Land Tax (Discretionary Trusts) Amendment Bill

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (17:01): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable the Land Tax (Discretionary Trusts) Amendment Bill to pass through its remaining stages without delay.

The SPEAKER: An absolute majority not being present, ring the bells.

An absolute majority of the whole number of members being present:

Motion carried.

Second Reading

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (17:01): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Land Tax (Discretionary Trusts) Amendment Bill 2021 (the bill) contains two amendments to, firstly, amend the Land Tax Act 1936 (the LTA) and, secondly, amend the Valuation of Land Tax Act 1971 (the VLA) in order to address issues caused by delays in taxpayers receiving their 2020-21 land tax assessments.

The land tax reform package approved by parliament in 2019 made significant changes to the collection of land tax in South Australia from the 2020-21 financial year. This included large reductions in tax rates and changes to tax thresholds, delivering significant relief to taxpayers along with changes to how land tax is aggregated together for the purposes of calculating land tax and higher rates of tax on land held in certain trusts.

This required major changes to how land tax is assessed and calculated by RevenueSA. RevenueSA has been issuing land tax assessments for the 2020-21 financial year under the new arrangements since October 2020. For a range of reasons, including system complexity and complex landholding ownership structures needing to be reviewed, there are still a number of taxpayers yet to be billed.

Under the reforms to the LTA, a transitional provision was introduced allowing for the nomination of a designated beneficiary for pre-existing trust land—that is, land subject to a discretionary trust as at midnight on 16 October 2019. Where a nomination is made, the trustee is assessed at the lower general rates of land tax rather than the higher trust rates of land tax.

The deadline for nominating a designated beneficiary for pre-existing trust land is 30 June 2021. If a designated beneficiary notice is lodged after 30 June 2021, the late notice cannot be accepted and the trustee is to be assessed at the higher trust rates of land tax. There are no legislative means to extend the deadline.

The first amendment amends the LTA to extend the deadline for nominating a designated beneficiary for pre-existing trust land to 31 December 2021, being a further six months from the current 30 June 2021, and allow for the giving of a notice of a designated beneficiary to take effect for the financial year prior to the one in which the notice is lodged. Under the VLA, a landowner can object to a valuation but must do so within 60 days of receipt of the first notice of the valuation and only while the valuation is in force. Valuations only remain in force for the duration of a financial year, after which they are superseded.

There are no provisions which allow for the consideration of an objection or which extend the period in which to object where a valuation is no longer in force. In most cases a land tax assessment will be the first and only such valuation notice that makes the site value, as opposed to the capital value, apparent to the landowner. The second amendment amends the VLA to extend the time in which an objection to the 2020-21 land site value can occur by allowing an objection to the 2020-21 site value to occur within 60 days after the service of the 2020-21 land tax assessment, even if that assessment is issued in the 2021-22 financial year and the site values it relates to are no longer in force.

This government is committed to ensuring that no unnecessary burden is imposed on the South Australian taxpayers. In line with this commitment, these measures will ensure that trustees of discretionary trusts are able to receive their 2020-21 land tax assessments before deciding whether to nominate a designated beneficiary. The measures also preserve landowners' objection rights on the site value of a property and ensure that they are not disadvantaged by any delay in receiving their 2020-21 land tax assessments. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (17:06): I rise to speak as the lead speaker on behalf of the opposition about this bill, a bill that has been rushed into the parliament by the government at the absolute death knell of the current financial year. There are barely three weeks to go until the end of the financial year, and the government, from its own advice to the media and also to the opposition, is yet to send out somewhere between a quarter and a third of land tax bills under the new aggregation regime, which it announced two years ago this month.

Two years ago, in June 2019, the government announced a new land tax aggregation measure to raise $40 million in extra land tax from South Australian property owners. This was barely 12 months—in fact, much less than 12 months, it was about eight months—after the government had moved to change the Land Tax Act to provide $48 million a year of land tax relief in late 2018.

In late 2018, the government says, 'We promised to deliver land tax cuts. Here are the land tax cuts legislated and supported by the opposition; $48 million a year of land tax relief.' Eight months later, in the next state budget, it says, 'Hang on a minute. We didn't realise that we weren't getting the revenue in through the door that we were expecting. We're now going to increase land tax by $40 million a year.'

It was from that point on that this land tax debacle has encountered or developed chapter after chapter of mishap from this government. Fancy announcing a major tax reform to the land tax regime without knowing how much money the change was going to raise for the government, without knowing who would have to pay the increased land tax obligations and, as we are learning today, how it would administer the new land tax regime. We are in this position, because—as he has had to apologise to the parliament in the other place—the Treasurer and his agency have not been able to administer these changes.

It has been two years since these changes were announced by the government. It has been more than 18 months since they were legislated by the parliament and the government is still unable to send out land tax bills. The government claims, or the Treasurer claims that it is not his fault, it is not RevenueSA's fault, it is not Treasury's fault; it is the fault of those sneaky South Australian property owners for having complex land ownership arrangements. Well, spare me, please. I mean, what a load of rubbish from the Treasurer. What an absolute load of rubbish.

Shortly after the changes to the land tax regime were passed by the parliament, opposed by the Labor opposition, yet still passed on the vote of the Hon. John Darley of the other place, the government decided to embark on a land tax census, something perhaps not seen since the times of Emperor Augustus when everyone was demanded to declare to their ruler, or the Crown in this case, what they owned by writ of threatening letter to landowners.

Around 370,000 letters were sent out to South Australians with bold lettering, highlighted in red, about people's obligations to respond to the government's demand for information. Quite rightly, when people were up in arms over this, the government had to come out and apologise for the threatening tone of those letters saying, 'All we were trying to do is work out who might have to pay these new tax arrangements which we have put in place.' It is just extraordinary—not understanding who would have to pay these changed arrangements.

Now we have had a situation where some people have responded to RevenueSA knowing that they are going to be billed under the new changes to aggregation and billed under the new changes that affect discretionary trusts with land holdings within them. Some people know that they are assessed for land tax on property held at midnight on 30 June in a particular year, and they have made their arrangements accordingly.

Some people, knowing that they were facing very steep increases in land tax bills, sold their properties. Some people have had to rearrange their landholdings accordingly and they have done that quickly. They have done that swiftly in many cases after the passage of the legislation in November 2019. Many people sold properties at that time when the property market was certainly a very different market from what it is today and what it has been over the last few months. So we have had a whole tranche of South Australian property owners who had been coerced by these changes to liquidate their real estate assets, to sell their properties in a market that was certainly not as buoyant as the one we encounter today.

Now we have the government coming in saying, 'You know how we said that we were going to send you a bill for the new regime in the 2020-21 financial year? Actually, we want an extra 12 months to do this.' It is understandable that the other place said to the Treasurer, 'No, 12 months is far too long. That is unreasonable. It is inequitable to those people who have tried to meet the government's time lines, who have responded to the government's demands for information and have managed their property holdings accordingly. You should only have a maximum of six months.'

The Hon. Kyam Maher moved an amendment on behalf of the Labor opposition in the other place that it should only be three months, being, hopefully, a go-to action for the government to finally get its act together and send these bills out. What this means is that, for the six-month additional period from 1 July to the end of December that the government is seeking to send out these bills for the previous financial year, bills will get sent out at the same time that the next year's land tax billing process commences, so some people will receive two land tax bills at roughly the same time.

Some people will receive two land tax bills under the new aggregation and trust arrangements that are much higher than they were previously. Some people, aside from receiving two land tax bills in a matter of weeks during the calendar year 2021, would have taken up the opportunity afforded to them by the government last year of deferring their previous year's land tax bills for the 2019-20 financial year.

So, in a 12-month period, some people are going to be faced with three land tax bills: repaying half their liability for the 2019-20 financial year, having to pay late because it was billed to them late, their 2020-21 financial year liability, and then getting a new bill for the 2021-22 financial year. It is just extraordinary. What is the value of these land tax changes? The government tells us that there was $180 million of land tax deferred from the 2019-20 financial year.

We know from the government's own numbers that the aggregation and trust arrangements are now designed to raise an extra $86 million a year, and so we have that for the 2020-21 financial year, and then a further $86 million to be raised in higher bills for the 2021-22 financial year. So, with $180 million, plus two doses of $86 million, you can see why the prospect of South Australian property owners having to stump up somewhere up to $350-odd million in a six-month period is beyond the pale.

But wait, there is more. We have heard from the Valuer-General that some land values in some council areas are increasing by well over 10 per cent. During the next land tax billing cycle, some people liable for land tax will also be hit by these massive increases to land valuations. Remember, the Valuer-General has made a determination that it is the land valuations—not the improved site valuations—which in many cases have gone through the roof across metropolitan South Australia and even in regional South Australia.

What we have learnt from this government is they love nothing more than fleecing South Australians. Every time they claim they are giving us a little bit of bill relief on the ESL or a bit of bill relief on water bills, that relief is completely swamped, washed away by a tsunami of higher taxes, fees and charges of which land tax is but one. Today, we had ministers in this place tabling regulations to put in place hundreds of increases in fees, charges and state government taxes—this year, fortunately, only by a relatively regular level of about 1.9 per cent or 2 per cent.

But, in the same year that these land tax changes to discretionary trusts were introduced, we saw those taxes, fees and charges increase in many cases by 10 per cent and in some cases by 40 per cent, such as the increase to the solid waste levy, the Premier's private bin tax that all South Australians have to pay through increased council rates. Now that the government has jacked up the price of solid waste on councils, from $100 per tonne to $140 per tonne, council after council after council had to recast their budget in response and increase council rates across metropolitan Adelaide in particular and also regional South Australia.

Not just land tax and not just council rates but motorists have been a favourite target for the Premier and the Treasurer, with a 10 per cent increase to motor vehicle registration costs, a 10 per cent increase to driver's licence fees and a 50 per cent increase to the victims of crime levy for those people who might get caught breaking the Road Rules on occasion. There are further increases for people who might drive a fleet vehicle registered in the name of a company, with a $1,500 increase in the corporate fee, which unfairly targets those people who drive for fleets, such as Rawsons Electrical, for example, or other companies that run fleets of vans, utes and trucks.

These are all increases that have hit South Australians' pockets. Those opposite say, 'Don't worry about what the opposition is telling you on land tax, don't worry about what they are saying about council rates, don't worry about what they are saying about the hit to motorists. We have saved hundreds of dollars for households on state government taxes and fees.' The vast majority of that is bogus.

We have the Minister for Energy in here continuing to claim that he, personally, and his government have delivered—I forget what the figure is—$260 a year relief in electricity. Of course, what he folds into that is the terrific success the Marshall Liberal government has had in making best use of new renewable energy projects in our state, like the battery, for example, and what a contribution that has made to reducing costs. They will also say, when it comes to motorists, 'Look at the CTP reforms that the Marshall Liberal government has delivered.' The only problem is these things were delivered by the former Labor government. They make disingenuous claims about how they have reduced the cost to households—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my right!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —and then, at the same time, they are racking up higher state government taxes, fees and charges. It is just egregious. Even with the emergency services levy, they say, 'We are saving $90 million a year in emergency services levies.' That is just patently wrong, and you only need to look at the reports that are tabled in this place by the Economic and Finance Committee to see where. It is not $90 million; it is nothing like $90 million. It is now more like $30 million.

In the last four years, while the government tried to step down the amount of money raised from households from the ESL by $90 million, they have spent each of those four years increasing that amount of money by a further $60 million from households. The only way they can spin this is to say, 'Well, if the former Labor government was in, then people would be $150 or $160 worse off.' No, no, no. What the former Labor government did not do, which this government is doing, is fold additional expenditure into the emergency services levy and push up the cost to households. That $90 million cut might have existed for the briefest of moments at one point in 2018 but, again, has almost completely been washed away by subsequent increases to the ESL.

You cannot trust this government one iota when it comes to the cost of living because everything they tell you about how they are bringing down costs is either deliberately disingenuous and misrepresenting the facts or there might have been a one-off reduction that is undone by subsequent years' increases to costs. It is just extraordinary—absolutely extraordinary.

Of course, when it comes back to the point on land tax, never has there been a greater demonstration of rushed and poorly made public policy than this measure. Now the government, cap in hand, is asking the parliament for an extra 12 months initially, beaten down to six months by the Legislative Council, to be able to send out these bills.

Fancy telling South Australians in a budget that they had done sufficient work to know that $40 million was going to be raised by this, only to have subsequent modelling done, actual investigation of the measure done by consultants, to show that it would be not $40 million but $118 million a year—a 200 per cent increase on what their budget estimate was; not $40 million but nearly $120 million in higher land tax charges.

The result, of course, is the campaign led by those people who would say to the media, to talkback radio and to the television cameras, 'I always thought the Liberal government would look out for people like me, yet I'm the one who's being skewered by their changes in tax policy.' The people who own the small stores that small businesses are run out of, the people who own tens of thousands of residential rental properties that many South Australians rely on to keep a roof over their heads—these are the people who are being targeted by these changes. So the government were forced over a period of months—like extracting teeth—to make additional concessions to their land tax policy.

The worst thing was that they did not choose to soften the blow on those local South Australians who were going to be stung with this huge amount of extra land tax. Instead, they listened to their close Liberal Party mate Daniel Gannon at the Property Council, who said, 'What would really go down well is if you could give my members—those people who own shopping centres, those conglomerates based in the Eastern States and also overseas—a big land tax cut.'

So those people who own properties almost exclusively valued collectively at more than $1 million dollars got land tax relief to offset the impacts of land tax aggregation, and those South Australians with land valued merely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars copped it in the neck from these aggregation increases. Of course, then there was the impact on trusts. It seemed on the face of it that the government must have assumed that there was only one type of trust that was in existence and that different types of trusts were not being used by people.

When it quickly emerged that there were legitimate and genuine complaints about the attacks on trusts through these land tax changes, the government did their best to label people who had trust holdings as being sneaky or as being capricious, or who were trying to hide away their assets. I do not think that is very fair. I like to think of myself as a fairly gregarious kind of person, particularly to those opposite. You only need to look through the Register of Members' Interests to see which side of politics tends to make best use of trusts and which side of politics does not tend to. Of course, it is those opposite—the members of the Liberal government. I did not see them being so quick to own up to that in the course of this part of the land tax public debate.

We even saw the extraordinary thing of the Premier's own personal staff briefing a national broadsheet newspaper, The Australian, trying to shame a South Australian landowner into being embarrassed about his landholdings in the national paper. What a disgrace. Fancy a government of the day attacking publicly one of its own citizens who was merely doing what thousands of other South Australians were doing, and that was questioning the government's policy on these land tax increases—absolutely outrageous behaviour. These are the same people, I presume, who operate the Premier's and the SALibMedia Twitter account; the same pseudo-anonymous keyboard warriors paid by taxpayers to attack South Australians.

The member for Chaffey may laugh at this; he might think it is a big joke. I wonder how he would feel if it was him and his own private holdings were splashed across a national newspaper to try to further the political interests of the Premier. I am sure he would not be too impressed. That was the position that the Premier put this South Australian in, and that is an absolute disgrace.

Finally, these land tax changes were passed by the parliament by the barest of margins in the other place. The Treasurer was forced into further concessions so that the $118 million a year that these aggregation and trust changes would raise was brought back to that figure that I mentioned before of raising an extra $86 million a year, and then we have the difficulties with RevenueSA trying to work out who should pay these new higher arrangements. It is a sorry saga to think that a state government takes more time and more effort and makes more mistakes introducing this taxation change than John Howard did when he introduced the GST.

I would have thought that introducing a major national taxation reform might be more complex, might be fraught with more dangers, might encounter more difficulties than a state jurisdiction changing one element of an existing tax, but the actions of this government demonstrate the opposite. Apparently, this measure takes longer here in South Australia, it is fraught with more danger, it encountered more obstacles and more mistakes were made along the way.

We support this bill for the only reason that finally this sorry saga needs to be put behind the people of South Australia and these property owners. They have been through the absolute grinder over the last two years. People like to think of many of these property owners facing increased land tax bills as wealthy investors, people with high levels of disposable income who can make marginal investment decisions to invest in land, to invest in properties rather than in other forms of investment for profit, but the reality in many instances is quite the opposite.

Many of my constituents came to Australia in the waves of migrants post the Second World War with little but the shirts on their backs. They got jobs as labourers in the 1950s and 1960s. They worked very hard, sometimes doing jobs well below their skill level, well below their capabilities. They worked very hard. They bought themselves a house. When they were finally able to save up more money than it would cost to keep running the household, where they looked to put that money was to buy another property.

There was no compulsory superannuation arrangements back in the 1960s, in 1970s or even in the 1980s. These were people who were just trying to set themselves up for retirement. It is not uncommon for a constituent to say to me, 'I'm not wealthy. I'm retired. I haven't worked for 15 years. I own my own home. I own two other investment properties, and the net income that my spouse and I survive on each year is about $30,000 from our rental properties.' It is people like that who are getting increased land tax bills of several thousand dollars more than they were previously.

Imagine getting a tax bill that represents an increase of about 10, 15 or 20 per cent of your annual income. That is what is occurring to many of these people. It is a crying shame. Of course people say, 'What's to be done about this in the future?' The problem is that with this bill we are now seeing that some people have taken it on themselves to get out of these properties, to try to liquidate these properties so that they do not have to face these tax bills on an ongoing basis.

Even if we had never gone through this, even if we were able to alleviate the impact of this aggregation change or the imposition of a trust surcharge on them, for many people it is far too late. They have sold their properties. They have moved these properties away from their own beneficial interests. They do not have the advantage of generating any income or investment return from them anymore. In many instances, these people have had their livelihoods shaken to the core by these changes. Unsurprisingly, it is those people who remain really angry at this government for having done that to them.

We were told at the last election there would be lower costs. As I have demonstrated in my contribution, so many times that has been exactly the opposite. This has been a two-year saga that this government has put South Australians through. It is yet another instance of increasing taxes, fees and charges on South Australians, when at the last election they promised the opposite. There are so many South Australians who are massively worse off as a result of measures like this and the many other measures that have been introduced by this government.

