Bills

Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Budget 2015) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 17 November.)

Clauses 1 to 10 passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: While the minister is waiting, the minister's advisers have provided, by way of email to my office, prepared responses for the minister. I think that previously minister Gago was handling the bill. When the advisers arrive the minister might seek advice as to at what stage of the committee debate he will put on the record the government's response. It might have been more appropriate to do have done it at clause 1 perhaps, but at some stage during the many clauses there were some questions raised in relation to some further amendments that were suggested. It may well be that at various clauses the minister can put on the record the government's response to those.

There were also some questions in relation to what I refer to as the negotiations with local government which he can probably put on the record when we come to those particular amendments and which relate to what I refer to as the local government negotiated amendments. So, I think that is probably clear, but if I could seek an indication from the minister as to his willingness to put on the record the government's response to the further questions I put at clause 1 earlier this week.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am very sensible of the questions the Hon. Mr Lucas wants put on the record and needs an answer to in the committee stage. The Hon. Mr Lucas asked the government to respond as to whether or not it sees merit in two new sets of amendments relating to trust interests and mixed use properties, suggested by two prominent Adelaide tax lawyers, I am advised.

In relation to the first set of amendments regarding trust interests and mixed use properties suggested by two prominent Adelaide tax lawyers, I am advised in relation to the first set of amendments regarding trust interests that the wording that has been suggested requires careful consideration to ensure that no inadvertent outcomes result and, given the relatively short response times available, I cannot be satisfied that it is appropriate to adopt the wording as proposed.

However, I am advised that on initial analysis it is Revenue SA's intention to administer the provisions as currently drafted in a manner not inconsistent with the approach suggested by the two prominent Adelaide tax lawyers. Further, Revenue SA proposes to release public guidance detailing their administrative practice which will take into account the suggestions of the two prominent Adelaide tax lawyers.

In relation to the second set of amendments regarding mixed use properties, the predominant use test is considered to be the appropriate test as it can be readily identified from information presently available via the Valuer-General. This provides greater assurance to taxpayers on how the property will be assessed for duty purposes. Introducing a mixed use or intended use test as suggested will in both cases be complex to administer, involving significant costs and resources to Revenue SA, the Valuer-General and more importantly the taxpayer. I am advised that rights are available to challenge the opinion of the Valuer-General as to what she considers is the predominant use of the land. This set of amendments is therefore not supported by the government.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thank the minister for the responses from government officers. As I said, it was probably more appropriate that I should have put those questions to the minister at clause 1. They do not directly relate to this particular clause and I think looking at them they probably relate to clauses 38, 50 and 53 of the legislation, so for those avid readers of Hansard they have been incorporated in this particular section. I thank the minister for that.

I also thank the Revenue SA officers for their indications, certainly in relation to the first package of amendments. If I can read between the lines, there appears to be a willingness to consider these submissions that had been made by the senior tax lawyers. I note the advice the minister has read on the record that given the shortness of time—and that is, I only received the suggested amendments on Tuesday. I read them onto the record I think on Tuesday and Revenue SA officers and crown law have obviously only had 36 hours to consider them. Clearly, they have deemed them to be of merit, worthy of further consideration and Revenue SA officers have indicated, together with crown law, a willingness to further consider them. I think more importantly, Revenue SA officers have indicated a preparedness to implement, under the terms of the Revenue SA office guidelines, policies which are not inconsistent with the nature of the suggested recommendations.

I am not sure what the process is. Clearly Revenue SA are going to issue guidelines. I would be interested, at the appropriate time, if the officers of the department were able to forward to me copies of the guidelines which will be issued at some stage in the future. I would be interested in pursuing this particular issue. I am sure the prominent lawyers will probably pick it up through their own processes anywhere, but I would nevertheless like to be, once they have been formulated and distributed, kept abreast of the officers' new guidelines in relation to this issue.

I note that the advice from Revenue SA is not to accept these submissions in relation to the second package of amendments in relation to mixed use. I do not intend to pursue those issues, given the shortness of time today. I will have further discussions with the tax lawyers and there will be plenty of opportunity I am sure at some stage in the future to further pursue those issues should there be merit in pursuing those issues. I note the officers' advice. I thank, through the minister, the relevant officers for their willingness both on these issues and in the two or three pages of amendments we are about to do in the committee stage, which have been significantly influenced by the advice of these prominent tax lawyers, to consider those. Whilst not agreeing with all of the submissions that have been made, nevertheless they have been prepared to accept that in some areas further amendment to the government's legislation might be useful, and that is why the government is moving the amendments that they have.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [EmpHESkills–2]—

Page 10, line 22—After 'a council' insert 'other than an exempt council,'

Amendment No 2 [EmpHESkills–2]—

Page 11, line 15—After 'Fund' insert 'but the designated amount on account of that royalty must be paid into the prescribed fund for the purposes of the Local Government Research and Development Scheme'

Amendment No 3 [EmpHESkills–2]—

Page 11, after line 16—Insert:

designated amount means the amount that represents 40 cents per tonne of extractive minerals recovered under this section, other than extractive minerals recovered by operation of section 20C of the Highways Act 1926;

exempt council means, in relation to a financial year commencing on or after 1 July 2015, a council whose total annual revenue for the financial year immediately preceding the relevant financial year, as reported in its audited financial statements, does not exceed the prescribed amount;

Amendment No 4 [EmpHESkills–2]—

Page 11, after line 18—Insert:

(3) Section 294(8)—after the definition of minerals insert:

prescribed amount means—

(a) in relation to the 2015/2016 financial year—$5 million;

(b) in relation to a succeeding financial year—the amount obtained by multiplying $5 million by a proportion obtained by dividing the CPI for the March quarter of the immediately preceding financial year by the CPI for March 2015;

prescribed fund means the Local Government Taxation Equivalents Fund under section 31A of the Local Government Finance Authority Act 1983;

My advice is that we are inserting the words as printed so that there can be a determination of which council will be paying the royalties.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I just cannot put my hands on it, but the government has provided me with an email which actually explains—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: That would be handy.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr Tuffnell might have it, I think. It was an email which explains the package of amendments. I put a question in the second reading saying, 'Is this the result of a negotiated agreement with the LGA and councils in relation to this whole area?' and I received an email on behalf of the government which in essence said yes, but also gave a bit more detail. I think if the minister could put that on the record, it would indicate the background to all of this.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Fantastic suggestion. I am happy to do that. That will obviate my need to actually explain every amendment as we go through them. Following the budget announcement, several meetings have been held between the Treasurer, the Department of State Development and the Local Government Association to discuss the impact of the budget measure. The government reiterated that the purpose of the bill is not purely revenue raising, but rather about equalisation and consistent treatment to all parties recovering extractive minerals.

Along with the LGA and DSD, the Treasurer agreed to changes to the bill to alleviate the financial burden for rural councils with limited financial resources. It is proposed that councils with total operating revenue of equal to or less than $5 million per annum will be exempt from a requirement to pay a royalty. From a royalty payment of 55¢ per tonne of extractive minerals an amount equivalent to 40¢ per tonne, which is approximately 75 per cent of the royalty, will be disbursed to the Local Government Research and Development Scheme. The state will retain the remainder, currently 15¢ per tonne, to administer and regulate the arrangements. With that explanation, I move all the amendments relating to that provision.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thank the minister for that explanation. Certainly, this was an area of some controversy, as the Liberal Party indicated in our second reading. There were a number of areas in the budget measures which we did express concern about but which we were not proposing to seek to defeat or amend. We were looking in some areas to encourage the government to amend its own legislation and in this particular area the government, to give it credit, has had considerable negotiation with the LGA and other interested stakeholders on this particular issue.

It was an issue raised by a number of members in the House of Assembly debate, particularly those representing regional communities, but not just regional communities. So whilst I am sure this compromise position which the government is about to prosecute through this package of amendments will not have pleased everybody, it certainly is a significant concession and as a compromise is one that the Liberal Party is prepared to accept and support by way of support for the series of amendments the minister is about to move.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 12 to 23 passed.

Clause 24.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [EmpHESkills–1]—

Page 17, line 7—Delete 'asset' and substitute 'item of property'

The explanation is that the government is proposing this amendment which is technical in nature as it ensures consistency with other parts of clause 24 with the bill and the Stamp Duties Act 1923 in general.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: For the reasons that I have outlined earlier, we support the amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 2 [EmpHESkills–1]—

Page 18, line 40—Delete 'assets' and substitute 'property'

Amendment No 3 [EmpHESkills–1]—

Page 19, line 17—Delete '1 year' and substitute '5 years'

Amendment No. 2 is complementary to amendment No. 1 which the government has proposed for the same reason as previously stated. The government is proposing amendment No. 3 as it ensures consistency with the Commissioner of State Taxation's reassessment powers under section 10 of the Taxation Administration Act 1996 and other rights of refund under that act.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We support the amendments.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 25.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 4 [EmpHESkills–1]—

Page 22, after line 8—Insert:

(ab) a lease granted under the Aquaculture Act 2001, including a sublease of such a lease; or

The government is proposing this amendment which explicitly excludes aquaculture leases from the definition of land as it was always intended that stamp duty on aquaculture leases would be abolished as part of the 2015-16 state budget announcements.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We support the amendments. This was, again, one of the issues that was raised by the tax lawyers. I am pleased to see the government's amendment in this area.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 26.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 5 [EmpHESkills–1]—

Page 23, line 24—Delete 'types' and substitute 'classes'

Amendment No 6 [EmpHESkills–1]—

Page 23, line 25—Delete 'type of property chargeable with duty and a type' and substitute 'class of property chargeable with duty and a class'

Amendment No 7 [EmpHESkills–1]—

Page 23, line 28—Delete 'types' and substitute 'class'

Amendment No 8 [EmpHESkills–1]—

Page 23, line 29—Delete 'type' and substitute 'class'

Amendment No 9 [EmpHESkills–1]—

Page 23, line 32—Delete 'types' and substitute 'classes'

With amendment No. 5, the government is proposing this technical amendment as it provides a more suitable reference for distinguishing between items of property that are chargeable at different rates. Amendment No. 6 is complementary to amendment No. 5 which the government proposes for the same reasons as previously stated. Amendment No. 7 is complementary to amendment No. 5 which the government proposes for the same reasons as previously stated. Amendment No. 8 is complementary to amendment No. 5 which the government proposes for the same reasons as previously stated. Amendment No. 9 is complementary to amendment No. 5. I could have just skipped all of that, really.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The opposition supports these.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 27.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 10 [EmpHESkills–1]—

Page 24, line 27—After 'interest' insert 'under the conveyance'

The government is proposing this amendment as the section should refer to the value of the interest under the conveyancing being greater than the consideration expressed in the contract or the value of the property if the Commissioner of State Taxation has assessed the contract on the value of the property.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party is supporting that amendment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Hood–1]—

Page 24, line 27—Delete 'on the date of the conveyance' and substitute '(as at the date of sale)'

I did provide an explanation of this amendment I think Tuesday afternoon for members but I will do a very quick summary version of that now, if I may. Essentially, this amendment deals with the moment at which conveyancing, or stamp duty, if you like, is charged. The Housing Industry Association and the Tax Institute have pointed out that traditionally the amount of conveyance has been considered to be at the point of contract—that is, when the purchaser signs a contract—and that is when the amount of stamp duty is determined. This bill changes that and makes it now that it will be determined on settlement.

In many cases that will not make a lot of difference. When somebody buys a normal residential property, for example, the difference between signing the contract and settling on the contract is about 30 days in most cases—it can be 60 days or 90 days in some cases but 30 is very common. In that period of time the value of the property, for all intents and purposes, does not change at all and, as such, there really is no difference between the value of the property at the signing of the contract, or at the settlement of the contract, and therefore the stamp duty amount does not change either.

However, this problem can arise when the period between signing the contract and settling on the property is an extensive one. For example, if you were to buy an apartment off the plan where signing the contract and settlement could be as much as 18 months, even in some cases, two years apart, then the value of the property can substantially differ between the point of signing the contract and settling on the contract, in which case the stamp duty amount can also be altered.

The Tax Institute and the HIA have indicated that they would be seeking an amendment to this effect. Whilst I do not have their exclusive support for this particular amendment—just to be clear about that—I think it is not unreasonable to say that they would be broadly supportive of what I am attempting to do here. As members may recall, I read the HIA's letter on to the record about this issue on Tuesday so I will not go over that again. It is there in Hansard for those who wish to consult it. I indicate also that this is a test clause. If this amendment should fail then I will not proceed with my subsequent amendments as they are consequential to this amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I rise to indicate that the government will not be supporting the amendments of the Hon. Mr Hood. In essence, the government's intention here is to maintain the status quo. But I will read onto the record some information which may give the Hon. Mr Hood some comfort as to why we are doing this. Revenue Ruling SDA008(V3), which was issued by the Commissioner of State Taxation on 18 June 2015, with the original version issued on 17 December 2013, makes it clear that:

Revenue South Australia has always interpreted the 'date of the sale' to mean the date the property in question is conveyed or transferred.

In the context of real property (land), this has meant that the 'date of sale' is the date the Memorandum of Transfer is executed.

Therefore, whether in the case of a conveyance on sale or in any other case, the 'date of the conveyance' has been the only date used by revenue SA when determining the market value of property.

To resolve any potential ambiguity regarding the application of Section 60A(1) of the Act, the Bill seeks to retrospectively amend this section…to confirm Revenue SA's long-standing interpretation of this section.

Taxpayers are, therefore, not adversely affected by the retrospective application of these amendments, especially given that in Revenue SA's experience, most taxpayers have relied and acted on the advice of Revenue Ruling SDA008(V3). Revenue Ruling SDA008(V3) also makes it clear that:

If the above amendments are passed into law instruments subsequently found to have been processed via RevNet using alternative interpretations of the relevant sections will be assessed appropriately, with interest and penalty tax only applying to any such instruments processed via RevNet on or after 18 June 2015.

Accordingly, an express provision that no interest in penalty tax can apply to instruments assessed retrospectively is unnecessary is my advice, and for those reasons the government will not be supporting the Hon. Mr Hood at this time.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I want to pursue this issue a little bit with the government. Our position is, for the reasons I outlined in the second reading, that we will not be supporting the amendment either. However, it raises some important issues which I seek some further information on. The government has provided answers in response to the second reading to the submissions made by the prominent tax lawyer which covers, in essence, many of the issues that the Hon. Mr Hood is seeking to amend through his particular amendment. I quote again what the minister read out:

I am advised that, with respect to the issues raised, the Crown Solicitor consistently advised as early as 1990 (and most likely earlier, however, record keeping has prevented earlier searches by RevenueSA) that it is the date of actual conveyance and not the contract date which is relevant for calculating stamp duty. This long held position was never successfully challenged by a taxpayer on objection nor, more to the point, taken on appeal by any taxpayer. This is notwithstanding claims in this House that RevenueSA's position was clearly wrong at law and contrary to the history of the Stamp Duties Act which has been described. Accordingly, the position of RevenueSA was widely known, accepted and applied by taxpayers, since at least 1990 and probably earlier.

The interesting issue is a letter from the HIA which the Hon. Mr Hood has raised, and I have had similar submissions from various people that there is clearly this view from some tax lawyers that it is wrong at law. Revenue SA's response is, 'Well, if you think it's wrong in law, how come no-one since 1990 has actually challenged it?'

That is the particular view, and having been a former treasurer, challenges to commissioner rulings are not uncommon—they are expensive and people have to have deep pockets to take the government on in relation to these issues, but nevertheless they have occurred. That appears to be the government's response. I'm not in a position to know whether that is true or not; I'm not disputing it, I am just not in a position to dispute it or not.

Clearly, the information provided via the HIA is that in essence that is not the practice. That is, there is clearly the view from someone in the HIA that there had been tax rulings contrary to what information we have been given.

The Hon. D.G.E. Hood: They explicitly say in their letter.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, that's right. So, whilst we are indicating at this stage for the reasons we have outlined in our general position that we do not, it is an issue that I am interested in exploring further with the Hon. Mr Hood and with the HIA, and those within the HIA, to put this view. It would be interesting to get specific examples of where they have made that claim of particular examples where they believe tax rulings have been implemented contrary to the advice that we are being given today in relation to the long-held view since 1990 that this is the way the rulings have occurred.

So in indicating, for the reasons I outlined earlier, that we are not prepared to support this amendment, I do want to continue to explore the issue, and I am happy, with the Hon. Mr Hood, to seek further information from those who believe that they have evidence to the contrary. That is the background. The other information that the minister put on the public record in response to my questions at the second reading stage was as follows:

In any event, in more recent advice from the Crown Solicitor dated 14 August 2013, that long held position was called into question. Due to the potential resultant revenue impacts should that long held position be abandoned, the Treasurer obtained Cabinet approval on 16 December 2013 to amend the Stamp Duties Act retrospectively. On 19 December 2013, the Commissioner released Revenue Ruling SDA008 which stated…

and there follows the ruling that the minister has referred to in his ruling here. My question to the minister—and, obviously, his adviser—is: in reference to 'more recent advice from the Crown Solicitor dated 14 August 2013', why was that advice sought by RevenueSA in August 2013?

My experience as a former treasurer is that RevenueSA generally only seeks further guidance—given that they say they have been interpreting this since 1990, so that is 23 years—if someone was challenging it or indicating a disagreement with RevenueSA's ruling and that RevenueSA then went off to get a further ruling from crown law to say, 'We've been doing it this way for 23 years and someone is now challenging us. What say you?' My question to the government's advisers is: what was it in August 2013 that prompted further crown law advice on the longstanding practice of 23 years of interpreting this particular provision in that way?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that the government received an objection to an assessment of stamp duty calculation that was issued and the objection specifically went to the operative date of sale.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thank the minister for that and that is as I would have anticipated—there was an objection clearly based on some legal advice at the time to whoever the objector was in relation to a particular transaction. If we then trace what the government has said to us, they have gone to crown law and obtained new crown law advice in August 2013. That is not uncommon; over 23 years, legal advice can change.

The new crown law advice has obviously cast some doubt over the longstanding practice of the government in relation to this particular area. The objector in this case and some of the people within the HIA who have been lobbying—whether they are right or wrong in saying that they had previous rulings to back their claim to the Hon. Mr Hood and the rest of us is a side issue to some extent—clearly believe it was being interpreted incorrectly as well.

The government goes to crown law in August and gets advice that says there is some doubt—or maybe considerable doubt; we do not know the exact nature of it—sufficient for the government then to go to the Treasurer to take advice from RevenueSA and take something to cabinet to say there are significant revenue impacts. My question to the minister is: if an amendment along the lines of the Hon. Mr Hood's were to be passed by this chamber, what is the range of potential revenue impacts that the government is concerned about?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I do not have the detail the honourable member has asked of me, but I am advised that, should a proposition along the lines of the Hon. Mr Hood's be successful, the potential raised in that is that every real property transfer for the last two years might have to be reviewed.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I accept that the minister is unlikely to have that information available now, but can I ask him at least to take on notice and raise with the Treasurer and Treasurer's office whether, by way of correspondence, the Treasurer's office could provide us with a rough estimate, if we were to make this sort of change (it clearly is a significant revenue impact, one would imagine) what the range might be? Clearly Revenue SA and Treasury must have estimated something. Is the minister prepared to take that on notice?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am quite happy to take that on notice on behalf of the Treasurer.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government's response indicates that the Treasurer obtained cabinet approval on 16 December 2013 to amend the Stamp Duties Act retrospectively. Why was no action taken in the budget of 2014 to so amend the Stamp Duties Act? I assume that what we are seeing here is the end result of the cabinet approval almost two years ago. If that is a correct assumption, why was action not taken in last year's budget consistent with the approval cabinet had given in late 2013?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I have no advice with which I can answer the honourable member's question.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I accept that and will not prolong the committee stage debate. Is the minister prepared to take that question on notice and seek from the Treasurer and Treasurer's office an explanation as to why so much time has elapsed? I indicate that that is the last of my questions in this area. I was going to raise these issues in later clauses 42, 43 and 49, but I think the issues have been appropriately raised here and I will not raise them again. If the minister is prepared to give that response, I indicate that the Liberal Party is supporting the minister's amendment to clause 27, but we are not supporting, for the reasons we have outlined, the Hon. Mr Hood's amendment, but we will work with the Hon. Mr Hood and other interested parties to further pursue this issue.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am grateful for the Hon. Mr Lucas's indication of support for our government amendments, and I am happy to take on notice that further question he asked of me and I will seek a response from the Treasurer.

Hon. I.K. Hunter's amendment carried; Hon. D.G.E. Hood's amendment negatived.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 11 [EmpHESkills–1]—

Page 24, line 29—After 'agreement' insert 'or on account of an assessment under subsection (1b) (as the case requires)'

If I can paraphrase the interesting explanation, rather than use the word 'complimentary' I will try the word 'consequential'.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We support the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 28 to 37 passed.

Clause 38.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 12 [EmpHESkills]—

Page 29, line 25—Delete 'and the term includes goods that' and substitute:

where those goods

This amendment is required to ensure that the dutiable treatment of prescribed goods under both the general conveyance provisions and the landholder provisions is consistent.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party supports the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Can I just get clarification, Hon. Mr Hood—and I think I am getting it by his physical movements. I gather that the amendments you have to clauses 42, 43, 46 and 49 are consequential and you will not be moving them.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: That is correct, Mr Acting Chairman.

Clauses 39 to 41 passed.

Clause 42.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: There was a question that I should have raised in the earlier debate; this is a related clause, the issue that the Hon. Mr Hood has raised. One of the issues that has been claimed in the submissions that we have received on this issue is that RevenueSA's long-held view as to when you should apply the stamp duty, since 1990 and which is now being retrospectively confirmed, is different from the position in most, if not all, other jurisdictions. Can the government's advisers indicate whether RevenueSA agrees with that submission or whether they argue that their submission is consistent with what would be the interpretation for similar transactions in other jurisdictions.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that in fact we are different from other jurisdictions, and that is basically because other jurisdictions have different provisions. I understand that we are the only jurisdiction that is instrument-based. Other jurisdictions are based on transactions, instruments being, I am advised, some form of memorandum of transfer. So, in South Australia we are based on a different provision from what is used in other jurisdictions.

Clause passed.

Clauses 43 to 49 passed.

Clause 50.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 13 [EmpHESkills]—

Page 37, after line 38—Insert:

(2a) For the purposes of subsection (1) and (2), the date that is relevant to a determination as to whether land is qualifying land is the date of the relevant conveyance or transfer.

Amendment No 14 [EmpHESkills]—

Page 37, line 39—Delete 'subsection (4)' and substitute:

Subsections (4) and (6)

Amendment No 15 [EmpHESkills]—

Page 37, line 41—Delete '(but before 1 July 2017)'

The government is proposing amendment No. 13 to make it explicit that the Commissioner of State taxation is to make land-use determinations as at the date of conveyance or transfer. The amendment also ensures consistency with the date of sale amendments, which also form part of the bill.

The government is proposing amendment No. 14 to ensure that provisions dealing with phasing out of stamp duty on non-residential and non-primary production land directly apply stamp duty discounts in situations where a contract for sale is entered into between 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2017. The ultimate transfer is executed between 1 July 2017 and 30 June 2018. This amendment clarifies that such conveyances will be assessed at 66⅔ of the full amount of stamp duty payable. Current clause 50 of this bill does not adequately apply to these conveyances. The following amendment No. 15, I understand, is consequential.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party supports the amendments.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (51 to 61) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (16:20): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.