STATUTES AMENDMENT (LAND HOLDING ENTITIES AND TAX AVOIDANCE SCHEMES) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (12:53): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Land Holding Entities and Tax Avoidance Schemes) Bill 2011. The member for Davenport has comprehensively and competently outlined a number of aspects of concern about the bill (in its implementation), and has confirmed to the house that, as it is in support of the budget measures announced for the 2010 state budget last year, it will not be opposed by members on this side of the house.

Firstly, I would like to address the delay in the introduction of this bill and the short time that the opposition was given to consider and properly consult on these matters, as is evident from the member for Davenport's contribution, in particular, that one of the stakeholders, who should have been listened to in the first place, did not have the opportunity to progress that information to the opposition.

Whether it got to the government or not, and it did not disclose it, I do not know. However, we have material from the Law Council business committee which, quite frankly, indicates that it should have been given an opportunity to address this matter and to present that to the opposition, and all members of this parliament, before we are asked to progress it.

If there is some excuse—we had an election in March 2010, a budget later that year, and six months later this bill has been introduced—then the government should come clean as to why there has been such a delay. If it were not to deliberately exploit the opportunity to avoid consultation on the basis that this needed to be implemented prior to 1 July 2011—which, as members know, is only weeks away—then the government needs to explain that.

This bill essentially broadens the tax base and will catch a greater number of transactions when a document is being produced for an entity (in this case, to transfer an interest), and that relates to both definition and formula, some of which I want to refer to.

May I also say that it is a bill that purports to avoid any retrospectivity, yet, as has been outlined by other speakers, even though it is be effective on agreements that were entered into after 1 July 2007, even those which were entered into before that date but have settlements post that date have been given some treatment by transitional provisions. But the essence of what the government has presented is that this will be effective in its expanded form post July 2011 and it is not retrospective.

As has been identified by the speakers and, in particular, by the last speaker, our esteemed shadow minister for primary industries and other important duties, including our whip, an effective liability will be imposed on people when a minority interest is transferred under this formula and the whole of the value of the entity is brought into account for the purposes of assessment of the duty. That is a what I call a multiple rate by taxation; that is, you have to pay assessable duty at one level, and, when there is a minority interest to transfer, the whole of the amount then comes up for assessment, based on the value of the whole of that 100 per cent interest. If that is right and it was not the intention of the government to introduce that—

The SPEAKER: Can I remind members of the press in the gallery that they are to film only people on their feet.

Ms CHAPMAN: I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

[Sitting suspended from 12:58 to 14.00]