Stamp Duties (Transfers Exemption) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 March 2016.)

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (10:32): It is a pleasure to rise on this piece of legislation introduced by the member for MacKillop. It is only relatively small, but I think it sets a very important precedent for what this parliament should be considering and how it intends to use the advice given as part of parliamentary debate when it comes to the implementation of laws.

I commend the member for MacKillop for bringing this to the house, and I have thoroughly reviewed his introductory speech from 24 March, when he spoke to the intent of the legislation. He gave me the opportunity for a conversation before that on the circumstances surrounding it. I completely agree with the position he has taken, and I am proud of the fact that the Liberal Party, on becoming aware of this, has brought it in via private members' legislation. I commend the member for what he is doing for his constituents.

As I am advised, in 1993, when Mr Frank Blevins as then state treasurer was debating legislation in this chamber, and there was consideration of a question posed by the Hon. Stephen Baker to Mr Blevins about the application as it related to stamp duty on transfers, a level of clarification was provided in this chamber which should have meant this legislation was not necessary. I am a very strong believer in the fact that when questions are asked in the committee stage, often many times across the chamber, the clarification given by the minister should be used as the guide for how the legislation is to be interpreted, potentially how regulations are to be drafted and what its implications are.

At a personal level, I used it extensively during the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill when the member for Enfield, the Minister for Planning, and I debated the legislation for 10½ hours at the committee stage because I wanted his words to be used as a guide for consideration in the other place about the implications and the intention of the legislation.

When the member for MacKillop became aware of this and spoke to me about what were, at one stage, three adjoining parcels of land which were sold and later became a fourth parcel of land, the determination was made by the commissioner of taxation and the implementation of a far more impactful dollar value attached to the stamp duty for the transactions. The member for MacKillop talked to me about the fact that there was very clear guidance given in this chamber. Indeed, it was with a lot of frustration that we found it necessary to put the legislation through.

I would hope that the government's very strong position is that what is debated in this chamber and becomes law, and the comments that are provided as guidance, overrides advice which might be provided by crown law. The member for MacKillop has reaffirmed to me that it was in 2000 that crown law advice was provided to the then commissioner of taxation, from the commissioner's point of view in seeking clarification on the implementation of this, and that there was an opportunity to take a different direction.

The fact that crown law provided that means to me that the legislation did not truly reflect the intention of the parliament or that the review—with any review by a lawyer, a different position can be formed by another lawyer, there is no doubt about that—created a level of uncertainty that in this case has certainly cost good people who are looking to buy property for an opportunity for additional funds. That is where the Liberal Party has a great frustration with it.

The member for MacKillop has put the reasons for it. The necessary change is only really one amendment that includes an additional subsection to section 67(2) by the insertion of words. For the benefit of the Hansard I will repeat them again because I think they are important to enforce all the time:

(ab) a conveyance that relates to a parcel of land that is being conveyed as part of a series—

and that is the importance here—

of separate conveyances of adjoining parcels of land by different persons to the same person—

again, it is the same person—

(whether that person takes alone or with the same or different persons);

It then has to be considered in this way when it comes to the implementation of stamp duty on the transactions. We would all like taxes to be lower, and I understand that, but the fact is they have to exist to provide services to the community. However, there is guidance given, and the parliament is the one that has given that guidance, and another person or, in this, case crown law has provided advice on the implementation of it, where it is not fixed so that the intent of the parliament in the debate on the legislation, even in this case from when it was 23 years ago, is not done by the government of the day. As I understand it, the member for MacKillop has brought this to the attention of the Treasurer, I presume.

Mr Williams interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes, he is nodding his head. He has corresponded with the Treasurer, so we have gone through the process of trying to ensure that there is government level of support for this. That is why I hope that this legislation is not just a matter that sits on our Notice Paper and a vote is not taken because it is important that it does, because this is to fix a wrong. Clearly it is to fix a wrong to ensure that we put in place the system that was always intended, and it was a system that was intended by government members when they had been in government in a past time, too.

This is an example of where the parliament can correct that error, put in place the legislation that was intended and give surety to those people who are looking to do transactions of this type, which are not regular and I understand that. This is not a common occurrence, but it does occur and, where there is an additional cost to that by virtue of interpretation different from what the parliamentarians who put the legislation in place in the first place was, that is wrong.

I commend the member for MacKillop for bringing the legislation to this place. I hope that the government is ready to vote on this very soon because this is a matter that needs to be resolved quickly. I certainly hope that it is done before the budget is delivered, so the timing is rather appropriate. Given that we are two weeks away from the budget, there is an opportunity for it to occur and to make sure that, at least from the 2016-17 financial year, we are not continuing to charge people unnecessarily. I commend the legislation to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.R. Kenyon.