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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Thursday, 12 February 2004) . . Page.. 294 ..

clearly expressed its unwillingness to consider the impact of land tax on the cost of rent in the ACT, and I think that is a great shame. Although there is a strong relationship between supply and demand that drives rental costs, the supply side is affected by costs imposed by government. I think this is something we need to review. We should also look at other jurisdictions. We have had a rates concession review and maybe we need to have a land tax review. I remain hopeful that, as a result of the rates concession review, we will see the government introduce a fairer rates concession scheme.

Concerns have been raised again about the existing concession scheme and we need to be looking at how that impacts on people on low incomes. Whilst the government does have a formula for stamp duty concessions for households on low incomes, I think we need to extend that further and see how it impacts on rates. So we look forward to seeing in the budget a more effective rates concession scheme for low income home owners who are not pensioners.

The substantive legislation will allow changes to percentage rates, thresholds and other variables for rate calculations to be made by disallowable instrument, whereas formerly changes were required to be made through the principal act. This is something that I support because it will smooth out the administrative process but still allow debate to take place in the Assembly if there is concern about those changes.

I understand that, with the splitting of the Rates Bill and the Land Tax Bill, there is no erosion of the rights of taxpayers and ratepayers to appeal decisions relating to rates or land tax payments. Also, we are trying to simplify our statute book. So, as I said, we are happy to support this legislation.

MR QUINLAN (Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Business and Tourism, and Minister for Sport, Racing and Gaming) (12.22), in reply: I thank members for their support of the bills. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, the bills are mainly mechanical. In fact, they are designed to make the processes more effective. They do not have any impact upon the people that are required to pay rates and land tax.

I will take note of your comments, Mr Smyth, in relation to annual payments. I will also take note of the tangential issues that Ms Dundas has thrown in in relation to the cost of rents. But let me say it disappoints me that the little hand grenade the Prime Minister threw in some time ago in relation to the part played by stamp duty in the cost of houses has got so much currency, given that we all understand that the major influences on the cost of housing and the cost of rents are market driven.

I can only repeat: please look at the effect of the first home owner’s grant on house prices. Of course, the little comment that the mean and tricky John Howard put in has been picked up by the HIA and the vested interests—and you would not blame them for doing exactly what they should be doing for their members. But there should be some care taken about embracing the simplistic logic that somehow, if you reduce taxes, landlords will respond on a one-to-one basis and that, in fact, we will not be subsidising landlords.

I thank members for their support of the bills. Question resolved in the affirmative.

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