Page 1016 - Week 03 - Thursday, 21 March 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
You can argue that that should not be the case. I think that may well be partly what Mr Coe was arguing, but that is, in fact, the case right now: mortgages attract a lower rate of interest than a tax debt. So you are better off if it is part of your mortgage than if you owe the money to the ACT government. The other alternative is to sell an investment property, which could let someone pay a tax debt without the government having to sell their home. Of course, these things can also be used punitively against people who deserve to be dealt with sensitively and carefully. As I said, I have spoken to the government and they have assured me that the provisions will not be used punitively. Whether or not I believe them, really—
Mr Coe: But you will vote for it anyway.
MS LE COUTEUR: I am going to vote for it. The reason I am going to vote for it is that, regardless of whether I believe that they will be more compassionate in the future, basically I do not think these amendments will necessarily make things worse than they are now. Sure, treasuries by definition are parts of the government which are not generally over-endowed with compassion. But I urge the Treasurer to keep a close eye on these new measures and to ensure that they are actually used with compassion, bearing in mind the considerable criticism that has been made in the past of how tax debts are administered.
I am certainly personally aware of someone who had to sell their house because of a tax debt that they incurred because of poor advice about the administration of land tax. I am not talking about the recent changes; this is way back. Something like this might have meant that they did not actually have to sell their house. That would have been a positive thing. Enough of this. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. I am being more optimistic about the outcome. Hopefully, my optimism is well placed.
Let me move on to what is the more positive part of this legislation. The Greens welcome the government’s decision to allow landlords to claim the exemption on their land tax if they rent out their house to eligible low and moderate income tenants through a registered community housing provider. This is a measure that the Greens, due to my actions, wanted included in the 2008 parliamentary agreement. Sadly, it did not happen. I called for it again in an Assembly motion in August last year. I note that Mr Parton also introduced similar legislation in September last year that could not be voted on for technical reasons.
For me, this idea goes back some time. More than a decade ago, I rented out a house that I owned to low income tenants, through CHC, at an affordable rent. CHC suggested to me that I was the first person that had ever done that with them, and I suspect possibly the only person. I felt that if a city government would give an exemption for land tax, they might actually be able to get a few more people like me. That is why I put it in the parliamentary agreement. If we can persuade landlords to go halfway in renting out houses at an affordable rate to people who need that assistance, that is definitely a positive for the ACT.
I have to say that housing affordability has only gone backwards, not forwards, compared to when I rented out that house. This change will also assist in the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video