Page 4553 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 14 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
not assist them in doing that, except so far as it is possible to divide equally the family home. By giving the wife a half share in the family home, the husband is providing for the wife to have only a quarter share in the total matrimonial property, not a full half share, which is the intention as exhibited by the words of paragraph (db).
Take a further example, an example which I might say I take from personal experience: I marry a person and I have a property of my own in which I live. My wife has a property of her own in which she has previously lived. My wife moves into my home and my home becomes the joint matrimonial home. Under these arrangements, I am capable of transferring a half share in the matrimonial home to my wife, but the result of that will be that my wife will own three-quarters of the total matrimonial property, as it were, and I will own one-quarter. In those circumstances - - -
Mr Connolly: A woman having greater rights than a man? Dear, oh dear!
MR HUMPHRIES: It cuts both ways. It also happens the other way. A husband marries a very wealthy wife with many assets. The husband wishes to obtain an equal half share. He cannot do so because - - -
Ms Follett: I should think not. He can make his own money.
MR HUMPHRIES: I think the Chief Minister is exhibiting her deeper feminist tendencies here, Madam Speaker. This legislation is designed to provide equality between the parties, to allow them to own assets of the family equally, or in proportions that reflect their contributions towards the properties acquisitioned. It would seem to me that it is possible for the Chief Minister, the Government, by using the power to prescribe proportions, to allow that parties should be able to hold in proportions which reflect their ownership of all the matrimonial property, not just the matrimonial home.
Let me make it quite clear that I am not suggesting that exemptions from stamp duty should be applied to assets other than the family home. That would clearly make an exemption much larger than the Government is intending in this case. To go back to my example, a man and woman marry, and the husband owns the home in which they live and another home. By allowing the husband to transfer ownership of the entire family home into the wife's name, he would be providing for an equality between the two parties. That is, because he owns the investment property and the wife owns the matrimonial home, there is an equality between the two parties. That cannot be achieved under the present legislation. I ask the Government to consider that matter and perhaps think about prescribing proportions under the prescription provisions in paragraph (db) to cover that eventuality. Those are the comments of the Opposition, Madam Speaker. Generally speaking, the legislation pursues goals which are laudable and which the Opposition is happy to support.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (4.26), in reply: I thank Mr Humphries for his support of this Bill. I will deal generally with the Bill, before I address Mr Humphries's specific concerns. As Mr Humphries has pointed out, the Bill does provide for an extension of further stamp duty concessions to spouses and employment organisations, and it introduces measures to protect the Territory's revenue base in respect of insurance premiums.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .