Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (23 September) . . Page.. 3170 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

It also talks about this issue of a spouse, among many other areas where relief is provided for. I will go to that issue. The Schedule states:

... by a person to his or her spouse of an interest in property that is, at the date of the conveyance, used as their principal place of residence, if the conveyance results in the interest in the property being held by the spouses as -

That takes me back to the issue that I raised earlier. The definition of a spouse in a domestic relationship has been appropriately widened by the legislation.

I will now briefly deal with the issue of superannuation funds. It is appropriate that the legislation provides relief in respect of the transfer of assets from superannuation funds and pooled superannuation trusts which are required to comply with Commonwealth legislation. The legislation prescribes a fee of $200, as I recall, in respect of such transfers. That is a quite appropriate course for the legislation to take. I repeat that the Opposition will be supporting the Bill.

MR MOORE (5.30): In rising to support this Bill, I would like to make three points. First of all, it is a budget Bill, a Bill to do with money; so I will ensure that the Government has the opportunity to deal with it. More important is the second point, namely, how this Bill deals with domestic relationships. I think it is important to understand that the legislation, as it currently stands, is a disincentive to settlement. I am certainly conscious of people who are trying to work out a property settlement but who would lose large sums of money in fees on a transfer of assets that clearly society would not look at as a normal transfer. I am pleased that the Bill does something in that area. The third point is that the Federal Government requires the superannuation industry to invest in a given way. That is to protect ordinary people who are paying superannuation. There ought not be a double bind involved in that. Apart from supporting the Bill because it is a budget Bill, I think there are very good reasons to support the Bill on its merit, particularly in relation to these matters.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (5.32), in reply: To assist small superannuation funds to diversify their investment portfolios to comply with Commonwealth legislation, the Stamp Duties and Taxes (Amendment) Bill 1997 provides for stamp duty concessions where ACT assets are transferred from small superannuation funds to large pooled superannuation trusts and between pooled superannuation trusts. These concessions will bring the ACT into line with New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. Similar concessions are also being considered by the other States.

The Bill also provides for an extension of the stamp duty concessions currently available to married couples and de facto partners to include persons in domestic relationships. Stamp duty concessions will apply in respect of certain transfers of the domestic house as relationships are formed or break down. Pending amendments to legislation, concessions currently provided to people in domestic relationships are in the form of waivers.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .