Page 4619 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 15 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I would ask members to support the amendment that I have proposed. I am pleased that no members have queried the anti-avoidance nature of the underlying principle of this legislation. It is a fact, Madam Speaker, that there have been a couple of incidents of leases being written for 90-odd years, and it seems to me that clearly that is an attempt to avoid stamp duty at conveyance rates, and clearly that is not in the broader interests of our entire community. Madam Speaker, I will, of course, accept whatever period the Assembly decides to put forward today, but I do believe that there is no substantial reason to vary from the 25 years. Certainly no reason at all has been put forward by Mr Kaine.
MR KAINE (11.53): The Chief Minister is quite wrong, of course. I do not support her amendment, any more than I supported the original provision of 15 years. My argument is based not on what I believe, or what I say, but on what has been put to the Chief Minister by two bodies of some consequence.
Mr Connolly: Business says, "Give us a tax break".
MR KAINE: Mr Connolly is not interested in listening to the business community. He is the great entrepreneur. He does not give a hoot what the business community says. It is obvious that this Government does not. They could not have set aside everything that has been put to them if they were truly consultative and if they were at all interested in hearing what the business community has to say.
Mr Connolly: I regard them as I regard any other trade union. I listen to what they have to say, but do not always accept it.
MR KAINE: In this case you did not even listen, obviously. You are not interested. Your view is that these people are only interested in tax avoidance. That is not the case. The Law Society put this to the Chief Minister before she brought her first Bill down. They said that the 15-year period is too short. The anchor tenants in many shopping centres sign up only if the lease is of a long duration. They do not sign up for 15-year or 20-year leases. They sign up for long durations. This is because the up-front costs of establishing major departmental stores are high, and they need a long lease period to amortise those costs. They are referring here to the 15-year period, but they say:
If the 15 year period is adhered to, business will be driven out of the ACT.
If the Chief Minister is interested in jobs she should be listening to that. The Canberra Business Council makes the same point. They have written to her on this issue three times over the last two months, not just once. They say:
We note the proposed increase from an announced 25 years to 30 years still has problems for businesses, particularly for businesses in retail areas, which have high set-up costs. These types of businesses require long terms to amortise costs. In some cases 50 years would not be inappropriate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .