Page 3591 - Week 12 - Thursday, 19 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The reason for the amendment is that the sub-subparagraph I propose to replace would have allowed a lessee to obtain an exemption from land tax on a new lease only if it was to be sold within 12 months. This provision, of course, is not in accordance with recent changes to covenants in lease agreements which allow a lessee to build a residence within 24 months. Land tax exemption should therefore be available, in my view, during this longer period. So, I would urge members to support this amendment.
MR HUMPHRIES (5.41): I want to briefly touch on some things that were said in the course of the earlier debate at the in-principle stage. Mr Moore seems to think that there is some inconsistency in my exposition on market forces and human behaviour, which I was extolling, and I hope that I might be able to clear it up for him.
There are two forces at work here. One is the desire by landlords, as businessmen or businesswomen, to recover the amounts that they invest in property, and the other is the capacity of those people to do so, based on the market. It may well be that two or three years ago, when interest rates were starting to climb quite seriously, in the ACT it may not have been possible for landlords to recover the extra amounts that they were paying in interest rates, because there was a glut of houses on the housing market and there were rather high vacancy rates at that stage. Understandably, the landlords could not charge whatever they wanted, because the market would not sustain it.
Conversely, I think it is true to say that today the rental market is very tight and it is possible, therefore, that if landlords incur - I should say "landlords and landladies", not to be sexist - - -
Mrs Grassby: "Landpersons" will do.
MR HUMPHRIES: No, that does not do it; there is an element of sovereignty there which is not connoted by "landpersons". So, landlords and landladies would not necessarily have been able to pass on extra costs before, but they certainly could do so in the present market.
Ms Follett said that she believed that the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement would be affected by any change which exempted the Housing Trust from the operation of this Bill. We believe, having discussed the matter with some people involved in the area, that the word "may" is better than the word "would". Given that there are obviously many factors to bear in mind, no-one can be quite certain of what the Commonwealth might do in those circumstances.
In my third point I respond to Mr Moore's assertion that he congratulates both sides of this chamber equally when they are in government. I have to say that I appreciate the occasions on which he has congratulated me, but I think
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .