Page 2945 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Barr: But that applies equally to buyers as well. They have a capacity to pay issue too, so the market will adjust, Zed.
MR SESELJA: Mr Barr interjects, but there are differences there and we know this because of what has happened in the last couple of years in terms of financing. There has not been as much of a squeeze in terms of lending for residential property for purchasers; there simply has not. There have been some changes in the conditions. There has been a greater deposit required and the like, but we have not seen ordinary families in Australia having massively changed conditions in terms of lending practices. But we do know that lending practices have changed and have become significantly tightened for business and for developers. There is no doubt about that. The lenders and the financiers have to see a certain profit, so in that sense much of it cannot be absorbed. We can debate—
Mr Barr: Will that always be the case, or do you think that market conditions might change?
MR SESELJA: It may not, but that does not fundamentally change the fact that you cannot put in a massive tax increase like this and expect there to be no impact or no negative impact. There is this naive idea from the Treasurer that you can just increase it and no-one will be affected. But they will and they will be affected in one of those ways: either/or or a combination of those things. I think all of those will potentially be slugged. But, as is often the case, it is most likely to be those with the existing properties, who were hoping to get a certain return, who see a drop in their value, and buyers—
Mr Barr: Isn’t that a good thing for housing affordability, Mr Seselja?
MR SESELJA: and anyone who argues otherwise is naive. It is not a good thing if people are having to pay significantly more for units than they were.
Mr Barr: What if the land price falls, though, given that is a pretty—
MR SESELJA: If it is split, we know that their land price will fall, which will be part of the cost of the tax, and the other part will be the price of the units going up, and that will be greater because in the end that tax will be levied.
We have a situation where the government said there was a deal or arrangement which they claim to have been in existence since 2003. We have not seen the documentation which would back up that claim, and I would call on the minister to provide that information and to provide that information to the Assembly.
Under this arrangement, we are told, it appears that for all dual occupancy developments the uplift in value was calculated to be $5,000, for multi-units, $1,500 and for townhouses it was $2,500. Khalid Ahmed told estimates:
Odd, but the process seems to have been followed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video