Page 1437 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 11 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON: Mr Connolly, do you want to continue for a while?
Mr Connolly: No, I will not. Mr Cornwell and I split our time equally, so we had enough time. This is an extraordinary practice, but it is all right.
MR STEVENSON: Mr De Domenico wants to speak as well.
This is indeed a matter of public importance. I think there are two major and different aspects that we have been talking about. Some people make a genuine commercial decision to buy property other than their main place of residence. However, as some members have said today, there are many other people who have not done that and who have been pulled into this commercial net, and that is where the major concerns lie.
I would like to extrapolate a little on the case Helen Szuty mentioned of an 83-year-old lady. In 1978 she came to live in Canberra because her daughters were here; she purchased a property in Canberra. In the early 1980s she became seriously ill and was very concerned for her welfare, her future. She signed across the ownership of the home to her two daughters. Fortunately, she recovered; but now the daughters are in a situation where they are liable to pay the land tax. They asked for an exemption; but that was not granted, presumably because there was no latitude to grant an exemption.
When we talk about social justice, we want people to accept responsibility for themselves and their families wherever they can. Some 36 years ago this woman's husband died. At that time they did not own a home. For a long time the woman went without what many of us would consider normal benefits such as yearly holidays, social activities and other things. She did without those things to save the money to buy a home for herself and her family. Without a husband, she did that. During this time she was always extremely careful to make sure that she also put money into superannuation so that she would not be an unnecessary burden on the rest of society.
Basically, we have a situation where she did everything right. Yet now, through no fault of her own, she is a life tenant in what was her home but which, because of her illness and her great concern that she might die, she signed over. It has been suggested to the family that they could sign the home back to their mother. I ask the Chief Minister to look also at the possibility of allowing an exemption from stamp duty, at least, if that is done. I personally think a better idea would be to allow people to remain in those situations.
Many of these decisions truly are not commercial decisions. I have had a long-term goal to buy a place for my mum. She is a pensioner and lives in a Housing Commission home in Sydney. I would love to buy a place for her. I have never given that consideration as a commercial decision. She has done so much for me that it would be a wonderful thing to do. She particularly loves to be near the water, and I would love to do that for her. Once again, that would not be a commercial decision. That would be a situation where the taxpayer would no longer have to pay for the upkeep of my mother.
In another situation someone may own two properties - a flat in the city and a property further out of Canberra. There may be some reason for that, health or otherwise. This is hypothetical; nevertheless it is valid. That place is not a rental property. To suggest that people have a potential to earn income from it is not fair. It is not the potential to earn income that we should be taxing. It may be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .