Mr BURKE - 2003-05-27
Treasurer, you said in your budget speech that there are no new taxes in this budget. I refer you to Budget Paper No 1, your budget speech, page 7, Revenue Measures, towards the bottom of the page:
… from today the assessment of stamp duty on changes in the ownership of companies and trusts that hold land in the
Territory will align the stamp duty consequences of indirect and direct acquisitions of interests in land.
Treasurer, is this not a land tax? Is this not a new tax? What are the consequences of your new land tax in the additional rates of duty that will apply?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. To suggest that this is a new tax would be to put a case that there is no stamp duty applying on transfer of property between people, which is an absolute nonsense. We come to this from a very clear question of equity. The question that confronted us, and myself as Treasurer, was: is it fair for Joe Punter, who purchases a property in the northern suburbs, or anywhere in the Northern Territory for that matter, for $250 000 to $300 000 depending on the value of the property, , and has to pay stamp duty for the transfer of that property of, perhaps, up to $9000. However, at the same time, we were aware of a situation where a company buys another company, and among the assets of that company bought is a hotel in Darwin valued at $15m. Because of the nature of the current arrangements, the stamp duty accrued to the Northern Territory as a result of the purchase of that $15m hotel in Darwin is $480.
The question I asked myself was: is it fair that a big company can buy another big company and, included in their assets is a $15m hotel in Darwin and they pay $480 stamp duty to the Northern Territory government while, at the same time, Joe Punter, buying a house in the northern suburbs, pays in the order of $5000 to $8000. ‘Is this equitable?’, I and Cabinet asked. We decided it was not.
We have a view that, wherever taxes apply in the Territory, they are under constant review, from the point of view of how much and where should government lessen the load over time. Clearly, it would be that, along with all other taxes, you look at every tax that you raise regarding equity and whether it can be reduced. If we are ever going to be in a position to be able to reduce the impost on Joe Punter buying a house anywhere in the Northern Territory, we have to look at how we would do that. It did not seem fair to us that big business - really big business, in this case, owning a $15m hotel - was able to get through the net, paying $480. If they were brought into the net, then there is a bigger revenue base and you may be in a better position in the future to look at reducing stamp duties across the board.
… from today the assessment of stamp duty on changes in the ownership of companies and trusts that hold land in the
Territory will align the stamp duty consequences of indirect and direct acquisitions of interests in land.
Treasurer, is this not a land tax? Is this not a new tax? What are the consequences of your new land tax in the additional rates of duty that will apply?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. To suggest that this is a new tax would be to put a case that there is no stamp duty applying on transfer of property between people, which is an absolute nonsense. We come to this from a very clear question of equity. The question that confronted us, and myself as Treasurer, was: is it fair for Joe Punter, who purchases a property in the northern suburbs, or anywhere in the Northern Territory for that matter, for $250 000 to $300 000 depending on the value of the property, , and has to pay stamp duty for the transfer of that property of, perhaps, up to $9000. However, at the same time, we were aware of a situation where a company buys another company, and among the assets of that company bought is a hotel in Darwin valued at $15m. Because of the nature of the current arrangements, the stamp duty accrued to the Northern Territory as a result of the purchase of that $15m hotel in Darwin is $480.
The question I asked myself was: is it fair that a big company can buy another big company and, included in their assets is a $15m hotel in Darwin and they pay $480 stamp duty to the Northern Territory government while, at the same time, Joe Punter, buying a house in the northern suburbs, pays in the order of $5000 to $8000. ‘Is this equitable?’, I and Cabinet asked. We decided it was not.
We have a view that, wherever taxes apply in the Territory, they are under constant review, from the point of view of how much and where should government lessen the load over time. Clearly, it would be that, along with all other taxes, you look at every tax that you raise regarding equity and whether it can be reduced. If we are ever going to be in a position to be able to reduce the impost on Joe Punter buying a house anywhere in the Northern Territory, we have to look at how we would do that. It did not seem fair to us that big business - really big business, in this case, owning a $15m hotel - was able to get through the net, paying $480. If they were brought into the net, then there is a bigger revenue base and you may be in a better position in the future to look at reducing stamp duties across the board.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016