Page 4615 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 15 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
On the second matter, Madam Speaker, if there is a substantive reason to do what Mr Kaine suggests, we will certainly look very closely at that, but at this stage consultations are continuing. I am not aware that a substantive reason has been brought forward. I repeat that I regard it as important to try to take anti-avoidance measures where they are possible, and not to burden the entire community with refunds to people who have sought to speculate on projects that subsequently fail. I should say, Madam Speaker, that in this rescission of contracts arrangement people's principal place of residence is clearly not an issue here. If an ordinary person is seeking to get a new property as their principal place of residence and for some reason that arrangement falls through, because of lack of finance, failure to proceed with the new building, or so on, then that person, of course, will receive a refund; but I do think it is important to not encourage the speculative on-selling of properties that certainly has occurred in other States. I do not believe that it is at all desirable that it occur in the ACT.
MS SZUTY (11.38): I well recall the debate on the Government's Stamp Duties and Taxes Bill because we debated the Business Franchise (Tobacco and Petroleum Products) Bill at the same time. We had a quite lengthy debate on that particular Bill. I well recall my position and that of Mr Moore on the Government's Bill at that time. We took on board legitimately the Government's argument that it was putting up anti-avoidance measures. I am sure that Mr Moore and I believed at the time that we voted on this particular measure in good faith. It was with some surprise, I might say, that some weeks later the Chief Minister did move to extend the period of application for this measure from 15 years to 25 years. I recall it because I was away from the ACT at the time, interstate with Mr De Domenico and Mr Lamont, as a member of the Assembly's committee on the public service. I did mention to Mr De Domenico at the time that I was quite surprised that the Chief Minister was moving to change that provision so soon after the Assembly had passed the Bill.
I must admit that I am rather puzzled that the Government has not accepted the very sensible amendments put forward by Mr Kaine. Mr Kaine has his reasons for extending the period further, from 25 years to 30 years. He obviously has done that in good faith and for reasons which I am sure he will explain to the Assembly at the conclusion of this debate. At this point I would be inclined to agree with Mr Kaine that a 30-year period, as opposed to a 25-year period, is appropriate in these particular circumstances. The Chief Minister herself said that it is a question of where the line is most appropriately drawn. Given that we are in the extraordinary situation of having debated these measures just a few months ago, it seems surprising to me that there is still some confusion, I guess, on the part of various members of the Assembly as to where that line should be legitimately drawn.
As for Mr Kaine's second amendment - I must admit that I had to look at the Bill and the Government's amending Bill fairly closely to determine my position on it - the current situation is:
The Commissioner may determine a longer period for the purposes of paragraph (3A)(c) if he or she is satisfied that -
(a) the agreement was for the transfer of an estate in land intended to be used as the principal place of residence of the transferee.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .