Page 2993 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is worth looking through, because we hear from the Treasurer that apparently it is really not going to have much impact. It is a tax, and so what? It will get absorbed. We heard from the Greens that it will be absorbed. It is worth looking at just how much this tax that will not have any impact is proposed to be. We have got the current situation which we are told is very similar to what it will be if it is codified. But, to see what they are proposing if it is codified, let us look, for instance, at the suburb of Lyons.
In Lyons, for a dual occupancy—this is a tax that will not have any impact—it will be $70,000. That is $70,000 for a dual occupancy—and it will not have any impact, according to the ACT Labor Government. In Mawson, a dual occupancy will cost $70,000; for four units, $60,000 per unit; and in locality B in Mawson, $72,000. Apparently, that will not have any impact, according to this government.
In Narrabundah, in locality A, if you want to do a dual occupancy—remember that Mr Barr said there were going to be lots more dual occupancies—$100,000 will be the tax that will have no impact apparently: no impact on price, no impact on anyone. The developers might have to absorb something, but that will not be passed on. One hundred thousand dollars in Narrabundah—and, if you were to do four units in Narrabundah, the tax that, according to the government, will not have any impact: about $60,000 per unit. We go on: O’Connor, $100,000 for a dual occupancy in locality A, and in locality B, $90,000; four units, $60,000; 11 to 20 units, $50,000 per unit.
So these are the taxes that apparently, if we are to believe the Treasurer and ACT Labor, will not really impact on things. That is not generally the way that taxes work, because, if it were, every government would simply campaign on the promise of more tax. Every party would say: “Look, you might have a $4 billion budget, but we are going to have an $8 billion budget. We are going to double taxes; we are going to triple taxes. We are going to have more taxes on property. You have got $30,000 on stamp duty on an average property; we will have $50,000, because it does not make any difference, but we get more revenue. So we can get more revenue, but it will not have any impact on investment or on people purchasing or on people’s land values.”
It is a really absurd proposition, and what we are being faced with now is this situation where industry, I think in good faith, said, “Yes, a codification would give us some certainty.” That does beg the question, though: if there were a deal or arrangement in place, as the Treasurer says, which effectively said, “You get $5,000 in this case and $2,500 for a townhouse and $1,500,” why would they need certainty? It would seem to me that, if that was the case, if the deal arrangement was in place, they would have certainty. So that is unclear.
Ms Gallagher: It was not about residential dual occupancy.
MR SESELJA: So they were not asking for the massive tax on units? Okay, all right, now it is confirmed. So we have been getting—
Ms Gallagher: No, of course they weren’t, because they had it so good. What a surprise.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video