Page 3776 - Week 12 - Thursday, 21 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
cannot recoup. Stamp duty is not payable on transactions of this kind, particularly those relating to land, until settlement date. That is when the stamp duty becomes due and payable. The Chief Minister tells me that I am wrong. She obviously has not bought too much property herself.
Ms Follett: Yes, I have. That is how I know.
MR KAINE: She is wrong. This being the case, and if she believes that she is right, how does she intend to handle these conditional contracts where they are obliged to pay it within 30 days? Eighteen months down the track the conditions of the contract cannot be fulfilled and the contract fails. Another sale takes place and we get another lot of stamp duty. How does the first contracted person recover their stamp duty?
Mrs Carnell: They do not. That is the answer.
MR KAINE: I am not prepared to accept that somebody should be obliged to pay $6,000, $7,000 or $8,000 worth of stamp duty up front in connection with a contract that may never be completed. I have been in that position myself with a conditional contract where the stamp duty ran into thousands of dollars. But the Chief Minister is telling me now that I have to pay it within 30 days, and, if the contract does not get completed, tough luck.
If the Chief Minister thinks I am wrong, perhaps she should be consulting with her Attorney-General. Perhaps he can inform me how these people get their money back if the contract does not eventuate. This is the point that the Law Society is making, quite legitimately. I would like to know the answer, because I do not believe that this is fair, reasonable, equitable or anything else. The Government is seeking to capture very large sums of money. The people have to pay it and then cannot recoup it. If they can recoup it, I would like to see the amendment in this Stamp Duties and Taxes (Amendment) Bill (No. 2) that allows them to. I will guarantee that the Chief Minister cannot demonstrate that that is in here anywhere.
I think that members need to be very careful about a Bill like this. The clause is a quite innocuous one. It simply gives the commissioner the power to determine whether he will extend the period beyond 30 days or whether he will not. In fact, according to the Bill that the Chief Minister has put forward, he can do it only if the transaction relates to one principal residence. In no other case can the commissioner even extend the period beyond 30 days. In other words, it is payable right up front. I submit that that is unreasonable, and it will result in the Government collecting potentially thousands of dollars worth of stamp duty that people in the end are not liable to pay. If that is not the case, if the Chief Minister says that I am wrong, she had better demonstrate to me that I am wrong, because I do not believe that I am. For that reason I urge members to think very carefully about what the Chief Minister has put forward in this case, to give very serious consideration to the amendment that I am proposing, and to support my amendment. If they are wrong, and if they support the Government, a lot of people are going to be penalised very severely.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .