Taxation Legislation (Affordable Housing & Employment Support) Bill 2024 (No 13)

Wednesday 19 June 2024

[4.23 p.m.]

Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - Mr President, I thank the Leader for bringing this bill to us today, and I will make a brief contribution to it.

As mentioned by the member for McIntyre, I always enjoy, particularly with regard to bills of this type, listening to the member for Murchison. She certainly has a very good understanding - sometimes I believe better than most of us - of taxation and some of these issues.

Ms Rattray - She educates us.

Ms ARMITAGE - Absolutely, and it is certainly well worth listening to the comments made.

As already mentioned, this bill seeks to implement a number of measures that affect the tax liabilities of many Tasmanians, especially those who are looking to purchase a home or own land, and to support apprentices, trainees and young people in their employment.

I note the stamp duty exemption for first home buyers of established homes valued up to $750,000 and doubling that from 50 per cent to 100 per cent. I also note the comments by the member for McIntyre and, interestingly, after hearing the member for Hobart, I thought I would have a little look myself and just see what is available. And interestingly I put in $600,000 and I put in Hobart 7000, not just central Hobart. And I came up that houses for sale in Hobart up to $600,000, there are 186 properties. Now, some of them may be units, but if you put in just Hobart, Tasmania, 7000, there are186 properties.

Ms O'Connor - I think you need to put in houses. Did you take the land out?

Ms ARMITAGE - I did not have land. I just put houses - just to get an average. I can show you. I have photos. I put in houses for sale in Launceston. There are 183 properties. I used Ulverstone for the north‑west coast; that came up with 103 properties. I also looked at a property, valued at $750,000, and I can understand a first home buyer wanting one of these houses, occupying a premium position in Austins Ferry, I am not overly sure about areas.

Mr PRESIDENT - Very nice area. Very good electorate.

Ms ARMITAGE - Impressive $750,000, four‑bedroom, three‑bathroom home, flexible layout, it goes on and on. I can understand a first home buyer wanting a home like that, but my thoughts were, when you are a first home buyer, you did not always get a home like that. To me, often a first home buyer was starting off here. I have four children and none is a first home buyer. I have no conflict here. It makes no difference to me which way this goes, apart from trying to help our constituents.

I see where the member for McIntyre is coming from. The only other concern I would have with the $750,000, and thinking of my own children, is that they might think, 'wow, I can buy a house up to $750,000. I do not have to sort of limit myself to $550,000 or $600,000. I can borrow that much more money, because I am allowed to go -

Ms Rattray - I can get 30,000 from the government.

Ms ARMITAGE - I am allowed to go further.

Ms O'Connor - Honourable member it says offers over $600,000. I do not know if we are looking at the same website: Realestate.com?

Ms ARMITAGE - Yes, Realestate.com. I put in a maximum price of $600,000. That was what I put in.

Ms Forrest - It still gives you ones that are over $600,000 if you do that. It does not discriminate. It pops these other ones in.

Ms ARMITAGE - My point here is that when you look at a first home buyer, my only concern is, does it encourage someone to go outside their means? That is what I am thinking with the $600,000 or the $750,000. I will listen to the argument of the member for McIntyre when she moves her amendment.

I appreciate it is important that payments like these keep pace with the market. As we all know, the prices of homes have skyrocketed in the past few years. For people setting out on their first home buying journey - particularly younger people who need all the assistance they can get - this will be a welcome relief.

The difference, as the Leader has pointed out, could mean a savings of up to $28,935, which could be used by first home buyers for all manner of things, including the deposit. I  bring it up every time, and I disagree with some comments by some members with regard to inflating prices. Having been in real estate, I had never seen that a first home buyer grant had inflated a house price. What I have seen from being a real estate agent was that -

Ms Forrest - A bigger commission, that is what you saw.

Ms ARMITAGE - In fact, no. I find that a derogatory comment and I would like it …

Ms Forrest - It is the reality. If you get a bigger price, you get a bigger commission.

Ms ARMITAGE - Well, no, I did not see that. I consider that is an unnecessary comment. What I saw was that someone who might not have had quite enough of a deposit was able to get across the line for a deposit. From memory, sellers did not say, 'Does the buyer have a first home grant?' They put a price on their house and they tried to get as much as they could. For the first home buyer, the grant did not make a difference.

I disagree with that. I know Saul Eslake and others have said it, but having had experience in the market, having sold houses, that is what I found. That is my opinion.

The Leader said that the duty exemption will apply from 18 February 2024 until 30 June 2026, and will then be reviewed subject to prevailing market and economic conditions. Could the Leader please give us any more information on what kinds of factors will be considered, and whether any periodic reviews will take place between now and then. The year 2026 is not that far away and we all know that the property market can be extremely changeable. I am sure many of us in this House have just received revaluations and you needed to be sitting down when you received them. That is what I found.

For people who are not quite at the stage of entering the property market, implementing a two‑year extension of the land tax exemption for all newly built housing that is made available for long-term rental will provide security for renters and incentives for owners and landlords to accommodate them. It is far too precarious for renters in this market, and I welcome anything we can do to assist them and their landlords. I feel that with the revaluations and the increases in rates that there is only one place they are going to pass that on - that is to the renter.

Much the same can be said about the measure in this bill to provide a two‑year extension of the land tax exemption for short‑term visitor accommodation that is converted into a long‑term rental. It makes sense to leverage existing properties into long‑term rentals. Incentivising this will hopefully lead to greater security for renters, property owners and landlords.

Finally, raising the tax‑free threshold for land tax by $25,000 to $124,999 is good for those 4400 landowners who will now pay no land tax in the year ahead and for those 60,000 people whose land tax bill will be up to $112.50 lower. I am not sure how long the number will be the 4400 landowners, particularly if they have not had a revaluation yet; $124,999 is not exactly a high amount.

In these economic conditions, any bit of relief is welcome and, again, I believe we should be doing everything we can to facilitate that.

Moreover, I understand that the pensioner downsizing duty concession will be extended to 30 June 2025 for people who are in more vulnerable positions. It will provide support and financial relief wherever it can be found, and will make a difference. Hopefully, when they sell their homes, it perhaps makes more homes available to the first home buyer.

Finally, it goes without saying that our businesses are the engines of our economy. Therefore, extending the payroll tax rebate for apprentices, trainees and youth employees for another year is likely to make a significant difference to the businesses that employ apprentices, trainees and young people and may provide them with opportunities they might not otherwise have had.

Now more than ever it is imperative that we give young people a reason to stay in Tasmania, given the stark numbers of those who are leaving for the mainland or even overseas. I have four sons and two live in Western Australia, and they will never come back. Unfortunately, when our children leave they may meet partners from other states and they stay and do not return. We need our young people to stay here and to do that we need to give them the opportunities to allow them to build a career, a life, a home and find a purpose here.

Can the Leader provide more detail on whether this can be extended beyond 30 June 2025? This is one of the initiatives that makes sense and would make such a difference to so many people long-term. Any further details the Leader could provide on this would be most welcome.

I indicate my general support for the bill and I will listen to the member for McIntyre with regard to her amendment.