Land Tax

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (14:35): My question is to the Premier. Does the Premier agree with his Treasurer that, in retrospect, his land tax policy could not have been handled differently?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order, sir: I want to be clear because I think that the member was seeking to put a quote in. It is not clear that he was. If it was a paraphrase, it didn't make sense. Under standing order 97, it does suggest that questions should make some sense.

The SPEAKER: That is a bogus point of order. I caught the question.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I will determine whether to kick him out. I understand there were a fair few elements to the question, which is why it could be confusing. However, in terms of the merit of the question, I think the question is within order. I will allow someone to answer. Member for Lee, could we have the question again? Thank you.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Premier. Does the Premier agree with his Treasurer that, in retrospect, his land tax policy could not have been handled differently?

The SPEAKER: I am going to allow that question. Would someone like to answer it?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL (Dunstan—Premier) (14:36): I haven't heard those comments by the Treasurer, but we do accept, as we have stated for a long period of time, that we were not prepared to put the changes through on 1 July because they were complex changes and they required additional work. That is why we said immediately after announcing our position that we would listen to the people of South Australia, who would talk about specific issues with relation to landownership and the levying of land tax. That is precisely what we have done.

We were not in a position on budget day to stick through something on 1 July this year, but we have done the work—the hard work, the grunt work—listening to people. For some reason those opposite are complaining now about a $70 million reduction in land tax.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Lee is called to order and warned.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I suppose in many ways what it does—

Mr Brown interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Playford is warned.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —is it highlights where we were—currently where we are, of course, because we are still under the old regime—and where we are going. Let me tell you a little bit about that.

The land tax rate that we inherited from those opposite at the top marginal rate was 3.7 per cent. How does that compare with the rest of the country? Well, it's a lot higher than New South Wales, at 2 per cent; it's a lot higher than Victoria, at 2.25 per cent; it's a lot higher than Western Australia, at 2.67 per cent; and it's a lot higher than Queensland, at 2.75 per cent, and that's precisely why we listened to people. Not everybody agreed with aggregation. Let's be clear: not everybody agreed with aggregation.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my left, be quiet.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: What people did say was that we want an overall lower land tax in South Australia, that we want a fairer system in South Australia. If you are going to introduce aggregation, you better do something about the threshold and you better do something about the top land tax marginal rates in South Australia and make them more attractive to bring investment dollars into South Australia.

A rate of 3.7 per cent was unsustainable. On the day of the budget we said that we would bring that rate down, from 3.7 per cent to 2.9 per cent, over a period of time. But we also said—and we were very clear about this—that if there was evidence that was presented to us that would show that we would bring in more money, then we would accelerate that rate reduction. That is exactly what we said we were going to do and that is precisely what we have done.

Where we have landed is 2.4 per cent. Yes, we are still above New South Wales and Victoria, but we are below Western Australia and we are below Queensland. We are at the national average, and we would like to go further. We would like it to go further because we are the party that stands for lower taxes in South Australia.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: For some reason those opposite are—

Ms Stinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Badcoe is on two warnings.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: For some reason those opposite are now advocating that we should stop any land tax relief, because this is directly to their narrative over the last 100 years of their political party being in existence. They love taxing people because they believe—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: They believe they are the best people to spend our money. I don't think there is anybody in South Australia who thinks they are the best people to spend the people of South Australia's money.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Lee is warned for a second time.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is why you are not in government. We were elected to get this state moving in the right direction.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We were elected to reform this state and move us in a direction that will keep our next generation in South Australia. We believe we have the balance of this legislation right. It is out for consultation until 2 October and we hope to have that legislation before the parliament on 15 October.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Badcoe can leave for 20 minutes.

Ms STINSON: Thank you, sir.

The SPEAKER: You're welcome. When she does, the member for Lee can have another question and then we will go to the member for King.

The honourable member for Badcoe having withdrawn from the chamber: