HYPOCRISY OF AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY GOVERNMENTS REGARDING THEIR VIEWS ON RETROSPECTIVITY.

Australian & QLD Labor Parties cut from the same cloth but display opposing policy on retrospectivity and unintended consequences - hypocrisy.

(Article published on Medium website 20 October 2018 - hypocrisy-of-australian-labor-party-governments-regarding-their-views-on-retrospectivity )

The Australian (National) Labor Party and the QLD (State) Labor Party are effectively ‘cut from the same cloth’.

So why is it that both of the Labor Parties can be so opposing in certain policy views?

I refer to the recent article published 19 October 2018 by ABC reporter Nassim Khadem titled, “Expats could face large capital gains tax bills under proposed laws”. The article refers to the plight of expats who have been caught out by the Liberal government’s scrapping of the Primary Residence Capital Gains Tax exemption for Australian Non-Residents.

Link here: expats-face-large-capital-gains-tax-bills-under-proposed-laws

Chris Bowen ‘s expressed concerns over retrospectivity and unintended consequences

Australian Labor Party’s Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen wrote to the then Treasurer at the time Scott Morrison saying that, while he supported the measure in principle, he was concerned about the “unintended consequences” it would have on expats, because of the retrospectivity.

Palaszczuk’s retrospective legislation and resulting unintended consequences

I now refer to the Palaszczuk led Queensland (QLD) Labor government and their Land Tax and Absentee Surcharge amendments in the 2017 Budget. They implemented retrospective legislation to capture the new Absentee surcharge backdated to the beginning of the financial year on 1 July 2016.

In other words, if you were outside Australia for more than 6 months before the legislation was passed, you were subject to the Absentee laws. Even if you did not even own the property yet, in the period you were overseas, they still regard you as an Absentee, and therefore still liable for the taxes.

There are many unintended consequences that have arisen as a result. Many people were caught unaware and have been financially devastated due to the extremely high taxes.

This is the absolute hypocrisy of the Labor governments and show that they cannot be trusted at all. Can Chris Bowen’s comments really be trusted as sincere concerns in the face of Premier Palaszczuk’s brutal and retrospective Land Tax & Absentee Surcharge laws?

What is Chris Bowen’s opinion on the retrospective QLD Land Tax and Absentee Surcharge on Australian citizens? And what does he think about the subsequent consequences of the amended laws? I would like to hear his comments.

It is more likely just a political point scoring attempt by Bowen with the hope/oversight there would be no policy link drawn between them.

Too late for many expats now already sold or selling their property as the deadline looms and selling opportunities reduce before proposed deadline

This is not to mitigate the Liberal government’s extremely poor form either with the way they have treated non-residents owning property as a Primary Residence, leaving them ‘hanging on a limb’ in a state of anxiety whilst still procrastinating over a Bill that is said to be most likely passed. The Australian Tax Office (ATO) believes so.

The deadline to sell your property is virtually ‘two minutes to midnight’. With the addition of falling clearance rates and a prolonged market downturn means that many have had to sell anyway.

Others like me are in the process of selling, already having outlaid thousands of dollars in preparation to sell. As a result, lives have been and are being up-heaved and disrupted.

If there were any reversal of Liberal’s proposed Bill from this point, it would be way too late for many of us. The damage has been done. This has been extremely poor treatment of Australian citizens, causing severe stress, both emotionally and financially. The negative repercussions for many are enormous.

It always seems to be the case that the governments in charge only focus on the revenue that can be raised and not the consequences. Or rather, they turn a blind eye to the latter. Both parties are guilty of this.