Page 2311 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 15 September 1992

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

(b) if the Commissioner is satisfied that by reason of the death or illness of any person or on some other compassionate ground the firstmentioned person has a compelling reason for not occupying the parcel for a longer period than 12 months - that longer period; or

"(d) by omitting subsection (3).".

We come here to what really is the crux of the Government's Bill and its major deficiency. Clause 7 in its present form at least extends the exemption for an owner of a principal place of residence to include life tenants. I acknowledge that the Government has gone that far. Our amendment seeks to change the basic premise of exemption from owners to property use, and that is the point I made in my speech earlier this evening. It is not a question of who owns the property; surely, it is a question of the use to which it is put. If it is a residential property and if it is not used to produce income, I submit that it ought to be automatically exempt from land tax.

As I explained earlier at great length - although the Government obviously was not listening - if they were to agree to this amendment, most, if not all, of the problems they have had referred to their attention over recent weeks and at the same period last year about the unfair and unjust imposition of this tax would virtually disappear. They would then be levying tax only on those properties that are income earning, and that must be the test. If a property is not income earning, how can the Government say that they should be levying tax on it? I have not heard a satisfactory explanation from them yet; but I think the argument I put, if the Government is listening to it, is an irrefutable one. This amendment seeks to correct the anomaly in the original Act, which their present Bill does not seek to amend. The amendment I am proposing will redress that anomaly, that unfairness, and introduce some of the Government's social justice into this Bill.

MR STEVENSON (10.00): The key to the tax is whether or not the property is income generating. Mr Kaine, quite rightly, says that his amendment would make sure that if the property were one which was not generating income it would not be taxed. The clear intention initially was to tax those people who were making extra money. If they are not making extra money, why should we tax them?

A little while ago there were some comments from some of the Labor members regarding whether or not the Bill has been in for 60 days. I think it is a relevant point. By all means, bring it up at any time. It should, of course, be noted that these amendments to the Bill are to correct earlier bad legislation. If you approve bad legislation, if you enact bad legislation, I will be happy to amend it the following day - do not worry about a week or two or whatever - to correct the problem.

MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (10.02): To respond very briefly, the Government will be opposing Mr Kaine's amendment. As I have said before, he is merely seeking to insinuate his own draft into our Bill. Mr Kaine yet again has omitted to define in any way the term "income". I have said that properties may be subject to investment for a range of reasons, and those include income

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .