Page 3201 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 18 October 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
stagnant figure is nothing to be proud of, and much less to boast of. Having acknowledged the high rate of land tax in the ACT, the impact this has on both investing in housing and subsequent housing affordability must be considered. I would argue that it is significant. There is a shortage of rental accommodation in Canberra and people are paying very high levels of rent. A large number of people have arrived in the city looking to rent, and this, combined with the fact that people are discouraged from investing in property because of the high rates of land tax, is putting pressure on people right across the rental spectrum.
Reviewing—that is what I am saying; not overturning—the land tax system would lead to ways to encourage more investment in the local property market. This in turn would lead to more affordable rental accommodation. This would help our local economy. This would help the government in terms of its efforts, belated as they are, to fix up the local economy. Reviewing the land tax system would lead to ways to encourage more investment. Let us not forget also that high rates of land tax are not impacting on wealthy property investors. They hurt the mum and dad investors seeking to provide for their retirement and secure their future—the people that might buy one or two properties, people who are using that as some form of superannuation. High rates of land tax will encourage big property investors to simply look to invest elsewhere in the country. The mum and dad investors, the vast majority of investors in property, will choose to invest in something else for their retirement, and housing affordability and the rental market in Canberra will suffer as a result.
The recent commentary on rental auctions has highlighted just how critical the shortage of rental accommodation is in Canberra, and that is why I would also argue that this is not an issue that can be delayed. This motion calls on the government to initiate an urgent and open review—not something hidden in whatever housing review the Chief Minister is doing; I think he threw that one in as an afterthought. We need an urgent and open review of our land tax system to make it better for the people of Canberra, and, ultimately, for the government as well.
If the government are serious about addressing housing affordability and restricting the taxation burden on the people of Canberra, they will take note of and support this motion. But, of course, they will not. They choose to put their heads in the sand. They choose to go on their own arrogant, perverse way and they will vote against this motion—and, of course, the motion, unfortunately, will go down. If the government were serious about managing the ACT’s economy responsibly, and we have all seen from their record to date that they are not, they would do as we call on them to do today and initiate an urgent and open review into the land tax system in the ACT. It is a shame and a tragedy, but I am not surprised, that the Chief Minister has indicated they will not do it.
We do not see much cooperation from this government on sensible ideas. Yesterday, for only the second time since the Assembly started, Mr Smyth had the dubious pleasure and privilege of having an opposition suggested amendment to a bill agreed to by the government. You might be a majority government, but I think it is incumbent on you to take on board good ideas put up by the opposition, Dr Foskey or whoever. It is a slur and a shame on you that you do not do that. This is a sensible motion that has nothing to do with abolishing the land tax system, which has been with us since the First Assembly. You have only to understand basic English and read the motion to see that. What it calls for is a review of that system, a review that would benefit everyone in the ACT.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .