Page 1429 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 11 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Cornwell: Why did you not do it in the first place?
MS FOLLETT: I might say to Mr Cornwell: Why did members opposite not move that way? Why did you not move to amend it when it was in the Assembly last time? You did not.
Mr Cornwell: It was your Bill, not ours.
MS FOLLETT: Mr Humphries supported it. They just cannot get over that fact. Madam Speaker, I have responded, I believe, to the bulk of the problems that have been put forward to me on the question of land tax on residential properties.
Mr Kaine has asked also why we did not put in an instalment scheme, and he has indicated that he will be moving in that way. He has every right to do so; he has the right to move in that way. However, I think he should bear in mind that, when the instalment system was abolished by vote of this Assembly some years ago, that was done consciously as a savings measure. To introduce an instalment system for payment of land tax would cost the revenue of this Territory between $500,000 and $600,000 a year. That is a pretty considerable concession to make to people who own investment properties. That $500,000 to $600,000 a year would be made up of loss of interest and earnings on the payments the Government would otherwise be able to get and the administrative costs of sending out four bills a year instead of one. Clearly, there is a cost to an instalment system, and I think members ought to understand that. When the instalment system was removed, it was done consciously as a cost-saving measure.
There is also some question, in social justice terms, of asking ourselves whether we really need to give a concession to, say, the Canberra Centre, to David Jones? These are organisations that pay land tax and, frankly, I think they can well make the payments in a lump sum, particularly in the light of the fact that most commercial properties in the ACT have had a considerable reduction in their rates bill this year because of the fall in commercial property values during the recession. Why do we want to give a concession to our big business mates? Mr Kaine does, and that should not surprise anybody. But is that social justice? They have gone a bit quiet over there, Madam Speaker. I hope it is because they are thinking deeply about this question. That was not a consequence they had intended, I feel. They did not think of that. I think we might have caught them out on that one.
To conclude, I found Mr Kaine's address on this matter lightweight, to say the least. As his initial foray into matters of public importance, he has not done himself or his party justice. All the points Mr Kaine has raised are easily addressed. Far from this matter being managed in an inept fashion, it has been handled in a way that is equitable, efficient and cost-effective. Only a Leader of the Opposition who never intends being in government could see it any other way. Mr Kaine has been inept in his handling of this matter.
Finally, might I say that the Government remains committed to reviewing this legislation and to making changes to it whenever and wherever we believe that it is necessary. Why do members opposite see fit to criticise me for making changes when they are proposing to make changes themselves? I find that kind of attitude totally hypocritical. The system we have in place is efficient and is being handled well. The changes that have recently been made to the land tax
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .