Page 2299 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 15 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
would make permanent the temporary exemption from stamp duty that she announced at that time. I asked: If it was the case that she considered that a family company ought not be subject to land tax - that, presumably, was why she was granting the exemption in any case - would she therefore make the amnesty or the exemption on land tax permanent? If a family company comes along in a year's time and buys an ACT property to hold for, say, people who are moving to the ACT to live here, should they not also be able to obtain the benefit of that exemption even though the amnesty that she announced had expired?
Her response was very interesting. She said:
... there are a number of reasons why we are providing a one-off amnesty. There is a clear intent in the extension of the land tax to make commercial properties -
note the words "commercial properties" -
whether they are residential in nature or of some other commercial nature, pay land tax.
Ms Follett: Exactly right. Well said.
MR HUMPHRIES: That is a good point. That point is fine as far as it goes; but, of course, we were not talking about an exemption for commercial properties. Correct me if I am wrong, but the exemption applied only to residential properties. Commercial properties were not eligible for an exemption from land tax under the amnesty that she had announced. What was she doing talking about commercial properties at all? It did not apply to commercial properties.
I went on to ask a supplementary question. I said, "Okay, where a family company can come to the Government and prove that they are not talking about a commercial property but are talking about a purely residential property which they hold for a family who live in that property, will you make that exemption from land tax permanent in the case of that particular property?". She said, "No, I cannot do that". She said:
... people who make residential and domestic arrangements -
at least it is not commercial any more -
under a family company are very often seeking to minimise their tax obligations.
If they are seeking to minimise their tax obligations, why grant them an exemption at all? If they deserved the exemption once, do they not deserve it all the time? If it is not a tax minimisation arrangement, if it is not a commercial arrangement, why should they not get the benefit of the exemption? That is a question that the Chief Minister could not answer then and I suspect that she cannot answer it now.
Madam Speaker, this tax arrangement is iniquitous. It clearly does not have the support of many people in the ACT. If the Government were serious about consultation it would acknowledge that the comments it has had about the present arrangements have been extremely negative and they should be amended. There is only one honourable course to pursue in that circumstance,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .