Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 05 Hansard (Wednesday, 5 May 2010) . . Page.. 1781 ..

quoted in places like Braddon with a minimum of $37½ thousand are just one example. They are not the highest example. We used Braddon because I think it is an example of where we do want to see development. We do want to see infill. I want to see more people living in Braddon. The government claims to want to see more people living in Braddon. We want to have a vibrant precinct there. There are plans for it but what we are going to do is turn around and slug a tax of a minimum of $37½ thousand on it.

What is that going to do for affordability? What is that going to do for rent? What is that going to do for young families who are looking to rent while saving for a home or who are looking maybe to enter the market and who have chosen to purchase a unit, often because they see little other choice? People buy units for all sorts of reasons but some buy them simply because units may be the only thing that they can buy. They want to buy something. They want to have something that they own and this government is saying to them, “We will slug a $40,000 tax, a $50,000 tax, a $60,000 tax.

I move the amendment circulated in my name:

Omit all words after “notes”, substitute:

“(a) Australian Bureau of Statistics’ figures which show that the price index for established houses in the ACT has risen by 122 per cent since March 2002, while the price index for established houses in the eight capital cities of Australia has risen by 100 per cent;

(b) the failure of this Government to manage the land supply which has led to ACT house prices rising faster than other capital cities;

(c) the additional collection of a massive $68 million of tax over the next four years through the change of use charge, and the negative impact that this tax will have on the housing industry which, according to the CommSec report, has kept unemployment in the ACT at ‘historically low levels’; and

(d) the HIA-Commonwealth Bank Affordability Report which shows the ACT to be the second least affordable jurisdiction for first home buyers.”.

This amendment is again saying not just what I have set out, but that this tax presents a major threat to families in Canberra. It presents a major slug on families in Canberra who are seeking to buy a unit, who are seeking to rent a unit. Anyone who believes that you can slug such a massive tax and that it will somehow be absorbed, that it will not affect affordability and that it will not affect rents has rocks in their head. This is a bad tax, and I commend my amendment to the Assembly.

MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (3.40): I thank Ms Porter for bringing this motion on today. I listened to her this morning in her fulsome praise of CommSec and their report. And I think she is right. Craig James does a pretty good job in putting these reports together.

One of the things that have emerged, certainly from the debate today, following the budget yesterday, is the Treasurer’s reliance on and her ability to hide behind the

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video