Page 2978 - Week 08 - Thursday, 15 August 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
various options and help set a way forward that will hopefully have a degree of tripartisan support for the future. This is to be completed before next year’s budget. I would like to see this happen well before next year’s budget so that all parties are in a position to consider what it says, in terms of framing their response to next year’s budget and framing their policies going forward, because next year is an election year.
The current budget includes a change to residential rates schedules to maintain a balance between houses and units. The Greens very clearly see this as an interim measure while the review is completed. This is one of the principal issues as to why the Greens think we need to look at moving from the current land-based rating system to a market-based system. What people do not remember is that, in moving from stamp duty to rates, we have made two changes. By moving to rates, we have moved to annual taxation, which makes a lot more sense, because the government has to pay its bills every year for health, education, rubbish, roads et cetera. It absolutely makes sense for the people of Canberra to pay that on a yearly basis.
Stamp duty was based on the market value of your residence. Rates are only based on the land value of your residence. Market value, while not a perfect indicator of your wealth, is much closer to an indicator of your wealth than land tax. The Greens have been banging on about this for a while. I am also interested that this was recently recommended by IPART in New South Wales:
The Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) should be amended to mandate Capital Improved Value (CIV) as the basis for setting ad valorem rates in the metropolitan council areas.
It is good to see more support for this. It happens in South Australia and Victoria as well. I am looking forward to the ACT government following this fairness and progressive agenda.
The other thing to note in revenue is the land tax exemption for those landlords who rent their properties out through a community housing provider at 75 per cent of market rent or less. This is something that I have been pushing for since the Seventh Assembly, so I am very pleased that it has been instigated. However, I have been speaking to the various community housing providers and I can tell you that there have not been many people take it up as yet. There are more MLAs than there are landlords in this scheme.
The basic problem here is that the scheme needs to be ongoing. Most landlords who get involved in this will wait until their current tenant leaves. The sort of landlord who wants to be involved in this is not someone who is going to evict a tenant who is happy where they are. So you have to wait until your tenant leaves; then, as it is only currently a two-year scheme and it has already started, you will be looking at maybe only a year when you will have access to the concession. It will really not make much difference.
I would very much like to see this be an ongoing, continuing scheme. I certainly support the idea that there should be a review of it to see how much it is costing and whether people have worked out how to rort it, because there will always be people
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video