewed to determine the extent of damage they are causing to families and households.

Critically, the expanded parliamentary inquiry could investigate initiatives to reduce the tax burden on South Australian taxpayers while encouraging economic growth and investment in South Australia. While the government did undertake a review of the land tax implications, there has been no action to amend the rate and soften the blow to many mum-and-dad property investors and small to medium businesses being hurt by it.

An alarming new report recently revealed budding South Australian home owners today are paying four times more in stamp duty than they did 40 years ago. Local owner-occupier buyers are now slugged more than $32,000 in stamp duty to buy a medium-priced home of about $700,000, the equivalent of about five months of an average full-time income, which is 4.4 times higher than in the mid 1980s. Stamp duty for owner-occupiers in the 1980s was equivalent to $1,500 or 1.2 months of full-time post-tax income.

The state government recently abolished stamp duty for eligible first-home buyers purchasing a new residence valued at up to $650,000 or vacant land to build on valued at up to $400,000. As we all know, commercial landowners have been exempted from stamp duty and, as we all know, stamp duty is not just on property but is also levied on a range of other services. Reforms and also reductions in land tax are desperately needed to be expanded to encourage more people to purchase their own homes, which would have a direct impact on the current housing-rental crisis in South Australia.

Here is another example where tax imposts are hurting businesses: the South Australian Produce Market at Pooraka, which provides an essential service in providing and distributing fresh fruit produce across the state, has been hit hard with a land tax bill this year of around $800,000, up almost $200,000 from last year, which it fears will spike to about $1 million next year. These sorts of hikes are making many businesses unsustainable: they just cannot afford to keep their doors open due to these massive financial imposts.

The South Australian Business Chamber is leading the charge for reforms to payroll tax, which it says will increase state coffers from about $1.5 billion to nearly $2 billion over the four years to 2026-27, a rise of 26.3 per cent. We already know that hundreds of mum-and-dad investors deserted the property sector when these prohibitive land tax hikes were introduced, which has been one of the major catalysts to the current rental crisis across the state.

The tax slugs are also hurting businesses, with many of them having to make structural changes to their businesses just to survive, if they have been able to survive. The boss of the nation's biggest brickmaker, Brickworks boss Lindsay Partridge, says state governments have their hands in the cookie jar by imposing hefty land tax bills on manufacturing sites which threaten the viability of businesses and which would ultimately feed through to higher prices for end consumers. He is also highly sceptical about the federal government's target of building 1.2 million new homes over the next four years to alleviate the housing crisis.

Mr Partridge accused the federal government of 'dreaming' as labour and raw materials shortages and a rigid building approval regime would make the government struggle even to build 800,000 homes. Even the state government's promises and targets will be extremely difficult to achieve. Mr Partridge said taxes, red tape and bureaucracy now saddled on Australian businesses are now also weighing down the Australian economy. His bricks and housing materials company lifted prices by 10 per cent last year and will likely seek another 10 per cent hike in the next 12 months, driven by costs that consumers will ultimately have to carry. He sheeted home much of this pricing pressure to government taxes, namely land tax. He said:

Our margins are under pressure and some of the things we can't control, unfortunately the government has their hands in the cookie jar and thinks it is a good idea to tax the cost of production.

And this all feeds through, and to put land tax on manufacturing sites—you really need your head read because you are not going to get any payroll tax if the business doesn't stack up because you have killed the business with your land tax.

The government thinks it is smart because it can hide its taxes in the cost of production but in reality all that means is you are going to keep on driving up the cost of production.

The Master Builders Association estimates around $150,000 on the cost of a new home build is hoovered up in taxes and charges. It costs up to $4,000 just to register a mortgage at settlement in South Australia, whereas it is only a few hundred dollars in states like Queensland.

Like all governments, our state government is drunk on tax revenue, causing pain and suffering for our economic growth and the livelihoods of all South Australians. If we are going to inquire into the ramifications one tax regime is having on our economy, local jobs and businesses and the domino effect throughout the community, it must be expanded to look at other restrictive tax regimes and the handbrake effect they are having on the state's prosperity. I move to amend the motion as follows:

Paragraph 1

After 'concerning payroll tax' insert ', stamp duty and land tax'

Subparagraph 1(a)

After 'payroll tax' insert ', stamp duty and land tax'

Subparagraph 1(b)

After 'payroll tax' insert ', stamp duty and land tax'

Subparagraph 1(c)

Leave out subparagraph 1(c) and insert new subparagraph as follows:

(c) Taxation and other incentives to promote regional employment, economic growth, business and housing investment;

After subparagraph 1(c) insert new subparagraphs:

(ca) Taxation and other incentives to promote sustainable and affordable housing and to alleviate the pressure on all home buyers; in particular, first home buyers and regional tree/sea change/urban down sizers and retirees;

(cb) An examination of taxation disincentives to the state's economic growth, employment, business, and housing availability and affordability;

Subparagraph 1(e)

Leave out 'on' and insert ', stamp duty regimes and land tax imposts on all sectors, across all industries including'

Subparagraph 1(f):

Leave out 'various' and insert 'all'

Subparagraph 1(g):

Leave out 'payroll tax' and insert 'taxation' and after 'liability determinations' insert 'including payroll tax, stamp duty and land tax;'

Subparagraph 1(h):

Leave out 'Compliance' and insert 'Taxation and regulation compliance'

Subparagraph 1(i):

After 'payroll tax,' insert ', stamp duty and land tax'

After subparagraph 1(i) insert new subparagraph:

(ia) The findings and recommendations from the recent review into land tax;

The Hon. B.R. HOOD (17:27): I rise in support of this motion, which seeks to inquire into the state's payroll tax regime, and to support the amendments of the Hon. Frank Pangallo to include stamp duty and land tax into its terms of reference. Amidst growing concerns over the cost-of-living crisis, this is a timely motion that would examine three core state government taxes to ensure their effectiveness and reasonableness. The state's taxation regime is the main lever available to government that has a direct impact on the cost of doing business and the cost of living for everyday South Australians.

The late great Charlie Munger, who some in this place may likely be familiar with, had a lot to say about the power of incentives. Mr Munger, who died late last year at 99 years old after a long stint working alongside Warren Buffett, had this, among other quips, on incentives: 'Show me an incentive, and I will show you an outcome.' It is easy to see how this insight applies to the current debate. High payroll taxes will result in the creation of fewer jobs and will see businesses flock to lower tax jurisdictions.

High stamp duties will reduce housing availability and restrict people from moving to more suitable housing or from moving into regional areas, which generally have more affordable housing stock. A high land tax regime will have a similar, albeit reduced, effect. That is why, in its ultimately successful efforts to reverse the brain drain and encourage jobs growth in South Australia, the previous state Liberal government abolished payroll taxes for businesses with a taxable payroll up to $1.5 million, saving them up to $44,550 per year. Since then, however, payroll taxes have been lowered in Victoria, New South Wales, the Northern Territory and Tasmania, with Victoria and Queensland introducing regional discounts.

Take Queensland, which taxes employers with less than $6.5 million of payroll only 4.75 per cent, and for businesses with higher payrolls, 4.95 per cent. The latter is equal to our state's tax rate for payrolls exceeding just $1.7 million. In Victoria, their rate sits in the middle of Queensland's, with a 4.5 per cent payroll tax.

But what is a real kicker for me as a regional bloke from a cross-border community are the regional incentives offered to those two states, only 20 minutes across the border. In the sunshine state, regional employees are entitled to a 1 per cent discount while, in our closest rival state of Victoria, a payroll tax of just 1.2 per cent applies to regional employers—again, only 20 minutes over the border.

Having spent my entire life living in and operating a business in the South-East, I know all too well the frustration felt by cross-border community employers due to this vast discrepancy. Our competitiveness on payroll tax has evaporated and is now out of step with our closest rival states and overdue for reform. Similarly, our tax duty regime has not been reviewed in something like 16 years in South Australia. Governments at all levels in this country recognise that we have insufficient housing stock to cater for the needs of Australians today, let alone Australians for tomorrow and the years to come.

High stamp duties are a huge disincentive to moving house, which subsequently locks people into unsuitable housing. They are a significant barrier to entry for first-home buyers, notwithstanding this government's piecemeal reforms. Older South Australians are less inclined to downsize into smaller, more appropriate homes, growing families are slugged with unnecessarily high moving costs and we are less likely to switch jobs and move to a regional area.

Analysis from PropTrack reveals that, over the last decade, the number of new homes on the market has been in slow decline while at the same time stamp duty across the country has nearly doubled. Throughout the 2010s, the average tenure of home ownership in Australia grew significantly from 9.3 years to 13.5 years as more of us choose to stay put rather than being slugged with lazy tax on homes. Housing Industry Australia reports that we have experienced a staggering $85,000 increase in housing prices in South Australia in just the past 12 months.

The power of incentives should not be underestimated. The former Liberal government showed, even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, that we could turn around the brain drain and incentivise people to remain in South Australia and encourage businesses to set up shop here. As a regional member, I will be paying particular attention to the reforms that will incentivise employers and residents to move into our beautiful regions, and I look forward to those discussions.

I have tried to keep my comments brief in the knowledge that this select committee will do the grunt work required to get to the bottom of these issues. With those remarks, I commend the motion and the amendments to the chamber.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (17:32): I rise briefly to support the Hon. Connie Bonaros' motion calling for a select committee of the Legislative Council to be established to inquire into and report on matters concerning payroll tax in South Australia. As legislators, we need to look at ways we can positively impact economic growth and encourage job creation. This committee will enable scrutiny of the payroll tax system in South Australia and assess its value in terms of the overall economic goals of the state. I commend the motion.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (17:33): I rise to speak on behalf of the government to convey that we will not be supporting this motion and also the amended motion. The fundamental purpose of payroll tax is to provide revenue for the state government, which funds our essential public services and infrastructure. In the 2022-23 financial year, payroll taxes made up around 30 per cent of South Australian taxation revenue, with many vital services benefiting from this.

The Commonwealth Grants Commission (CGC), established in 1933, provides an indication of how our states' and territories' rate of tax differs from the average of all Australian jurisdictions, which is then used as an indicator of tax competitiveness. The amount of revenue each state can raise differs depending on things like property transactions and taxable payrolls. The cost of providing services varies too, based on things like a state's size, its geography, where its residents live, and other socio-demographic characteristics, such as age, health, income and education.

Early in its existence, the commission developed the principle of determining a special grant as the amount needed for a state to function at a standard not considerably lower than others. The role of the CGC expanded in the late 1970s, and the CGC took on the role of assessing the relative financial capacity of each state, and then recommending how much each should receive in financial assistance grants. The aim was that all jurisdictions could then provide government services at a comparable standard.

In 2022-23, it is estimated that South Australia's approximately $911 million in payroll tax relief was provided to businesses, including around $567 million associated with the existence of an exemption threshold, deduction and phased tax rates.

Australian states and territories have harmonised a number of key areas of payroll tax administration, including grouping provisions. These provisions ensured tax equity across businesses, so that two businesses with the same level of taxable wages would be subject to the same payroll tax liability irrespective of corporate structure.

In our state we have one of the most competitive payroll tax regimes in the nation, with an exemption threshold of $1.5 million in wages, and one of the lowest standard tax rates at 4.95 per cent. Just as the Labor Malinauskas government has acted with consideration to our small businesses, it has also provided the same consideration to the general practitioners by acknowledging that a number of medical practices have not accurately understood the contractor provisions within the Payroll Tax Act 2009 and, consequently, we have provided them with more time so that they fully understand their obligations.

In recognition of a lack of understanding of the obligations, the government worked with the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. We agreed to provide an amnesty to general practitioner medical practices to 30 June 2024. This means that any eligible medical practice that registered with RevenueSA during the amnesty period will not be required to pay payroll tax on payments made to contracted general practitioners up to 30 June 2024 and for the previous five years. South Australia's provision of an amnesty is more generous than in other jurisdictions. In fact, Victoria, the Northern Territory and Tasmania have not offered such amnesties.

After consideration to surcharge levies applied in other jurisdictions, we have the lowest standard top payroll tax rate. This threshold is set at a level intended to provide relief to small and medium-sized businesses while still generating revenue for the government. The Labor Malinauskas government supports the work of the CGC and will continue to act with consideration towards payroll tax liabilities to ensure our government services remain comparable with other Australian states and territories.

The Labor government does not see a need to establish a select committee to look into these matters, and therefore will not be supporting the motion and the amended motion.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO (17:39): I rise to strongly support the motion by the Hon. Connie Bonaros, and I thank her for bringing this to this chamber. This chamber and its members represent all South Australians, and it is the right and appropriate place to interrogate the issues affecting South Australian families and businesses in our state. In a well-recognised cost-of-living crisis, when businesses are feeling the pinch as much as families, to enable this council to establish a select committee to inquire into and report on matters concerning payroll tax is an extremely important motion.

As the Liberal Party's shadow minister for finance and tax reform, I take a particular interest in ways that would best and most effectively support the South Australian economy to thrive whilst also supporting the Treasury to appropriately collect revenue and support the government of the day's agenda to deliver on good policy, allowing South Australian communities to enjoy the best lives they can in this great state.

This motion initially dealt only with the payroll tax side of state revenue, but I also would like to indicate support for the amendments by the Hon. Frank Pangallo, who seeks to also investigate stamp duty and land tax. Any party that cares for its constituencies would also seek to improve the pathway to home ownership for them. A secure, stable home in their community for them to put down roots and contribute to their community should be a goal of any party that seeks to represent the community in this place.

Everyone in this chamber should seek to support this motion so that we can show the public, the South Australian community, that we can work together and tackle the issues that really do matter to them—the issues that quite literally hit their budgets and are seen by many as an impost in getting on with their business.

This motion for a select committee comes on the back of the Hon. Connie Bonaros' motion recognising the possible change to how payroll tax is treated by this government in GP practices and the significant impact it would have on how our community accesses health care in South Australia. I note that the Hon. Robert Simms had a similar motion that sought similar goals.

It is disappointing that both the Greens and Labor have indicated that they are not supporting this committee. This committee would allow for transparency, discussion of ideas and support. I wholeheartedly support this committee. I think it is an excellent opportunity for us to investigate the impacts of payroll tax, and potentially other tax, in this state.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:42): Whilst I am not that great at maths, I obviously can do the numbers in this place to work out where we are landing today in terms of this inquiry. I thank all honourable members, of course, for their contributions today. Yesterday it was the Hon. Russell Wortley's turn at selling the bad news on behalf of the Treasurer; today the Hon. Tung Ngo has been given that pleasure. I say today to the Hon. Tung Ngo, just like I did yesterday to the Hon. Russell Wortley: what an absolute load of rubbish. What we have heard today is an absolute crock, yet again.

I would love to know how creative the Treasurer is actually getting with these speeches and the contributions that he is preparing for his members over here, and whether he has any pity for the fact that you guys actually have to sit here with a straight face and deliver the rubbish that is being delivered in this place. That is precisely what it is: it is an absolute crock.

In fact, I will breach every protocol that exists in this place and say this: next time the Treasurer says to me, 'Find me $1.7 billion and I will get rid of payroll tax'—because that is the sentiment that the Treasurer has about payroll tax, just like he has about land tax and just like he has about gambling tax. What we know is that this government has an addiction to unexpected windfall gains that they are reaping the benefits of. They are lining their coffers so they can go on their magical spending sprees at the expense of business in this state.

That is precisely why the Treasurer does not want to front up and have these discussions. The Treasurer knows precisely what the concerns around payroll tax are. He knows precisely what is wrong with the thresholds that apply, he knows precisely what is wrong with the rates that apply, he knows about the creep effect. He does not have a solution because he is looking forward to all that extra cash that was unanticipated and he is sending his members in this place some fluff—I do not know what it is or what to refer to it as—to try to sell us a story that there is no problem here to see in South Australia.

You can go and speak to any business in the state impacted by payroll tax and they will tell you that that is an absolute crock. Just to pick up on one of the points made by the Hon. Tung Ngo—and I will come to the Hon. Rob Simms in a second over health workers—

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Bonaros, one member at a time, thank you.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I apologise, Mr President. It appears that there is nothing in this committee process—and I will say this at the outset: I am a very patient person and I am happy for committees to wrap up before this one takes off, if that is the issue in terms of not supporting this inquiry. I have sat on another committee—the gambling tax committee—quite patiently and waited for the workload of this place to ease when it comes to committees before proceeding with that one, and I would have been quite willing to do the same on this one.

This committee was not limited to healthcare workers and it certainly was not limited to general practitioners and the medical fraternity. I find it interesting that the Hon. Tung Ngo, on behalf of the Treasurer, would say that GPs got it wrong, because it would appear that optometrists got it wrong, dentists got it wrong, surgeons got it wrong, physios got it wrong, chiros got it wrong—every single allied health professional in the state got the wrong accounting advice when it came to payroll tax.

They all got it wrong and, not only that, it appears that every hotel, every bed and breakfast, every pub and club also got it wrong when it comes to the issues around payroll tax, because they are all having the same arguments with the Treasurer that the doctors are having. This was not limited to doctors or to what we discussed yesterday in the very good motions that got through this place. This is a systemic review of payroll tax and the impact it has on this state: $1.7 billion a year, $5 million a day, $1.97 billion in forward estimates and growing as a result of determinations that the Treasurer knows will see that number increase and line his coffers. That is what this motion was about.

On top of that, the other important point—and the South Australian Business Chamber has made the point well—is that those groups have asked for some meaningful dialogue with the government about payroll tax. They do not know why, but they accept payroll tax is payable in this state. They have said to the government, 'Engage with us and let's look at the incentives that operate in other states and see how we can put those into place here in South Australia.' The Treasurer's response to them has been, 'Not interested.'

We have this creep, so more and more businesses are creeping into the payroll tax liability, and it is undermining and diminishing the impacts the opposition made when in government. They are becoming ineffective. The Treasurer knows that, he absolutely knows that, but he does not care because the money they are getting, that they never anticipated, is too much of an addiction to do anything about—that is the reality.

Those other jurisdictions the Hon. Tung Ngo talks about do have incentives, and that is precisely what industries have been asking. They have incentives. Victoria has a 50 per cent reduction for all its regions when it comes to payroll tax, the Hon. Tung Ngo—a 50 per cent reduction is what they offer in Victoria. Guess what the South Australian Business Chamber have asked for? They have said, 'Why don't we look at what Victoria does?', because in Victoria the net impact of that 50 per cent reduction has been something like $80 million on their budget. That $80 million has resulted in business growth, more jobs, higher employment and better economic activity. An $80 million loss has actually served those regions really well, but the Treasurer, unlike the South Australian Chamber of Commerce, does not think that those sorts of considerations are worth having here.

It is not often that I have a crack at my colleague opposite, the Hon. Mr Simms. I know that there have been committees of his that I have not supported, but I have to make the point that this was not limited to healthcare workers. I think the Hon. Robert Simms might find that the hospitality venues that he so passionately voices his love for in this place might disagree with his stance on payroll tax today, because I am interested to understand how it is that we expect live music venues to continue if they have to climb over a payroll tax mountain first. How do we expect these employers to faithfully restore heritage buildings when they have to climb over a payroll tax mountain first? I would love to know that.

I am quite surprised—I cannot do this with a straight face, because it is the Hon. Robert Simms—that we are not interested in exploring those options and those incentives and those exemptions for those regions. Just because I happen to have it in front of me, I want to refresh the honourable member's memory. For the benefit of those who were not here at the time, a former member of this place, the Hon. Mark Parnell, said this about payroll tax:

Tax is a very useful tool for encouraging things that we want more of and for discouraging things that we want less of. I am putting it in very simple terms but I am sure that I am not the only person who has, in Economics A lectures at university, pondered the question about why we tax something we want more of (like employment) and yet we fail to tax things that we want less of (like pollution), particularly when you consider that pollution has reached levels where it is changing the very climate of the planet. We accept that other factors come into play in relation to the choice of a tax base and how broad or narrow it should be. We have to take into account the ease of measurement and collection, but the way the Greens look at it is that that should not overshadow the broader economic, social and environmental objectives of taxation revenue, which, in relation to payroll tax, should include not creating a barrier to further employment.

That is one of the issues that every business group that has asked for this inquiry has asked us to look at and what the incentives are around those.

I am not going to keep us here all night, because I know it is Thursday, but I am a very patient person. I am a very patient person. My message once again—through the Hon. Tung Ngo and through you, Mr President—to the Treasurer is that you can look forward to the reintroduction of another motion in the next fortnight of parliament, and you can look forward to a campaign the likes of which you have not contemplated well by not engaging in meaningful dialogue with those industries that are calling for this inquiry. You have underestimated how impactful this is on them and the lengths that they are willing to go to, and I am willing to go to on their behalf with their blessing, to get you to sit and engage with them over some payroll tax reforms.

Of course, a committee would have served that purpose well, but, again, there is more than one way to skin a cat. If the Treasurer thinks that not having a payroll tax inquiry is going to save him from the campaigns that are mounting against him on payroll tax, then he has another thing coming, because there is only so much froth and bubble that he can try to bamboozle us with in here before those industries get really angry and start going public with their concerns. That is precisely where the Treasurer finds himself today.

So I am a patient person. I will come back here with another motion. But I also remind the Treasurer that there is a health committee in this place, and they would be more than willing to consider hearing from doctors, dentists, physios, chiros, optometrists—the list goes on—about the impacts that payroll tax is having on them. We can do this one way or the other. The Treasurer can engage or he can expect an absolute barrage of campaigning against him unless and until he decides to take those industries seriously and consider what they are asking for.

I have made my commitment to those businesses, just as I know the opposition and other members have, and as I know the Hon Rob Simms has made to the GPs and independent GPs. I intend to pursue that with as much vigour as it takes to drag our Treasurer along to engage in those meaningful discussions concerning changes that they so rightly deserve.

I know that I will be in good company with the SA Business Chamber, with the likes of the Property Council, with the hoteliers, with the agricultural industries, with seafood industries, with allied health, with restaurants—the list goes on and on. I intend to do everything in here to air those concerns on behalf of those groups for the benefit of the Treasurer so that next time he puts a contribution together for a member in this place, it has some semblance of truth attached to it.

The council divided on the amendments:

Ayes 9

Noes 10

Majority 1

AYES

Bonaros, C. Centofanti, N.J. Game, S.L.
Girolamo, H.M. Henderson, L.A. Hood, B.R.
Hood, D.G.E. Lensink, J.M.A. Pangallo, F. (teller)

NOES

Bourke, E.S. El Dannawi, M. Franks, T.A.
Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K. Maher, K.J.
Martin, R.B. Ngo, T.T. (teller) Scriven, C.M.
Simms, R.A.

PAIRS

Wortley, R.P. Lee, J.S.

Amendments thus negatived.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 8

Noes 11

Majority 3

AYES

Bonaros, C. (teller) Centofanti, N.J. Game, S.L.
Girolamo, H.M. Henderson, L.A. Hood, B.R.
Hood, D.G.E. Lensink, J.M.A.

NOES

El Dannawi, M. Franks, T.A. Hanson, J.E.
Hunter, I.K. Maher, K.J. Martin, R.B.
Ngo, T.T. (teller) Pangallo, F. Scriven, C.M.
Simms, R.A. Wortley, R.P.

PAIRS

Lee, J.S. Bourke, E.S.

Motion thus negatived.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT