Page 1432 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 11 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The final point I make is about an issue raised by the Chief Minister with reference to commercial properties. She said that the value of commercial properties has dropped and that therefore the big landlords are making considerable savings. Perhaps we should look at changing the commercial rate so that those savings are not entirely taken by the landlords but come back to the community as a whole, particularly if those savings are not being passed on to tenants. One of the problems in the ACT is that commercial tenants who are trying to establish businesses are often in very difficult circumstances, and innumerable examples have been given in this Assembly of the difficulties commercial tenants have with landlords. If it is such a good time for commercial landlords, it might well be an opportunity to use a lever and say, "Are you passing on some of these savings to your tenants or are we going to extract some of the savings ourselves for the community at large?".
MS SZUTY (3.56): Madam Speaker, I will not take too long, so that other members have a chance to speak on this matter of public importance. The Leader of the Opposition has raised an appropriate issue for a matter of public importance in pointing out the inefficiencies of the Government and its slowness to act to improve its administration of land tax. I support the principle of a tax on land and would be prepared to consider its wider application in the future. However, the administration of such taxes needs to be both efficient and flexible, to avoid the unexpected results that have arisen out of the current Rates and Land Tax Act.
Many people have been asked to pay land tax because of arrangements which have been in place for some years, including placing their home in a company name or in the names of their children, or because of provisions stipulated in a will. Many people appealed when they were first confronted with a land tax bill last year; but in at least one case I am aware of it was eight months before a determination was made, leaving the people involved with only a few weeks to meet two land tax bills as well as their annual rates. This is not good enough.
On 30 June this year, after there had been a public outcry over the inflexible application of the tax, the Commissioner for ACT Revenue, Gordon Faichney, reiterated the position that there would be no exemptions for these people unexpectedly caught in the land tax net. In an article in the Canberra Times of that date he referred to one of these groups of people - those whose residence is owned in a company name - but said:
We are not going behind the reasons people put their properties in the name of a company.
The article implied that there would be no exceptions. However, I am pleased that the Chief Minister finally provided a stamp duty amnesty to allow this group to transfer their properties into their own names. Nevertheless, we are entitled to ask: What has been the reason for the delay to date? For at least eight months the Government has known that there were unexpected consequences of the Act and the Treasury could have been advising the Treasurer that problems existed and that remedies needed to be found.
I accept the commissioner's premise that people who place their homes in company names often do so for tax purposes. But it is not the reason in all cases; nor does it completely cover the range of people affected by the tax. For example, in the Chief Minister's amnesty she has included people who have lifetime occupancy because of conditions set down in a will. There must have been at
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .