Page 4616 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 15 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The amendment that Mr Kaine is moving effectively deletes that provision from the Bill. However, the provision would still remain:
The Commissioner may determine a longer period for the purposes of paragraph (3A)(c) if he or she is satisfied that -
... ... ...
(b) there is a bona fide reason for the agreement being rescinded or coming to an end.
I believe that Mr Kaine has been thoughtful in the amendments that he has proposed to the Stamp Duties and Taxes Act, and I would like to indicate to the Assembly that I will be supporting his amendments.
MR KAINE (11.42), in reply: In concluding the in-principle debate I would like to comment on matters raised by the Chief Minister and by Ms Szuty. I would note, Madam Speaker, that my amendment seeks to do only two things. There will be continuing dissatisfaction with this Act, even after these amendments are incorporated, because the Canberra Business Council and the Law Society have advised the Chief Minister of a number of other matters with which they are dissatisfied. Unfortunately the Canberra Business Council's concerns on some issues were not brought to my notice until the day before yesterday when I specifically asked them what they thought, but the Chief Minister has known them for some time. I hope that the Chief Minister's reconsideration of this Act, which she says is taking place, will extend to considering these other matters that the Canberra Business Council in particular has brought to her attention. It was too late for me to incorporate them, so we are dealing with only two things here.
The first is the question of the 30-year period. The Chief Minister has clearly acknowledged that she was wrong when she said 15 years. She would not have amended it otherwise. But, when she comes to the amendment, whose advice has she taken? She did not take any notice of any debate that took place in this Assembly. She did not take the advice of the Law Society which she had before her original Bill was brought down. She has not taken the advice of the Canberra Business Council as to what is an appropriate period. Why? She acknowledges that this is arbitrary; yet she has taken two bites of the cherry, both of them arbitrary and neither of them based on anything but her own intuition, presumably.
The 30-year period is one that has been carefully considered by the people who are affected by this. They have come up with some very good reasons why, in their view, 30 years is a good period. In fact, the Canberra Business Council point out that that is the minimum. They would have preferred a longer period, but they accept that a decision has to be made and they have accepted, generally, that 30 years is something that they can live with. The reason has to do with business decisions about taking leases or not taking leases. I accept their advice, in the absence of any contrary advice, and the Chief Minister has not tendered any. I come back to the question: Where did she take her advice from? If 25 years is okay and if 15 years is okay, on what basis are they okay? She has not demonstrated it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .