Page 3584 - Week 12 - Thursday, 19 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR DUBY: The Chief Minister agrees with me entirely. Of course, that is no excuse for it. The fact remains that the tenant is going to be the person who suffers as a result of the introduction of this tax. It is the tenant that I feel sorry for. However, I respect the right of the Government to impose a tax on whatever sector of the community it chooses.
As I said, if we work on that assumption that people are going to have income tax deductions for the tax that they pay to the ACT Government, in effect, hopefully, the Commonwealth Government will at least be paying a portion of this tax - and that is a good tax, as taxes go. No-one likes taxes; but, if you can get a tax which the Commonwealth winds up paying some of, rather than the community at large, that is a reasonably clever tax, in my view.
The question of a threshold has been raised. I believe that the threshold in New South Wales is $160,000. What has not been brought out in the debate, generally, is that a threshold has never existed in the ACT for land tax. Land tax applies not only to owners of investment residential properties in New South Wales but also to people who own warehouses, commercial premises, et cetera. They have always had an exemption in New South Wales, up to that figure of $160,000, whereas people in the ACT who own commercial premises, warehouses, shops, or whatever it might be, have never had an exemption in the ACT.
Up until this point in time, in the whole time I have been a member of this Assembly, the issue of a threshold has never been raised with me by anyone in the commercial world. No-one has said, "This is patently unjust. Why is it that I get a $160,000 exemption for a warehouse I own in Queanbeyan, whereas if I own a warehouse at Fyshwick I do not?".
No-one has ever brought the matter to me and said that it is a matter of unjustness and - - -
Mr Kaine: Wait until next week.
MR DUBY: Exactly. I know. The discrepancy between New South Wales and the ACT is something which is inequitable and should be removed. Indeed, I put it to you, Mr Kaine, that I doubt whether the matter has ever been raised with you, either. But, strangely enough, now, it becomes a matter of great importance. What we are seeing, of course, is simply the extension of an existing tax to take into account properties which in the past have not been taxed in the ACT but have been taxed elsewhere.
I almost sound as if I am being an apologist for the Government, but I think the debate needs these points to be made. A question has also been raised about the application of a threshold in New South Wales and other States, whereas there is no threshold in the ACT, even on
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .