Page 5648 - Week 17 - Thursday, 5 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
catch them through betterment tax every time they seek to enhance their business and build a bigger building or do something to make their business and the piece of ground more attractive. We catch them coming and going. We catch them by a whole range of taxes that all businesses in Canberra have paid, such as payroll tax, financial institutions duty, stamp duty - it goes on and on. That is how you get revenue from your private sector. That is legitimate and it is done everywhere.
But now we are saying that we are going to go further than that. Because we have you on a piece of leased land, we are going to nail you every 20, 25, 30 or so years for an additional premium on the piece of ground that you are using. I believe that it cannot be justified. I believe that it is irrational. It is illogical. Quite frankly, I do not support the clause as it stands. I think that we must seriously consider the impact of this on business.
The Chief Minister constantly talks about fostering the private sector, as I do, because that is where our future lies in terms of job creation and that is where our future lies in terms of it generating increasing revenue to run this Territory. This is another punitive condition that we are going to impose on business, another disincentive to business. I would like to see the Chief Minister and Treasurer for once support her contention that we rely on the private sector, support her contention that she wants to see the private sector thrive and prosper, and remove this iniquitous new tax that is going to be imposed - not just once, but every time the piece of ground comes up for lease renewal.
I repeat that, if people like the Residents Rally have their say, that will not be every 99 years; it will not be every 50 years; it will be every 15 years or 20 years. They seem to have in their mind this idea that no business must ever prosper, no business must ever make a profit without our creaming some of that off and paying it to the community. I think it is an absurdity. Those businesses pay their dues now and I do not accept that this is a legitimate way to go about raising additional revenue. I will not support it and I commend my amendment to the Assembly.
MR MOORE (12.54): The comments by Mr Kaine show that he believes that residential and commercial leases should be the same. There is a very basic difference between the two. That very basic difference is that one of the leases is used as a basis for raising revenue and the other one is for people to live. That is a major difference. In terms of freehold land there is probably very little difference. We grant a lease for a particular purpose, and one purpose is to allow people to live; another lease, the commercial lease, is there to allow people to raise revenue. That is a very important difference. Revenue and the leasehold system are inextricably linked.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .