Page 2486 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 1 August 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
As Mr Parton said, this is hopefully something where there is a degree of furious agreement between all three parties that we need to improve the situation for low income tenants in the ACT. But what is getting in the way of a smooth outcome today is that we are three different political parties and our communication is not as good as an idealistic Green would like it to be.
I guess I have probably said as much as I can say on this. I am confident that in the end the Assembly will pass a good motion on land tax. I am not exactly sure what the pathway to that is going to be at this stage. But I commend my amendment to the Assembly. I hope that out of all this sausage factory process we will end up with a very good outcome.
MS CODY (Murrumbidgee) (10.52): I am standing here today because—
Mrs Dunne: Because the CFMEU bounced Simon Corbell in favour of you.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mrs Dunne, there is no need for those sorts of comments across the chamber. Thank you, Ms Cody; have the floor.
MS CODY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am standing here today because I will be supporting Ms Berry’s amendment to Ms Le Couteur’s motion, which calls on the government to consider ways to improve the affordability of housing. We all agree on that, and it is a very important point. We should be thinking about how to make housing more affordable. Affordability matters. It is important to consider the impact that rates and taxes have on affordability, and the motion suggests a way in we could alter tax policies to make housing more affordable. But does it?
Ms Le Couteur’s motion seeks to increase the number of affordable properties, a worthwhile idea. But in order to achieve this it proposes a tax break to those who do not need it: property investors. Let me give an example from my own experience. On my disclosure of interest, which is publicly available on the Assembly website, I outline my financial circumstances, including the mortgage on my house. Every member of the Assembly makes these disclosures and I note Ms Le Couteur mentioned her disclosure this morning and the number of properties she has listed.
Ms Le Couteur’s original motion will not have an impact on owner-occupiers such as me or others in that same situation in the Assembly except perhaps to increase demand by investors and push up prices. The only tax change being proposed in the motion is a tax waiver for people who own an investment property. I have nothing against people having a nest egg, but as we have seen in the federal debate about negative gearing, our nation has a problem with greedy property barons with maybe five or a dozen houses to their name.
People using negative gearing and tax breaks to rort the system whilst others cannot afford a house at all is not a good thing. To give a tax break specifically to property investors so they can buy more property will put upward pressure on housing prices, putting the deposit on somebody’s first home further and further out of reach.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video