Page 2306 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 15 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES (9.42): Madam Speaker, perhaps the Chief Minister was not listening when Mr Kaine explained that this arrangement, as put forward in his Bill and now in his amendment, will not cost the ACT any more money than is presently the case.
Mr Berry: We would not trust your judgment on this.
MR HUMPHRIES: It does not rely on anybody's judgment; it relies on simple commonsense, which you might not enjoy in great quantities. If I put it to you in words of one syllable you might understand. We send out rates notices, Mr Berry - little pieces of paper that tell you how much you have to pay in rates each year. It seems to me very easy to slip into the envelope at the same time another piece of paper that tells you how much land tax you are liable for. With each notice you get for each instalment of your rates, you also get a notice for your land tax. There is no requirement in that scenario for the land tax and rates to be payable on the same day. They can be staggered. You can have your rates payable on one day and the land tax payable a month later, but you can have both notices appearing at the same time in the one envelope. Why should that entail any extra cost? Answer that if you can.
Can I also answer an argument Ms Follett raised in the in-principle stage. She talked about the exemption of stamp duty for family companies transferring ownership of properties into the names of the shareholders of that company. Ms Follett said that she could not understand why there would be a need for any later exemptions to be granted in those circumstances. I put to the Chief Minister the case where a family company rents the family property - not necessarily lives in it - because the family either is overseas or lives in another family home in the ACT. In due course that family either moves back to the ACT from interstate or overseas, or for reasons of hardship, for instance, sells up the other property and then moves into the home owned by the family company.
There is a perfectly legitimate situation which is not necessarily foreseen by the family company or family concerned where, under the principles enunciated by the Chief Minister, there ought to be an exemption. Why, in those circumstances, should there not be an exemption? Is that not a good case for another one-off exemption? If there is a need for another one-off exemption, why not make the grant permanent? I am not suggesting that we should make commercial properties eligible for the exemption, or even companies that are designed primarily to achieve taxation advantages for the family members; but even that could be excluded by the operation of the Bill or by the operation of the Government's administration. There seems to be no reason, in the circumstances I have just postulated, why there should not be a further exemption granted. I hope that the Chief Minister has paid attention to that and will be able to answer that question.
MR STEVENSON (9.45): It would appear clear that Mr Kaine's amendment to section 4 would solve the problem that people have in paying bills at the same time. As Mr Humphries clearly points out, the notices could be sent out at the same time; they do not have to be sent out at different times. If the Chief Minister could mention why this is deemed to be a problem, that would enlighten us on this side.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .