Page 2829 - Week 07 - Thursday, 7 June 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
To provide more emphasis to this anomaly, if these business goods were transferred separately, no duty would apply. The bill will remove this anomaly. It will abolish duty on the transfer of short-term subleases—that is, subleases which are less than 30 years. I understand that the financial implications of removing this anomaly are minor, while the savings to the business people involved will be considerable, and that is to be applauded.
I now turn to the Rates and Land Tax Legislation Amendment Bill. As a first point, it is essential to understand the land that is the subject of this bill. A new form of title, the community title scheme, was introduced in 2001. Under these titles a group of separate crown leases is established with a shared interest in a common area. This common area is typically only a small area of land and this area is maintained by the lease owners through a body corporate. It is this common area which is the subject of this bill.
As a second point, the bill essentially deals with an “unintended consequence”. An “unintended consequence” can indeed be something that was unintended. Equally, however, it can be a euphemism for a mistake or, in more colourful language, a “stuff-up”. Nevertheless, it emphasises that much of our current legislation involves considerable complexity, particularly when we are dealing with such amendments. It is increasingly difficult to ensure that “stuff-ups” do not occur. This is an issue of the age and will only get worse.
The issue to which this bill is responding is that, where land does not have a residential or rural purpose, it is—by default—rated as having a commercial purpose. Hence as these common areas typically have purpose clauses which specify community use or use as an outdoor recreation area, they are rated, unfortunately, as commercial land, which means they have to pay the highest fixed charge and the highest rate in the dollar.
This is clearly an unintended consequence following the creation of the community title scheme. This unintended consequence is compounded where a purpose clause for the common area precludes any commercial activity. It is a neat approach to funding the ACT exchequer!
This bill will ensure that the principle in applying rates to these common areas will be that the rates will reflect the purpose for which the common area can be used. Hence if the purpose clause is not commercial, the land will be rated as residential. If, however, there is a commercial purpose permitted in the area, a commercial rate will be applied.
I commend the proposals in this bill, as they affirm the role of the community title scheme as a viable option for residential living in the ACT. With those comments, the opposition will be supporting the bill.
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (12.18): The Greens will also be supporting this legislation. At the beginning of my very short speech might I acknowledge that before when I spoke to the Duties (Landholders) Amendment Bill I got confused and gave
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video