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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Thursday, 24 June 2004) . . Page.. 2792 ..

Working Group to advance the matter from a national perspective. It is anticipated that this group will meet shortly;

(2) I am advised that no other State or Territory has accepted the Commonwealth’s offer at this time; and

(3) The ACT Government has not accepted the offer at this time either.

Notwithstanding, as I indicated in my reply to your earlier question, the ACT Office for Ageing has initiated discussions with officials in the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services.

Further, an Interdepartmental Committee involving representatives from

ACT Treasury, the Department of Urban Services, the Department of Disability Housing and Community Services, and the Chief Minister’s Department, has been established to develop a whole of ACT Government response to the Commonwealth’s offer, and to enable bi-lateral discussions with the Commonwealth to commence.

Housing—investment properties
(Question No 1508)

Mr Cornwell asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 4 May 2004:

(1) In relation to a Letter-to-the-Editor in The Canberra Times of 28 April 2004 entitled A Rort that Needs to be Stopped, what is the incidence of home owner/builder investment properties claimed to be a family home;

(2) Can such properties at part (1) be identified; if not, can steps be taken to do so;

(3) Can the one year qualification be extended to avoid such profit taking as outlined in the letter;

(4) Alternatively, can such sales of the one year qualification be factored out of local rates rises based upon sales in the suburb;

(5) If neither part (3) nor (4) are feasible, what can be done to prevent (a) loss of revenue to the Government by such means and (b) increasing rate rises to other residents;

(6) Can any estimate be provided as to the annual revenue loss from this subterfuge; if so, how much was the amount in 2002-03.

Mr Quinlan: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:

(1) The issue reported relates to capital gains tax and the incidence of home owner/builder investment properties in the ACT is unknown.

(2) Home owner/builder investment properties cannot be identified. As there is no loss of rates, land tax or stamp duty revenue for the ACT, there is no need for the ACT to identify such properties.

(3) No. The one year qualification period relates to the main residence requirement for the purposes of capital gains tax which is the responsibility of the Federal Government.

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