Page 1643 - Week 06 - Thursday, 7 June 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The bill also amends the original legislation to make clear that interstate motor vehicle dealers are able to claim the same duty exemptions as ACT motor vehicle dealers for registration of motor vehicles that are used as demonstrators or trading stock. This is a sensible provision and is in line with the Liberals’ philosophy of not creating barriers to commerce between states and territories.
In terms of the financial effects, the revenue likely to be lost from these changes is, at the most, minimal. The concessional duty formerly paid by the housing commissioner was small and was, in reality, just a payment from one government agency to another with a neutral effect overall. The amount of duty gained from interstate motor vehicle dealers in the territory would likewise also be small. Indeed, the small loss in revenue that may occur from these changes may well be outweighed by efficiency gains from these more sensible and simple arrangements.
We on this side of the Assembly are, of course, heartened and encouraged to see that Treasury officials are looking for ways to improve ACT revenue legislation. It is heartening to see that there are some small improvements being made, and these issues continue to remind us that there is always scope for greater efficiency in government. We can hope that some of the wisdom that is applied to small and technical questions of revenue legislation will come to be applied to major issues.
Again, I thank the Treasurer for making officials available to provide me and my advisers with detailed briefings. We are pleased to support this bill.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (8.45): Apart from the ideological commentary, I am totally in agreement with Mr Mulcahy on this bill. Just on principle, I cannot agree with Liberal philosophy. I am happy that Mr Mulcahy gave such a full explication. It was a very useful summary of the bill. Again, I thank the officials for their help in assisting my office to understand the bill.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Minister for the Environment, Water and Climate Change, Minister for the Arts) (8.45), in reply: The Revenue Legislation Amend Bill 2007 amends the Duties Act 1999, the Land Tax Act 2004, the Payroll Tax Act 1987 and the Rates Act 2004. The amendments contained in this bill clarify current practice and do not apply any new revenue measures. As a result, there are no financial implications arising from any of these new provisions.
There is currently an absurdity in the Duties Act 1999 whereby the housing commissioner is exempt from paying duty on the transfer of a crown lease but liable to concessional duty of $20 on the grant of a crown lease. The bill amends the Duties Act to allow the housing commissioner to access an exemption from duty on the grant of a crown lease consistent with the treatment of a transfer of a crown lease to the housing commissioner. The Commissioner for ACT Revenue, as is his prerogative, has for some time administered the act as though this exemption was in place. This means that there is very little, if any, revenue forgone by fixing this situation in the act.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .