Land Tax

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (14:55): My question is again to the Premier. Why does the Premier claim his latest proposals provide a land tax cut of $90 million when his Treasurer told radio this morning that the government would be collecting more revenue under this latest package?

Mr Malinauskas: Because it's a tax increase!

The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I find that sort of outburst grossly disrespectful. I have asked you to cease doing that sort of thing today. You can leave for the remainder of question time.

The honourable member for Croydon having withdrawn from the chamber:

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order: standing order 97, sir.

The SPEAKER: Why does the Premier claim something when the Treasurer said something else? You have had some pretty good arguments today, Minister for Education; that is probably not the best one. I am going to allow the question. Premier.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL (Dunstan—Premier) (14:55): Thank you very much, sir. I am happy to answer this question, although it seems to me quite a diversion from the practice that I have observed in this chamber since I came to parliament of not speaking regarding bills when they are before the house, but—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Like the bank tax?

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —this seems to be the new norm in question time and I'm happy to answer the question.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The reforms that we have—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Premier, please be seated for one moment. I know that the member for West Torrens and the member for Lee may have a specific view about questions that were asked when the bank tax was on the Notice Paper. I have taken them into account. The Premier has the call, and I would like to hear the Premier's answer, because that would enable me to give the member for Lee another question. Premier.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Thank you very much, sir, and I'm happy to answer this question and clarify the situation, because those opposite—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Lee, be quiet!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —are struggling. I'm happy to talk about the reforms that we propose that will come into effect on 1 July next year and then two years after that. I think they are important reforms, and they come in a number of packages: one is an increase in the threshold, which was announced in not last year's budget but the budget before; the second is to deal with the rates issue; and the third is to do with aggregation.

With regard to the first item, we plan to lift the threshold from $391,000 to $450,000 on 1 July next year. In addition to that, we propose aggregation, and we have outlined the detail of that aggregation. I think it's one of the most liberal versions of aggregations that exists, which does provide people to not have aggregation between husband and wife, to not have their principal place of residence aggregated, and to also have other investments that are not aggregated, as has been outlined by the Treasurer previously. But there is a form of aggregation, and it's an important reform, because I think it will result in a fairer system for South Australia. The third area is the area that—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: Why are you terrified of the truth?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I'm sorry?

The SPEAKER: The member for Lee is warned for a second and final time. Member for Lee, I ask you to cease interjecting, or you will be leaving.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The third area, though, is absolutely critically important, and for some reason this seems to be the issue that some of our opponents are obsessively against. We want to basically move from a top rate of 3.7 per cent to something which is more closely aligned with the national average. In fact, if we look at the average of the mainland states of Australia, the average is 2.4. That is what we propose as our top marginal rate, which would initially kick in at the threshold of $1.35 million, and then two years thereafter would be raised by another $250,000 to $1.6 million

This is a very important reform because it makes us more competitive. By making us more competitive, it will bring more investment dollars into South Australia. This will create jobs, create a stronger future for the people of South Australia—and that's what this is actually all about. Those three things taken together will result not in an increase in taxation to government coffers but actually a reduction of $90 million over a three-year period.

I am not specifically aware of the reference made—they didn't introduce that into their question—but I make the point that those three reforms taken together will provide $90 million worth of tax relief to the people of South Australia, kicking in on 1 July next year, and there is only one thing that stands between that massive tax cut, the largest land tax cut in the history of this state, and the people of South Australia. There is only one thing that stands in front—and that is Labor.