Page 2218 - Week 06 - Thursday, 6 June 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is not a new debate; this is the eighth year that we have debated this very topic. It is very clear that we are abolishing or have now abolished taxes on insurance products. We are phasing down stamp duty; from 1 July, first home buyers will no longer pay stamp duty on their first purchase. And we have increased the payroll tax free threshold. On the commercial stamp duty side, we have now exempted 70 per cent of commercial property transactions that take place below $1.5 million and we have reduced the top tax rate from over seven per cent to under five per cent.
What if we had left the tax settings alone? Stamp duty was 22 per cent of total own-source revenue back when tax reforms began. Stamp duty now would be raking in $450 million. Rates would also have increased, by the wage price index. The total tax take would be the same. The point is that it has shifted away from stamp duty, away from insurance taxes and away from payroll to rates. (Time expired.)
MS LAWDER: Treasurer, when will the yearly rate increases stop in Canberra?
MR BARR: The yearly rate increases will reduce in size as we progress further through tax reform, as they have been doing since the reform commenced. The heaviest lifting is now behind us.
Mr Coe: It means it is every year now.
MR BARR: One tax is already abolished: insurance taxes. So everyone who has comprehensive motor vehicle insurance and everyone who has home and contents insurance is not paying insurance tax every year, Mr Coe. They are paying less. Everyone who buys a house is paying less stamp duty.
The simple point here is that we all consume services in Canberra every year and we should all contribute every year, not just extortionate amounts when we buy a house. Why should seven per cent of the population be contributing 25 per cent of revenue because they buy a house, because they have a child or another child and need a bigger house, because they are buying their first home or because their family have left home and they are downsizing? Why is it okay to hit those people with $50,000, with $60,000, with $70,000?
If we had not reformed those tax rates, we would be like New South Wales; we would be in a position where we would be gouging homebuyers. We are not, because we have shifted our tax base. It is fairer because it means that everyone contributes every year to the services that we all consume. That is the simple and fair proposition.
Community housing—land release
MS LE COUTEUR: My question is to the Minister for Housing and Suburban Development and relates to land release for community housing. How many of the 34 dwelling sites identified for community housing in 2017-18 and the 20 dwelling sites in 2018-19 have been offered and then sold to community housing providers so far?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video