Page 1427 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 11 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR KAINE: Mr Connolly seems to think it is okay that these widows should be forced to pay $700 or $800 a year land tax. I do not think so, and there are hundreds of people out there who do not think so either. The Government is going to get a backlash over making people like this pay land tax. Just wait and feel the impact of it. The public feeling on this issue is very strong, as you will find out.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (3.33): Madam Speaker, I am very surprised indeed at the lack of substance in Mr Kaine's speech on this matter. I think it is his maiden MPI, and it is not a great start. Unfortunately, it demonstrates a singular lack of responsibility in relation to the ACT's budgetary needs. Mr Kaine is attempting to deny the ACT a tax that is available in every other State. Mr Kaine is attempting to advantage one commercial investor in the ACT over another in a way that I find quite inequitable.
Mr Kaine's assertion is that the Government has been inept in its administration of this land tax. That is simply not the case. I can assure Mr Kaine that the land tax administration in the ACT is widely recognised among tax administrations across Australia as being the most efficient, most cost-effective system in the nation.
Mr Kaine: And the most draconian.
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, believe me, Mr Kaine does not know what he is talking about here, and that surprises me. In somebody who purports to be the alternative Treasurer, I find that surprising and disappointing. What Mr Kaine really means is that somehow the recent broadening of this tax base to include residential properties which are held for investment purposes was an inept decision. I think that is what he is getting at. Mr Kaine is leaving the chamber. That does not surprise me; he must be a bit embarrassed over his performance. If what Mr Kaine means is that it was an inept decision, I point out to him that that decision was supported by Mr Humphries. At the time this matter was debated in the Assembly the Liberal Party, as is usual, was divided. One of them supported it; others did not. I leave it to members to consider where the ineptitude lies. It clearly lies with our Liberal colleagues opposite.
The decision taken last year to broaden the land tax base was made on extremely sound grounds. It was made in the light of the Grants Commission's recent finding that the ACT's land tax was generating less than half the revenue collected by land tax in the standard States. Mr Kaine, if we can believe his statements today, would have been happy to leave that situation. The alternative Treasurer, so called, was quite happy to write off that potential revenue - quite happy to raise it somewhere else, I presume; quite happy to leave the residential investors of the ACT alone and not attempt to bring them into some kind of equity with residential investors in other States. Mr Kaine ignores reality. He ignores what I consider are his responsibilities as the alternative Treasurer.
Mr Kaine made a number of other statements which I believe are also incorrect. First of all, he continued to assert that the commissioner has no discretion in this matter. I refer Mr Kaine and others to the relevant part of the Rates and Land Tax (Amendment) Act, which states:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .