Page 4554 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 14 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Humphries raised a number of issues in relation to spouses. Can I say, first of all, that the term "spouse" has been extended in this Bill to include persons in de facto relationships. That recognises that there is an increasing number of such couples in our community - couples who have not undergone a formal marriage ceremony - and that there is wide community acceptance of these kinds of relationships. I am advised that the term "spouse" is defined in common law as man and wife. I am sure that Mr Connolly is correct in his advice to me on that matter. The issue of whether some relief from stamp duty should be available for other domestic partnerships - - -
Mr Connolly: Man and wife; heterosexual expanded to de facto. We will make it homosexual with our de facto Bill before the Assembly.
MS FOLLETT: Thank you. The issue of whether some relief from stamp duty should be available for other domestic partnerships, for example, homosexual partnerships, will be addressed in the context of the proposed domestic relationships legislation. It is not something we have overlooked; we will take it up under another heading. We have had a discussion paper prepared on that topic and the community has been invited to make submissions on that discussion paper. The concession that is afforded to employer and employee organisations that amalgamate will do no more than bring the Territory into line with other States and the Northern Territory.
In relation to stamp duty on insurance premiums, the amendments that are proposed will ensure that all premiums relating to a risk located in the ACT are subject to duty. Currently, if a person insures with an insurer located overseas, they are not liable to duty, which is considered to be inequitable. Mr Humphries raised the question of whether or not this matter had been discussed with the Insurance Council of Australia. I can assure Mr Humphries that consultation has occurred. Where there appears to be some conflict is over the fact that the consultation the Revenue Office undertook was with the peak body. Mr Humphries may have contacted the local ACT office - he is agreeing - and that would account for it. So there has been proper consultation. The Insurance Council of Australia had previously expressed concern about the practice of insurance brokers directing customers to overseas insurers. The view expressed at the time of consultation with the industry was that it was desirable for local insurers to be used, rather than overseas insurers, due to the potential problems that could arise in dealing with people overseas who are not constrained by Australian laws. So we are attempting to address the concerns of the Insurance Council.
Finally, Mr Humphries dealt with the question of confining this concession to the principal place of residence, and he outlined a number of possible scenarios that might occur on the marriage of people who each own property. I think there are a number of views you could take on this issue. Mr Humphries has clearly taken the term "matrimonial property" to include what is in fact a commercial property.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .