<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>Legislative Council</name>
  <date date="2013-11-27" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>52</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>Legislative Council</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="5859" />
  <endPage num="5981" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Bills</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Succession Duties Repeal Bill</name>
      <text id="201311272f59337d21564b8c90000251">
        <heading>SUCCESSION DUTIES REPEAL BILL</heading>
      </text>
      <subproceeding>
        <name>Second Reading</name>
        <text id="201311272f59337d21564b8c90000252">
          <heading>Second Reading</heading>
        </text>
        <text id="201311272f59337d21564b8c90000253">Adjourned debate on second reading.</text>
        <text id="201311272f59337d21564b8c90000254">(Continued from 14 November 2013.)</text>
        <talker role="member" id="605" kind="speech">
          <name>The Hon. R.I. LUCAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <startTime time="2013-11-27T12:20:00" />
          <page num="5875" />
          <text id="201311272f59337d21564b8c90000255">
            <timeStamp time="2013-11-27T12:20:00" />
            <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (12:20):</by>  I rise on behalf of Liberal members to support what is essentially a technical amendment to the succession duties legislation. This legislation was introduced by the government in September of this year and formally repeals the Succession Duties Act 1929.</text>
          <text id="201311272f59337d21564b8c90000256">I note that it was a former Liberal government, under premier David Tonkin in the period 1979 to 1982, who championed significant tax reform during that particular period with the abolition of succession duties, the abolition of gift duties and the abolition of land tax on the principal place of residence. Probably, in the state arena, no other state governments have had a record of the actual reduction or removal of such a wideranging collection of taxes in basically a three-year term of government. From recollection, I think they were all done in that government's first budget.</text>
          <text id="201311272f59337d21564b8c90000257">Sadly, the history of tax reform, I guess, has been either to add additional taxes, charges and levies or, more significantly, we have seen the significant reforms of a federal Liberal government, together with mainly state Liberal governments in the period 2000-2001, when GST was introduced and, through that, a number of state-based and commonwealth-based taxes were removed. Essentially, that was an argument of reform in terms of the removal of taxes and their replacement with a new commonwealth-imposed goods and services tax.</text>
          <text id="201311272f59337d21564b8c90000258">The reforms, including succession duties, of 1979 to 1982 by the former Liberal government of David Tonkin were not about replacing taxes with a significant new tax: they were a significant tax reform in terms of a removal of tax imposts and unfair tax imposts, as they were deemed to be at the time, on many South Australians and their families. That was a decision taken more than 30 years ago but, due to the vagaries of estate law and other related issues, succession duty assessments and refunds continued to be made in relation to those persons who died before that particular date—that is, 1 January 1980—as certain events trigger a liability or an entitlement under the act.</text>
          <text id="201311272f59337d21564b8c90000259">The government advises that, although assessments and refunds are increasingly infrequent events, the technical knowledge necessary to assess succession duty liability and to consider refund applications is difficult to sustain or justify. We are advised that all other Australian jurisdictions have abolished comparable legislation on the basis that the employment of resources required to administer the legislation was not cost-effective. The repeal of the act will remove any confusion as to whether there is any ongoing liability to pay succession duties.</text>
          <text id="201311272f59337d21564b8c90000260">The passage of this bill will give effect to the abolition of succession duty from 1 July 2014, ending any liability from duty that has not been paid from and including 1 July 2014. The bill will also end any potential entitlement to a refund under the act that has not eventuated before 1 July 2014. The bill also further extinguishes any entitlement to a refund that existed prior to 1 July 2014, but in respect of which applications for a refund have not been made on or before 31 December.</text>
          <text id="201311272f59337d21564b8c90000261">The Liberal Party sent the bill to numerous industry groups seeking comment and the member for Davenport advises we received a response from the Law Society indicating that they supported the bill. The member for Davenport advises that no other comments had been received prior to our consideration as a party room in September 2013. For those reasons, we support the passage of the bill.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="1821" kind="speech">
          <name>The Hon. G.E. GAGO</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <electorate id="">Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations</electorate>
          <startTime time="2013-11-27T12:25:00" />
          <text id="201311272f59337d21564b8c90000262">
            <timeStamp time="2013-11-27T12:25:00" />
            <by role="member" id="1821">The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (12:25):</by>  I do not believe there are any further second reading contributions to this bill. This bill is really an administrative bill. It responds to the Succession Duties Act 1929 which was amended in 1979 to exempt from succession duty the estates of persons who died on or after 1 January 1980.</text>
          <text id="201311272f59337d21564b8c90000263">The assessments for these refunds have become increasingly more infrequent, and of course, the technical knowledge necessary to be able to assess the duty liabilities and the refunds is difficult to sustain and to justify. All other jurisdictions, I understand, have abolished comparable legislation on the basis that the employment of resources required to administer this type of legislation has become cost-ineffective. I thank the opposition for its indication of support for this bill and I look forward to it being dealt with expeditiously through the committee stage.</text>
          <text id="201311272f59337d21564b8c90000264">Bill read a second time.</text>
        </talker>
      </subproceeding>
      <subproceeding>
        <name>Committee Stage</name>
        <text id="201311272f59337d21564b8c90000265">
          <heading>Committee Stage</heading>
        </text>
        <text id="201311272f59337d21564b8c90000266">Bill taken through committee without amendment.</text>
      </subproceeding>
      <subproceeding>
        <name>Third Reading</name>
        <text id="201311272f59337d21564b8c90000267">
          <heading>Third Reading</heading>
        </text>
        <page num="5876" />
        <talker role="member" id="1821" kind="speech">
          <name>The Hon. G.E. GAGO</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <electorate id="">Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations</electorate>
          <startTime time="2013-11-27T12:28:00" />
          <text id="201311272f59337d21564b8c90000268">
            <timeStamp time="2013-11-27T12:28:00" />
            <by role="member" id="1821">The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (12:28):</by>  I move:</text>
          <text id="201311272f59337d21564b8c90000269">
            <inserted>That this bill be now read a third time.</inserted>
          </text>
          <text id="201311272f59337d21564b8c90000270">Bill read a third time and passed.</text>
        </talker>
      </subproceeding>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>