Page 3106 - Week 08 - Thursday, 16 August 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
that do not reflect this government’s financial policies. It is wrong, and that is exactly what Dr Ahmed said.
I also believe that the budget should have regard for those who have paid stamp duty either prior to 2012 or since 2012. It is all very well for this government to say that stamp duty has been abolished, but for the vast majority of Canberrans stamp duty is alive and well. That is why the government continues to bring in more money from stamp duty today than it did in 2012. The money keeps rolling in for this so-called abolished tax. And for those who paid the full stamp duty before 2012 and are now paying escalating rates to substitute for stamp duty they already paid, it is of course double dipping. There is no regard and no fairness in this. I note that Ted Quinlan had a recommendation in his tax reform package that there should be some consideration for people that had already paid stamp duty. They conveniently ignored that recommendation.
I also believe there should be much more done with regard to the lease variation charge, particularly in town centres. If we are serious about having density, as the government supposedly is, I believe that town centres are where that density is best located. However, the lease variation charge policy apparently drives more and more into the suburbs and not enough into the town centres.
There is much more that can and should be said about the state of the finances. I will certainly take up opportunities in relation to other budget line items, such as Icon and the Suburban Land Agency, to give further commentary.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (4.20): Like Mr Coe, I will concentrate on the revenue side, not the expenditure side. First, I would like to correct something that, possibly foolishly, Mr Coe said. He put forward Jon Stanhope as an authority in respect of what happened in the Assembly last week. Members may remember that the Assembly passed a motion to implement a plan relating to houses rented at market rent at least by community housing providers. The plan was to exempt them from land tax. Mr Stanhope’s article would give you the impression that the exact opposite happened.
Turning to rates and stamp duty, as Mr Coe did, virtually every economist in the world thinks that we would be better off phasing out stamp duty. The ACT has been doing this since 2012. The Greens have supported it for reasons of economic rationality. So far I think that, basically, it has been successful. But because we are the first part of Australia to deliver this tax reform, we are also the first to uncover some of the downsides.
For most people, of course, paying rates is not one of their more significant financial problems. For a median income household paying median rates in the ACT, it is less than two per cent of their income. But for lower income people in older suburbs like Curtin and Garran, they can be paying well over 10 per cent of their income. This is a real issue.
The Greens support economic efficiency, but it has to be balanced with fairness. One effort towards fairness is deferment. This lets people put off paying their rates until
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video