Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Wednesday, 26 October 1910

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales) . - The speech of Senator Gardiner has brought to my mind what has absolutely taken place in New South Wales. An agricultural estate was subdivided and sold on the 21st June; a deposit was made, which, of course, does not come within the scope of the Bill, and the purchasers are allowed three months in which to make a further deposit. The land could not possibly be transferred until the 30th September, although the agreement to sell was made prior to the 30th June. Let us imagine a similar sale taking place a month later - that is, on the 31st July. That estate subdivided would get the benefit of this clause, whereas the estate which was sold a month earlier would not. Is there any reason why we should differentiate between these two estates?

Senator Guthrie - Take the case of a covenant to purchase within six years.

Senator MILLEN - Such an estate would not escape the tax. "All we say is that a concession should be granted to those who have sold, or who have agreed to sell, between these two dates. It seems to me that the revenue will not be hurt in any way if we say that all those who have entered into an agreement to sell before 30th September shall receive the benefit of this concession. Surely it is not intended to make fish of one and flesh of another?

Suggest corrections