Page 4555 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 14 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is not the matrimonial home but a matrimonial commercial property, that is, if the couple move into one house and retain the other as a commercial proposition. You could argue that case backwards and forwards. But the view that has been taken is to reinforce the fact that this concession is made in family relationships, not in commercial relationships that might arise as a result of marriage.
The view of the Revenue Office is that an integral part of the family unit is the family home but not so much the commercial residences, commercial properties, that any family might also hold. The concession is offered for the reason that the family home is that which provides shelter and security for family members in that relationship, and commercial property, whether it arises as a result of marriage or not, does not have that same place in our society and in our family system. This concept is seen as quite separate from the transfer of other assets that potentially might be involved in business or investment interests. Such interests could include, for example, large numbers of shares. Whether Mr Humphries would equally argue that they should be divided equitably and with stamp duty concession I do not know, but I would argue that they probably should not. The transfer of such interests would normally attract some tax obligations, whether stamp duty, capital gains tax, income tax or whatever.
I can see a clear distinction. Mr Humphries is not so clear on that distinction. Nevertheless, it is a matter that we should keep an eye on and perhaps continue to debate. I think Mr Humphries's proposal would amount to what could be seen as an exploitation of that notion of principal place of residence. Obviously, it would most benefit those with very valuable homes, and there is an issue of equity there. If members want to extend this concession to other property, they should do so directly, I believe - not in this indirect fashion. For the Government's part, and on my present understanding of the issues, my present review of them, I do not believe that this concession for domestic relationships should be extended to what in effect amounts to commercial property, albeit that it is held by people in a domestic relationship. I will keep it under review; but, for Mr Humphries's information, that is the thinking behind it at the moment.
To conclude, I thank members for their support of the Bill. I think it is particularly significant in that it does extend concessions to a group of people who have not enjoyed them before, some of whom have written to me expressing the view that they were being discriminated against. I am sure that no member here would wish people to be discriminated against in that way on the basis of their marital status, and I think it is time we addressed that matter. I look forward to the time when we address it further by taking the notion of domestic relationships further, so that there is no longer any discrimination, no matter what sort of domestic relationship people are in.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .