Page 4910 - Week 15 - Thursday, 15 December 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
to be authorised. We also see that it is tidier to broaden the definition of insurer to include all persons who write general insurance. The opposition supports waiving of duty on the cost of specific modifications to a motor vehicle to accommodate the needs of people with a disability. There is an anomaly at present, it would appear, in that after-market modifications do not attract duty but duty is paid on the total value of the vehicle when those modifications are installed as original equipment.
There is confusion in relation to this issue. I have just had a call from the president of the motor trades association, who is scrambling to get across this legislation. Regrettably, they have not been consulted and are confused. I have had a lengthy discussion with him and have just sent him a copy of the bill, but I would hope that the Treasurer will address the issue of modifications. He has put the view to me that, at present, modifications made are not subject to the duty. My reading of this bill would be that not only is the list price becoming a new measure but also modifications are now going to be taxed where they were not previously, but there will be an exemption for people who have a disability. We need to clarify whether this is a double whammy in terms of tax collection. Certainly, the industry is in a state of some confusion on this. But we certainly, obviously, support the waiving of duty on the cost of modifications, regardless of when they were fitted, for people with a disability.
Turning to the amendments to the Rates Act and the Land Tax Act, it is reasonable that the Commissioner for ACT Revenue be able to recoup costs already incurred in relation to a proposed sale that was abandoned because the rates had eventually been paid. Also, the opposition supports allowing the proceeds from the sale of one property to be used to recover arrears on other properties owned by the same person. This amendment removes the need to sell each property to recover arrears on those properties, so it is a sensible tidying up.
The third amendment to the Rates Act allows the revenue commissioner to defer the payment of rates without an application if there are exceptional personal circumstances. The circumstances are not listed, but I understand they relate to situations where a person is unable to make an application, and to personal issues, which may be subject to privacy conditions. If the revenue commissioner decides to defer rates without an application, it will still be subject to the normal objection and appeal rights.
The opposition also supports not-for-profit training organisations being granted an exemption from payroll tax. This change should lower the cost of training and therefore assist in overcoming the critical skills shortage facing the people of Canberra.
The remaining changes to the Duties Act are not positive steps. The government proposes to use the list price as the reference point for calculating duty on the registration of a motor vehicle not previously registered in the ACT. At present, duty is based on either the actual purchase price or the market value, whichever is the greater. The wording is sloppy, because of ambiguities about what the market price is. The question arises: is it the average sale price for identical vehicles for a month or on the day? Is it the NRMA’s estimate of sale prices? Is it the price from Glass’s black book, which many dealers use? Is it derived from prices posted on internet sites such as drive.com.au? In any case, the so-called market price, as used in this context, will always be a shadow price; it will never be the real price.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .