Land Tax (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 30 October 2019.)

Clause 1.

The CHAIR: Despite extensively examining the clauses, we are on clause 1, and I see the member for Kaurna on his feet.

Mr PICTON: Thank you very much, Chair. It is my pleasure again to make a contribution in regard to the Land Tax (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill as it is currently called and particularly raise some concerns about the fact that it is called that and how misleading and deceptive it is to the people of South Australia.

When we were last here—it feels like only hours ago—we were making a number of points in relation to the naming of this bill and the approach that the government has taken against what would seem to be the standards that have been set in accepted practice of naming conventions for bills to name this a miscellaneous bill. I asked the Attorney-General a series of questions—and people can review Hansard to see those questions in detail—about how that came about, who was involved, what political decision-making there was and, importantly, whether the decision to name the bill happened at the end of the process rather than at the beginning.

Clearly, the precedent and accepted practice—and I quoted from what some would call the bible of regulation, Drafting Legislation: Art and Technology of Rules Regulation by Helen Xanthaki—made it clear that it should happen at the end. The Attorney-General dismissed all the questions to the house. She said, 'Oh, well, have a look at the answers I gave to the member for West Torrens.' I have gone back and checked that, and they do not answer the questions I asked. It is seemingly dismissive of the parliament, which we have come to expect, not to have proper answers to those sorts of questions.

I also mentioned last night that, looking at the works in terms of the standards and practice and some of the academic works that have been published about how we name our legislation and the importance of that, one name comes up again and again, and that is Graeme Orr and his work looking at this matter. I quoted part of his contribution from Papers on Parliament No. 46 December 2006, where he talked about some of the attempts to politicise the names of legislation. To go on from what I quoted last night, he states:

But to give a picturesque example of how spin-doctoring corrodes valuable distinctions, consider the spate of commonwealth bills with sloganeering titles in recent years. The Workplace Relations (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill of 1999 adopted the PR title of the Liberals’ election policy. The New Tax System Acts spurned the term 'GST'. Not all such perversions are the fault of government, though we may be more forgiving of oxygen-starved private members coming up with beauties such as the Quieter Advertising Happier Homes Bill…and the Migration Amendment (Act of Compassion) Bill 2005…The purpose is to put motherhood slogans into the mouths of the media, and through that, to lull the critical faculties of busy citizens.

This is important because there are two ways in which the legislation titles, in my view, can be corrupted: one is these overspun, over-PR'ed titles that are attempting to sell something to the public just in the title of a bill, and the other is what we have here in the clear example of spinning in a different way: spinning saying, 'There's nothing to see here, very miscellaneous changes being made to this legislation,' when we know that they are very significant, and you just had to go to any of the forums we held on this side to know that. Even the Attorney-General herself noted that a number of people in her electorate have raised concerns with her directly. Clearly, there are concerns about this and it is hardly 'miscellaneous' at all.

I was also drawn to another piece of work by Graeme Orr, this time a joint authored work with his collaborator Joo-Cheong Tham. It was published in Work and Employment and entitled, 'The Fair Work Act and other names of shame'. Far be it from me to criticise a Labor legislative bill that was passed in in the federal parliament, but that is the title of his piece. It includes some very interesting discussion about how legislation should be named and some of the ways that, unfortunately, in recent years has not been named appropriately. The co-authors say: 'The title of a piece of legislation should serve a simple, single purpose. It ought provide a descriptive handle.'

That is what we are asking for here. That is what we are asking the government to consider here: a proper description of what the government is seeking to do. I hope that when we get further into this debate we will see some amendments on this measure, and certainly I am considering that as this debate progresses. I think it would be appropriate to have something that meets the standard of Orr and Tham when they say it needs to have a 'simple, single purpose' as a descriptive handle. They go on to say:

Think of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), the Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth) or the various Industrial Relations Acts. 'This is the field I regulate and this is what you call me.'

That is an important statement because this is what the government is seeking to do. It is saying, 'This is a miscellaneous bill. We're just seeking to do miscellaneous work.' We know that that is not the case. We know that this is a significant reform. We know it is the biggest change that this new government—less new now—since their election have sought to make in the parliament. These are the biggest changes that they have sought to do, but they are trying to slip it through as 'miscellaneous'. Orr and Tham go on to say:

Language of course is not always so simple. What forms the Unfair Contracts Act to one sub-contractor may, to the powerful corporation who hires that sub-contractor, read as the Unmaking the Sanctity of Contracts Act.

Legislative titling is an arcane field, negotiating the boundaries of the legislative and administrative processes of government.

Here we have the legislature, us, raising concerns with what the executive is trying to do here. There is a significant history in terms of this. They go on to say:

In theory, Parliaments can amend the title of a Bill or Regulation. (Short and long titles, the preamble or recital and purpose clause have been described as 'amendable descriptive components': Bennion F, Statutory Interpretation (2nd ed. Butterworths, London, 1992) pp 496-506.)—

one of my colleagues might want to look up that in more detail—

But in practice Parliaments no more debate, let alone meddle with, legislative titles than they do the headings to statutory parts and sections.

There they are saying, 'Well, we do have the power to do it, but seldom is it actually done. Seldom does parliament actually get involved in the titles, but we do have the power to do that.' I think that is what we are seeking—to make sure in this debate we appropriately tighten our legislation and act as a parliament, not just as a rubber stamp for the executive in how they do this. Orr and Tham continue:

Naming legislation is thus an act of executive fiat—

nothing sounds more appropriate for the Attorney-General than an 'executive fiat'—

exercised by the Minister who brings the ultimate bill to Cabinet. Yet the tradition was that Ministers, like Parliaments, concerned themselves with the substance of legislation, not its form. At best, there was a Cabinet veto on inappropriate legislative titles, rarely used. Instead, the matter was in the hands of the departmental staff and parliamentary counsel who drafted the flesh of the written law on the skeleton of government policy.

Here we get to the crux of the matter, which is my question to the Attorney-General as to what involvement did ministers, cabinet, ministerial staff members and PR spin doctors have in the drafting of this. I asked a series of questions: was there any discussion with parliamentary counsel about the name, was there any directive that was had with parliamentary counsel and did parliamentary counsel have free rein to determine the title that they thought best in this matter, rather than any input from the government in doing that?

As Orr and Tham make very clear, that is not what should happen. Government should decide on the policy and government should decide on what its policy objectives are, and impartial public servants and impartial parliamentary counsel should get on with the drafting. Ministers should not be worrying themselves about what should be the title of that bill, because we should have appropriate titles that reflect the contents. As was said in Xanthaki's work, that should be done after the legislation is drafted, not before. They go on to say:

As a quick glance at historical British statutes will reveal, the widespread use of the 'short titles' with which we now routinely cite legislation is a relatively recent innovation. It dates to the housekeeping indexes of the UK Short Titles Acts of 1892 and 1896.

We might want to look into that further. Oddly and regrettably, about a decade ago this straightforward Westminster practice became politicised, and we are seeing another example of that happening here today. Slogans, and even puns, started appearing in legislative titles in Australia, producing travesties—

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order: standing order 128. Let it not be said in the course of this committee that the point of order was not raised directly in relation to the serial indulgence that has occurred. The member on his feet is perhaps not the worst offender.

Mr Picton: Is there a point of order? Have you got a point of order? What is the point of order?

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, the member for Heysen has identified his point of order: standing order 128. He is speaking to that.

Mr TEAGUE: The member who is on his feet perhaps is not the worst offender in this regard, but there is ongoing indulgence in irrelevant and tedious repetition.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: It's happening right now actually from your tedious and unparliamentary point of order.

The CHAIR: Thank you, member for Heysen. Thank you, member for Lee. I will consider the point of order. It relates to standing order 128, which is irrelevance or repetition. I agree with the member for Heysen, in that the member for Kaurna has not been the worst offender.

Mr Picton: I have not been an offender at all.

The CHAIR: In fact, member for Kaurna, you will be pleased to know that I have been listening carefully, particularly in consideration of standing order 128, and I am happy to say that I find that your contribution so far, even though it has been lengthy, with just five minutes to go, has been related back to the short title, with reference to that, all the way through.

Ms Cook: I remember the Magna Carta speech.

The CHAIR: Hang on, member for Hurtle Vale. I made a ruling on this standing order against a couple of speakers from the opposition last night. I do not feel that the member for Kaurna has breached it to the extent that they did, so, with five minutes to go, please continue.

Mr PICTON: Thank you very much, Chair, and I thank you for your ruling on this matter. I have sought to make sure that I am adding to the contribution of this debate appropriately.

The Hon. A. Piccolo: You have. You have.

Mr PICTON: Thank you, member for Light. As I was saying, if you look at the work of Orr and Tham, they say:

Slogans, and even puns, started appearing in legislative titles in Australia, producing travesties such as the Roads to Recovery Act 2000 (Cth), a punny title for an electorally significant scheme for the maintenance and improvement of significant roads (see Orr G. 'From Slogans to Puns: Australian Legislative Titling Revisited' (2001) 22 Statute Law Review 160).

So we have seen that over the past couple of decades it has got significantly worse. I think that this is a point at which the parliament should say, 'This is enough. We need to draw a line here and make sure that this doesn't continue in this parliament.' The parliament should make sure that this bill, which clearly we have a significant number of issues with and this is the first of many, is done appropriately in its title to make sure that it represents the contents of the bill. They then go on to say:

What is the ancestry of sloganeering in legislative titling? As mentioned earlier, titles are a relatively recent phenomenon. They became a necessary technology when the statute books started to swell in the second half of the 19^th century, as society grew more complicated and modern, reformist government emerged. The older tradition of 'long titles' provided not names for reference and identification, but a prolix description, whose purpose was to circumscribe parliamentary debate on each measure.

The complexity of modern legal administration meant that it was no longer sufficient to refer to legislation by regnal year and chapter number (or today's equivalent of the calendar year and Act number). Prior to the instigation of short tiles, only a few foundational pieces of legislation were dubbed with special titles, e.g. in honour of some statesman (Lord Campbell's Act (aka Fatal Accidents Act 1846 (UK)). Occasionally, some fundamental constitutional reform would become lauded with a grand title, like the Magna Carta or the Great Reform Act (the latter being a major step towards universal suffrage).

Clearly, this has a significant history. Given the shortage of time, I am happy to have—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: That hasn't been a consideration to date.

Mr PICTON: The Attorney-General can move an extension of my time if she wishes. I will point out a few other things. They raise some particular examples of what has happened in the US. People might remember the USA PATRIOT Act. That was actually an acronym. People might not know this, but the actual title of that act was the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act 2001. The acronym was the USA PATRIOT Act.

Likewise, it was a piece of legislation where the title was devised to enable the government to sell its message. It was there to say, 'Look at this amazing bill.' In this case, it is to say, 'Don't look at this bill. This bill has significant issues with it.'

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, would you like to remind me and other members of your question to the Attorney.

Mr PICTON: Yes, I would like to.

The CHAIR: Thank you. With seconds to go.

Mr PICTON: Can the Attorney-General definitively state that no political staff—no Treasurer, no minister—suggested titles to parliamentary counsel and that parliamentary counsel determined the title after the bill had been drafted?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thank the member, in outlining his question, for at least referring to a text of some interest, unlike the member for West Torrens who came in with the wrong set of guidelines, which were applicable in the commonwealth parliament. So I congratulate him on that.

As interesting as it may have been, I repeat, in response to the first and second questions raised by the member for West Torrens at the commencement of this committee, firstly, that the title came from parliamentary counsel with the first draft. I am advised that there was no change or request to that draft through the course of the bill, which goes through various processes to get to the parliament, and that what you have before you in a short title is exactly the same short title that applied at the time of the first presentation from parliamentary counsel.

I was further advised by the head of parliamentary counsel, after we got up last night in committee, with the descriptor of 'miscellaneous', that it is common practice and appropriate for parliamentary counsel, when they have three or four areas of subject matter in a reform in a bill—in this case, the Land Tax Act being reformed—to describe it as 'miscellaneous' so as not to present a position where one area of reform has special prominence above another.

If it were simply the 'land tax (aggregation variation) bill', it would fail to recognise that there is an accommodation of a rate change which, in reading the bill, others may see as more important to them. To ensure that there is no preference given to one part of the reform where there are multiple areas of reform that is the practice. I hope that assists the member in understanding why we rely on the expertise and professional advice that we have from parliamentary counsel and why they serve this parliament so well.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I would like to speak to clause 1 and add to the debate. I will make every endeavour not to repeat anything that has been said to date, but I would like to add some commentary. I will particularly add some commentary to what was started by the member for Kaurna because I think he is actually on the right track here in terms of the various issues he has raised. I know there may be some opposite who may think this discussion is vexatious and perhaps unjustified—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order: at no time has there been an assertion from anyone on this side of the house that the contribution in relation to this is vexatious.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That's right. The member for Heysen—

The CHAIR: No, the member for Heysen raised a point of order in relation to one of the standing orders. I made a ruling on that. There have been points of order raised during the debate. At no point was the word 'vexatious' used, so I might ask you to withdraw that suggestion.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Point of order: I think it is commonly understood that a meaning of the term 'vexatious' is to frustrate. I do not think it is drawing any form of bow, let alone a long one, to say that there is a difference between the point of order that the member for Heysen raised in terms of being repetitive and hence providing repeatedly to the house the same information which of course would then have the impact of using up more of the house's time and frustrating the house in doing its business. I do not think that is a stretch.

The CHAIR: Member for Lee, I ruled against that point of order that was raised by the member for Heysen, if you recall.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Mr Chairman, perhaps I will clarify the terms in the—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Let me finish. I can speak in my defence.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order.

The CHAIR: Member for Light, take your seat, please. There is a point order.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: It is 137: obstruction. The member for Light has refused to accept the authority of the Chair by complying with your instruction.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: No, I am not going to accept that point of order. That is done. Member for Light, I will ask you to withdraw the word 'vexatious', please, and then you can get on with your 15-minute contribution.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Thank you. I will withdraw the term 'vexatious' and perhaps a more appropriate term would be that some members may believe—I am not accusing them—that perhaps some of this debate may have been unnecessary.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Let me finish. That is my interpretation as I see it. The point I am trying to make—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Members will cease interjecting.

Mr Pederick: You want to check your room.

The CHAIR: Member for Hammond!

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The point I would make is that rather than it being unnecessary, I think it is very necessary. In fact, last night gave me the opportunity to research this matter about short titles and the importance of short titles when it comes to legislation. There is quite a body of academic work—I am surprised that the member Heysen is not aware of this, but he may be, and he may elaborate soon—on the importance of short titles and the role they play in the political and parliamentary process.

The CHAIR: Member for Light, we have all become very well versed in the importance of the short title and we are about to discover more.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: You are absolutely right, sir. I intend to enlighten you and the members of this chamber further. There is one article I read last night that is very relevant to this bit, and I will come to the point about why it is relevant, entitled, 'Are short bill titles a form of deceptive advertising?'That is the nature of this article and it talks about how people who propose short titles in bills can use and misuse them to convey a message. In this case, my argument would be—and I will read from the article:

Short titles may serve useful purposes in that they could facilitate discussion and reference to legislation, but such titles often serve another perhaps less noble purpose…

In this case, I would argue that this short title is designed perhaps for less noble purposes. In other words, it was designed to deceive or hide what is in this bill. The article goes on to say:

Some would argue that unrealistic short titles serve a useful purpose in that they inspire us and provide hope.

But, interestingly, they go on to say whether short titles should be subject to the same rules as in marketing as for people in business where the short title should not be allowed to be misleading and deceptive and should actually be subject to normal commercial laws about misleading the community.

Then I found another article, again in this body of work about short titles. It is quite a well-written area. In fact, Mr Chair, you will be pleased to know one short title matter was actually discussed in the Supreme Court of the United States; that is where the matter went to. It was actually adjudicated upon in the Supreme Court of the United States because words count and are very important, particularly in the law. This article says in its summary:

This past summer saw the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in United States v. Windsor, and while the case has generated copious amounts of commentary and scholarship, relatively little attention has been paid to the case's discussion of bill short titles. Central to the case's analysis was a dispute over the role of short titles in inferring legislative purpose, and given this dispute, this Remark will argue that it's time for [Congress to think about a naming authority for short titles because they can be used to mislead.]

The article goes on to say, 'In addition to taking the focus off the substantive nature of legislation, and placing,' which is a very important point. In other words, you can use a short title to deflect attention away from what the bill is about. I will come to an important conclusion at the end of my 15 minutes. The article continues:

Short titles are used as framing and marketing devices and indeed, these few words are now viewed by lawmakers and others as an important aspect of the legislative process.

I would argue that this government in trying to use this very benign short title has tried to hide the impact of this bill from people who are going to be affected by it. The article states:

While the legislative process is inherently complex and competition in Congress remains fierce, at the very least elected officials should not mislead citizens through the titles of legislation.

So the short title of this bill should reflect and talk about the things it does. I agree with the member for Bragg that this bill covers many areas. I do not disagree with her at all. However, to suggest that this bill does not have a very key element and other matters in my view would be wrong. It has a key element. The biggest element of this bill is aggregation. That is a key element. I say 'key element' because that is what the Treasurer and the Premier said. They have both said on a number of occasions they are turning on this particular issue. This is a key element. The fact that the word 'aggregation' is missing from this short title, I think, is misleading. It does have 'other matters'; it certainly does have 'other matters', but we can come to that in a moment.

I read another important article on this matter, titled 'Processes, standards and politics: drafting short titles in the Westminster parliament, Scottish Parliament and US Congress'. It talks about how they do it differently and the importance of short titles to convey the right message. I will not quote extensively from the article for your benefit, Mr Chair. I am sure you can read it at your leisure. The question I would like to ask the Attorney-General is whether she would be prepared to alter the short title of this bill so that it more accurately reflects the intention of the bill.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I indicated last night, the answer to that is no. As I have indicated to each of the speakers who have made a contribution to date on this matter, wallowing in their dissatisfaction of a descriptor, to date I have not seen any amendment to that effect. I know there has been 14 days to do it, but you are entitled to put that to the committee for it to be considered.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: In that case, I will take that advice. I move to amend the short title as follows:

Delete 'miscellaneous' and insert in lieu thereof:

Retrospective application of aggregation and other matters

So that the short title will now read:

The Land Tax (Retrospective application of aggregation and other matters) Amendment Bill 2019.

The CHAIR: Member for Light, can we have a seconded copy of that? We will circulate that and you can speak to your amendment.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I would like to speak to my amendment. This amendment more accurately reflects both the intention and purpose of this bill. It conveys to the community quite clearly what this bill seeks to do. The biggest element of this bill—and no-one has denied it; not even the people on the other side have denied it—is the aggregation of a number of properties for land tax purposes. That element is also perhaps the most contentious part of this bill. Given those facts, I think that should be in the title of the bill to ensure that the intention and purpose of the bill is conveyed very clearly.

The other matters that the Attorney-General referred to are also covered in the bill title by 'other matters'. If I put every matter in there, it would not be a short title: it would be a book in its own right. With those comments, I seek the support of this chamber for my amendment.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I rise to indicate that the proposed amendment is opposed and I have nothing further to add.

Mr BROWN: I would like to speak in favour of the amendment of the member for Light. I, like other members of this place, spent some time following the debate last night and listening to a number of questions from members. I heard a number of views from members about the government's decision to give the bill this particular title.

I note that there was what appeared to be a constant refrain from the government of, 'Well, if you are not happy with the particular title that the bill has been given, then you may go ahead and move an amendment of your own to seek the change the title of the bill.' I am very pleased that the member for Light has done so. I think the member for Light's title of the bill is much more appropriate than what has already been chosen. In coming to my conclusion as to why I thought the member for Light's title of the bill was more appropriate than that which the government had originally drafted, I was reminded of a couple of people who spoke with me during the general policy debate on this particular issue.

One particular story stood out in my mind as being very appropriate in making a decision on what this bill should be called. A person came to my office and said to me, 'I don't know what I am going to do with my personal finances, given that the government is changing this land tax policy. My wife and I have saved over the years and we've worked very hard to put together a very modest portfolio of properties.' In fact, this particular person had, I think, three or four different residential properties. In fact, they rented them to people of very modest means. I think they are very good to their tenants. They are very understanding of people who are often in difficult circumstances and find it difficult to pay rent on a regular basis due to their personal circumstances. This person told me that the changes the government will make, particularly to bring in aggregation in a retrospective fashion, would hit them dramatically.

These people had followed the advice of an accountant at the time that they wished to start their portfolio—very wisely, I must say—and had been told to set up a particular structure. Due to what the government is doing, that structure will now impact them quite dramatically, and with retrospective effect. That is one reason why I think the amendment moved by the member for Light should be supported, and that the parliament should reject the original wording that the government has chosen for this bill.

One of the things this person raised with me that I was quite struck by was that they could not understand why a government that pretends to be in favour of the small investor and small businessperson would do that to someone who had built up a modest portfolio over the years. The government tells us that this bill is all about fixing a 'rort'.

I reject the idea that people who follow the law of the land as it stands and receive proper advice—which is what we always tell people they should do when they are setting up business structures so that they do not have unintended consequences—and set up these structures, only to be told by a government that pretends to be in favour of small business people that they are rorters. I think that sort of behaviour is quite shameful.

I think it is also wrong for the government to seek to hide what they are doing in a piece of legislation by giving it a bland name such as the 'miscellaneous' bill. As the member for Light so eloquently said, a name that actually says what the bill does, so that the piece of legislation says what it does on the tin, would be much more helpful. That is another reason why I think this particular amendment moved by the member for Light should be supported.

Another reason I think the amendment of the member for Light should be supported is that it is important for general members of the public, particularly those who are seeking to understand the laws that apply in our state so that they can better understand each particular bill the parliament debates and potentially passes.

Often members of the public will look at a list of bills, not just those who are studying or who are students of what the parliament is doing, but even general members of the public will look at a list of bills that we have passed, and find it difficult to understand what each of those bills does. I think having a much more appropriate title would make it much easier for members of the public to understand the business of this parliament and it might even help to bring back a little bit of respect that people seem to have lost in their government.

I know this government, so it is best perhaps to take away some of that respect, but this is a chance for this parliament to take a stand to try to put some of that respect back. I think that those members who are mindful of that will certainly vote in favour of the amendment, moved by my colleague the member for Light, who I know over many years has tried to bring back respect and order in this parliament. He was a very good Chairman of Committees himself at one stage—as are you, Mr Chairman.

I think if members were to cogitate the amendment passed by the member for Light and to consider the proposition put forward by the government, which is that the amendment is not acceptable and that the current obfuscated term 'miscellaneous' is better than that moved by the member for Light, I would be very disappointed if members voted in favour of what the government is saying. But I think all members of this house who properly seek to represent those in their electorates who could be potentially dreadfully affected by this bill the government is moving, would be happy to see a much more appropriate title introduced. I implore all members to support the member for Light's amendment.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I rise to speak in support of the member for Light's amendment. We have spent some time in this place bemoaning the inaccurate nomenclature that has been attached to this bill in the short title in clause 1 through the use of the term 'miscellaneous' rather than a term or terms that more accurately reflect what this bill seeks to do. That has been at the heart of concerns about the bill, not just of many people in this place, but it has also been at the heart of concerns many members of the community have about what the government intends to do by bringing this bill before the house.

Let's be clear. This bill is solely designed to increase land tax revenue to government coffers. Any assertion that this is a tax cut is wrong. There was a tax cut provided by the parliament on the request of the government, but that was last year, and the government is now seeking to claw back the majority of those through the application of these significant changes to aggregation arrangements.

The term that I think deserves some attention in considering this amendment the member for Light has put is 'retrospective' because many people in the community have contacted members of parliament, not just members of the opposition, but those opposite as we are also aware, complaining that the government is seeking to apply a changed land taxation regime to the landholdings which they have held in most instances for many years. They have purchased land, they have invested in land and they have established their personal arrangements and sought to derive their livelihoods around those land interests based on how the land tax act of the day would apply to those land interests.

As I outlined to the house both in my second reading speech and also in my earlier contributions on this clause, for the past generation following the change of government in 2002, there has only been one trajectory for land tax policy in this state, and that has been to provide land tax relief and to provide additional categories of land with exemptions from the land tax regime.

That trajectory now is undermined by this bill where the government seeks to change the aggregation arrangements in a way that will raise more revenue from the community for its coffers. So, the community feels that, should these aggregation measures pass the parliament, there would effectively be a retrospective application—

The CHAIR: Is there a point of order, Attorney?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I just ask that the committee report progress.

The CHAIR: Well, it is probably a little early. I will take your suggestion, Attorney, but I will give the member for Lee another couple of minutes.

The Hon. A. Piccolo: A wise ruling, Mr Chairman.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As always.

The CHAIR: Continue, member for Lee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I was reflecting on the concerns of the community about how they feel these changes to the aggregation arrangements in the land tax bill would punitively apply to the landholdings that many had amassed often over previous decades. The rationale for the government in making these changes has been the constant assertion by the Treasurer that it is fundamentally unfair for people who own 12 properties—and the examples change from the Treasurer—to make use of different ownership structures, including trust structures or company structures, and pay no land tax.

We have consistently asked the government, 'Well, show us the modelling. How many landowners are in that situation?' Of course, we have never seen those details, because (a) I suspect that the modelling does not exist and is a furphy the Treasurer repeatedly claims publicly and (b) I think that it would also come to light that if indeed it was able to be established that there are landholdings in these situations, then it would be a very small number of landowners who would be availing themselves of those arrangements. Of course, we could then have a debate, if the government truly wanted to establish equity in regard to those arrangements, on a very specific bill targeted at that very specific problem, but instead we have a broad-based approach to change the aggregation arrangements to raise more revenue for the government.

The term of this amendment from the member for Light is not just timely, given that we have only just started debating the first clause of this bill, but it also serves as an important reminder of what the bill seeks to do.

The CHAIR: Thank you, member for Lee. I have a motion from the Attorney-General that the committee report progress.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 12:58 to 14:00.