Page 2383 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is important that this amendment goes through because it would actually ensure that we do not create these kinds of market distortions through having such a disincentive to redevelop, particularly at a time when we know that we want to see some of these empty offices redeveloped. We do want to see a changeover at present. There might be times in the future when that might not be as much the case, but regardless of that, we should not be putting roadblocks in the way of that kind of redevelopment. We should actually see that as a plus for our city.
Of course, the only way you can argue that we are not putting roadblocks in is if you then revert to the remission. It all then becomes about the remission. And we go back to this argument about what that will mean. So much of this legislation is set up on the assumption that it will only work if there are lots of remissions. What kind of a tax system is based on that? If we look at other areas of taxation, things like income tax, people can see some of their taxable income come down because of legitimate expenses. Imagine if the income tax was set in such a way that the government said, “Look, we’re going to charge you 60 per cent, but the really good news is that we’re going to halve it for the first couple of years. So 60 per cent might look bad, but we’re only going to charge you 30 per cent.” What if they had an income tax regime which said: “If you can make your case to the tax office—okay, most people will have to pay 60 per cent, but you might only have to pay 30. You might have to pay 40”? It would be absurd if we were to go down that path. Yet that is where we are going with the way this legislation is set up.
Always, when issues are raised as to how it will work, we are told: “It’s okay because most of it won’t be charged, at least in the first couple of years. In the first couple of years we’ll charge less and then we’ll charge more.” But if that does not work, “Well, you can always lobby the Treasurer for a remission, just to see, if that’s not working.’
It is critically important that we get this right. On the fundamental principle here, which is that, if you are going to go down the V1 and V2, if you are going to maintain V1 and V2, as the government has accepted, it has to be a genuine V1 and V2. To be a genuine V1 and V2, it has to take account of the value that you have, as well as the value that you will get. Anything less than that says that we are not serious, that that is not what is at stake here; that what is at stake is a tax grab at any cost. Regardless of the principle, regardless of the stated principles, regardless of the stated reasons for the legislation, it comes down to being a tax grab.
I commend this amendment to the Assembly because it will go some way towards improving what is a very bad piece of legislation.
MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo—Chief Minister, Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Treasurer) (12.20): The government will not be supporting the amendment being put forward by the Leader of the Opposition today. I think it is clear that, by putting it forward, the Leader of the Opposition simply does not understand the legislation that he is dealing with today. Indeed, the name of the legislation is “lease variation charge”. The V1 and the V2 relate to the value of the lease, not what is on it. The issue of looking at improvements has been extensively examined through the last two years of analysis; not just by the Property Council,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video