Page 1991 - Week 05 - Thursday, 3 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
back. In 2009-10, 416 contracts were exchanged and 23 were handed back. That was an 18 to one ratio. In 2010-11, 768 contracts were exchanged and 113 were handed back, a seven to one ratio. What is telling is that, on the figures we were given for the 2011 financial year up to December 2011, of the 182 contracts exchanged—which is obviously a lot less, even for the six-month period—91 were handed back, which is a two to one ratio.
Clearly, there is a pattern here of people becoming less and less satisfied or the scheme not working in the way the government claimed that it would work. So we continue to have issues with the design of the scheme.
In relation to the bill, as I said earlier, these changed clauses will potentially have some benefit in the context of the flawed scheme. Allowing organisations like Community Housing Canberra to access the scheme at the two per cent discount rate—we have no issue with that. Excluding Housing ACT from accessing the scheme—we accept the government’s logic on that. The two per cent discount rate payable will be able to be accessed from the date of application—that seems reasonable. It omits the hardship test to qualify for the two per cent discount rate—I understand that; it seems to be a consequential amendment from clause 9. And clarifying procedures for ACT Revenue Office if leaseholders do not hand in their paperwork by the required time frame—we do not have a problem with that. So we will not be opposing this legislation today.
In relation to the Duties Amendment Bill, though, we have an issue. The issue is that we have a government saying they are going to help first home buyers; they are going to help those whom they have locked out of the market. They are offering this inferior product where they do not get the benefit of landownership. But they want to charge them stamp duty. I find that a bit strange. I find it strange that the government is saying to those people, “You can rent the land, but you have to pay stamp duty as if you own the land.” I do not think that is fair. I do not think it is fair to say to low income earners—which is who should mainly be accessing the land rent scheme—that they should be paying for something when they are not actually getting it, paying duty on something that they are just renting. Whether they are low income earners who might get some concessions or middle income earners who will not get concessions, why should they have to pay for something they are not actually receiving? Many of these people will never buy, so they will have paid stamp duty for something that they do not actually own.
It is frustrating enough to pay the levels of stamp duty that are levied on homebuyers in the ACT at the moment. A medium-priced house is going to set most people back over $20,000 in stamp duty. That is frustrating enough. But at least in those circumstances people get the benefit of ownership of that land. The government is saying, “In the land rent scheme, you don’t get the benefit of the ownership of the land, but we’ll still charge you as if you do.” They get the worst of all worlds. I do not think that is right. I do not think that is reasonable. And that is why we do not support that aspect.
We do not support this bill. It is unreasonable. It is actually a real slap in the face to this segment of our community. The government on the one hand is saying, “You are
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video