Page 2466 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
significant and undeniable impact on the cost of living—on the cost of renting in the ACT, on the cost of buying a unit in the ACT and, indeed, on the stated goal of the government, and every party in this Assembly, to see a better mix of development in the city, to see more infill in this city. All of those things will be impacted significantly.
By rejecting this amendment, which would have lessened the blow of this legislation, which would have made this very bad legislation somewhat better, the Labor Party and the Greens have tonight chosen to impose a tax on renters and a tax on people who purchase units—a massive tax on housing.
The implications of that are serious. Let us not pretend, as the Chief Minister would like, that you can just put in these large taxes and they do not have an impact. They do. All taxes have an impact. The larger the tax, the larger the impact. If we were to accept the logic of the Chief Minister in prosecuting her case as to why there should be such a large increase in tax, maybe they could just double this tax and it would not have an impact. Maybe you could make it $100,000 per unit or $200,000 per unit.
Ms Gallagher: Where are your costings for it?
MR SESELJA: We see when the Chief Minister interjects—she has not produced the costings; she has not produced—
Ms Gallagher interjecting—
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ms Le Couteur): Ms Gallagher, please stop interjecting.
MR SESELJA: And they are very believable—just like all of your previous budgets! They are as believable as the A4 piece of paper that you put together to justify your savings on your office block.
There is no regard given at all. This is a Chief Minister who thinks that you can put a really large tax on housing and it will not impact on other areas of revenue—it will not impact on stamp duty, where the government collects about 10 or 15 times per annum what it is expecting to collect as a result of the change of use charge. Ten to 15 times, Madam Assistant Speaker! And much of that revenue will be put at risk because, for every development that does not go ahead as a result of punitive tax, the government loses revenue. The government loses revenue in other areas. It does not pick up the change of use tax and it loses revenue in other areas.
Ms Gallagher: Another Property Council myth.
MR SESELJA: We have been arguing this since before last year’s budget when it was first announced. It is, again, common sense which seems to elude the Treasurer. It is common sense. Her argument is that it is just scuttlebutt—that maybe, if you have a punitive tax, it might impact on activity. It is pretty commonsense stuff. If you put a tax on particular types of developments, does it have the potential to impact on those developments? Of course it does. If it did not, you would not be bothering with
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video