I would hope that in the coming state budget finally we would see this government start to relieve the pressure on South Australians. Rather than falsely claiming authorship of energy price reductions, rather than falsely claiming reductions in motor vehicle costs because of CTP reforms that were introduced by the previous government, rather than falsely claiming values of emergency services levy relief and so on, hopefully finally this government will leave South Australian bill payers alone and we can move on from this sorry chapter.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (17:34): The member opposite has provided a fulsome speech about a bill which he and his opposition colleagues support and we thank him for his support.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: How many bills have gone out for the 2021 financial year and how many bills are still to be sent?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am advised that approximately 40,200 bills have gone out and approximately 12,500 are still to go out.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am grateful to the minister for that advice. How many additional staff were dedicated to the effort of getting out their 2021 financial year bills and what is the approximate cost of employing or engaging those staff?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am advised that the commissioner cannot provide an estimate of the FTEs as quite a few staff are also having to do the essential parts of their substantive work, so not 100 per cent on the land tax, and a number of staff are part-time.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Do all the 12,500 bills that are still to be sent out relate to land held in trust?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am advised that that number is not known—that is, the total number for land tax—but the number that relates specifically to trusts is not available at this point in time.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am directing questions to clause 2, the amendment provisions, now. In the contribution by both the minister and the Treasurer in the other place, it has been made clear, and indeed the title of the bill makes it clear, that this is aimed at billing land held in discretionary trust arrangements. I think the advice we had in the question that I asked in the previous clause was that the 12,500 still to go do not all relate just to land held in trust. I think then the subsequent advice was we cannot work out how many of the 12,500 are still to do with trusts and how many are to do with land held in other holdings. Are you able to give a breakdown for the 40,200 that have already been done?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: That information is not available at the moment, but I am happy to take that question on notice. If it is available, with a reasonable and fair amount of work to break it all down, then I am happy to provide that, because this bill of course will go back to the Legislative Council.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Can the minister outline to the house the proposed timetable for the 2021-22 land tax billing cycle?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I have some advice, which I hope is what the member is looking for. In the 2021-22 year, the land tax charges will be based on property values at 30 June/1 July 2021, and the bills would go out as is normal and will continue to be normal in October/November of 2021.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I move:

Part 2—Amendment of Land Tax Act 1936

3—Amendment of section 13A—Land tax for discretionary trust if beneficiary notified to Commissioner

(1) Section 13A(1)—delete '30 June 2021' and substitute '31 December 2021'

(2) Section 13A(3)—after 'or for the' insert 'previous or'

I have an amendment standing in my name, which I am advised was agreed in the other place but, because of the process to do with a money bill, actually needs to be implemented here in our chamber.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My question about the time frame, the six months that was agreed on the other place, which we are now looking to insert into the bill, I guess also relates the next clause, which is about a 60-day period from the issuing of a notice of assessment about a land tax liability. For the remainder of the 2021 billing year, which we are looking to extend by six months, does RevenueSA have an estimate when it will complete its last notice of assessment in order for the last bills to be sent out?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The advice I have is that the intention is to have all those bills that apply to 2020-21 out in the next couple of months.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: For the 2020-21 billing year, how many objections have been received by RevenueSA from land tax payers?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am advised that none have been received, but I am happy to check that and have it verified for you between the houses.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: How many payment arrangements or requests for payment arrangements have been made by land tax payers with RevenueSA?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am advised that information is not available on the spot, but again I am happy to get that for the member between the houses.

Clause passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding, from the briefing provided to me by officers, is that RevenueSA has tried to make available a notice of assessment in advance of the land tax bill so that landowners will have some understanding of what sort of assessment and hence bill is being contemplated by RevenueSA. Is any sort of similar arrangement envisaged for the 2021-22 billing year?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am advised that the government and RevenueSA considered that appropriate and helpful in the transition phase from one land tax regime to a different land tax regime so that people can see what their likely liabilities will be moving from one to the other. However, there is no intention to do that year on year once the new system is fully in place, just as it did not happen year on year previously under the former system.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: For clarity's sake, under the terms of this bill the final date for making a declaration to the commissioner regarding land held in a trust will be 31 December?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes, that is 100 per cent right; 31 December this calendar year for discretionary trusts.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: If someone takes up until towards the end of December—notwithstanding the holiday season, etc.—to make a nomination to the commissioner, I note that an assessment is then issued subsequent to that and then, from that notice of assessment, there will be a 60-day period where they can object to the valuation.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am advised that is correct.

Schedule passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (17:50): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.