Bills

Statutes Amendment (Budget 2016) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1 passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Emp–1]—

Page 6, line 8 [clause 2(2)]—After 'Part 5,' insert 'Part 8,'

This amendment relates to the introduction of the $1 levy on all metropolitan point-to-point transport journeys and seeks to amend the commencement of the $1 levy to a date to be set by proclamation.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This is a bit of a dog's breakfast, at the moment, but let us work our way through it. I have a general question which was canvassed in the second reading in relation to the total collections from the transport levy or the taxi levy, or however it is referred to. The issue was raised by a number of members in the second reading. Is the government or any of its advisers in a position to outline what is currently in the forward estimates and be more specific in terms of the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendment, which comes later (and we will be able to address the detail of that later), in relation to the overall collections for the levy; that is, that the compensation is to be used for only a certain component of the total collections over the ten-year period?

Uber has raised the issue that a total sum of up to $80 million might be collected, of which, from recollection, $30 million or $40 million was going to be used for compensation for taxi owners and others. During the briefing that I had, which seems months ago now, I was advised that the minister was going to use the remainder of the money for good purposes. That might not have been the exact phrase that was used but, in essence, the minister would have discretion as to where that money would be used. I want to clarify what is currently in the forward estimates in terms of both collections and expenditure. More particularly, what is the government's current position, as we look to pass the bill today, in terms of whatever that lump of money is in excess of compensation, with regard to the purpose for which it will be used?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the member for his question. What I have been advised is that over the forward estimates, over the four years, it is expected that the levy will raise $8 million a year. What I am also advised is that the operating expenses are estimated in the first year to be just over $20.5 million, just under $19.5 million in the second year, $2.13 million in the third year, and $2.185 million over the fourth year.

The honourable member also asks over the life of the collection of this levy, as I think he phrased it, what good purposes will any additional revenue in addition to the industry assistance package be used for? I am advised that some of that access will be used for things such as to reduce the annual fees for all passenger transport services and any impacts from introducing a lifting fee for people with disabilities who use a wheelchair and travel in a wheelchair accessible taxi. The levy will also be used to fund additional compliance and enforcement resources, with any further surplus funds to be directed to adopting new South Australian Transport Subsidy Scheme technology.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can I ask the minister to take on advice: are there provisions within this legislation that govern how that money will be spent? That is, for those examples that he has given.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: The additional revenue?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, the additional. Is it restricted by this legislation, or is it entirely unrestricted and that is just a decision of the government of the day?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can inform the honourable member that it is not restricted by this legislation, but I have given you the areas that it is anticipated to be spent in.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Just to nail this down completely: it is not restricted by any other legislation either? What the minister has put on the record is, in essence, if the government was re-elected in four years' time and the compensation had all been paid out and the money was still being collected, it would be the current government's intention to spend the money on the sort of purposes that he has outlined. A new government could make different decisions, should it so choose.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that in essence, yes, that is correct.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: In relation to the actual amendment, effectively, my recollection is that the levy was originally going to be collected, I think, from 1 July, then it became 1 October, now it is by a date to be fixed by proclamation. So, my question is: if this bill perchance were to pass the parliament today, what is the expected date for the levy to start being collected?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that it would be as soon as possible but after consultation with the industry in terms of the metering ability to collect these levies and so forth, which will need to be consulted with the industry. It will be as soon as possible but with consultation to make sure it will work properly.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I might just pursue this line of questioning here, because it does not fit as neatly into other areas of the bill. I thank the minister for his answer, because what I have heard from taxi drivers is that implementation will be difficult and that no assistance has been provided. I guess one case is where there is a meter; we would like to think that is always used but perhaps it is not always, but there is a meter. You have a different situation with Uber, and another situation again with licensed chauffeured vehicles.

Can the minister provide any information about whether the consultation with the people expected to pay this tax will include any negotiations around assistance that will be provided, whether that be technical assistance or financial assistance? In other words, what help is the government going to give those who are to be subjected to this tax to help them administer, collect and then forward that tax to the government?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said, there will be consultation with those who will need to collect it, and the department will be open to discussing with operators if there are expenses they have incurred in transitioning to that.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for the answer and for his commitment to consult and for the government to consider how it might help industry. At a more general level, I just ask what thought has been given to methods of collection? Will it be a monthly process? Will people who conduct these services be required to lodge some sort of a return online? What is the actual mechanism that the government has in mind?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have been advised that on the number of trips, quarterly in arrears.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I might just ask one other question; I am not sure it fits into another clause so I will ask it now. I think one of the most exciting aspects of Uber, and various other computer-based online booking services, is that the concept that simple point-to-point transport is disrupted. My understanding of some of the Uber share-type arrangements that operate in other places is that someone might be going from point A to point B but, as part of the process, they deviate to point C and collect someone else and then they deviate to point D and collect someone else.

By the time the eight-seat van, for example, arrives at the theatre, casino, pub or whatever there might be seven passengers on board, all of whom have had a different point-to-point trip. Are each of those passengers who hop on the van obliged to pay $1 or is the trip regarded as a single point-to-point trip A to B, and all those intermediate points do not count? In other words, would it be a $1 levy or a $7 levy?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have initial advice, but I might take that on notice to just clarify it. My initial advice is that if it is one point-to-point trip, that counts as the one trip. I am glad that the Hon. Mark Parnell is down with the hip kids and is considering all the disruptive ways this technology is being used—and it is not just Uber, there are a lot of ride-share services around the world. I think it is increasingly going to be car sharing as we move to hydrogen/electric cars, particularly in inner metropolitan areas.

My understanding is that if it is one point-to-point, even if there are offshoots along the way, that is one trip. However, rather than saying definitively that that is it, I will take that on notice and come back with a full answer for the honourable member.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for that answer. Certainly, it is just not within the realm of the new online booking services. Taxis, for some time, I think, have had the ability to take multiple passengers and to split the fare. They might drop people off at different points along the way. It will not be exactly the same point-to-point trip that each of those people take. They will all start somewhere and they will all finish somewhere but the starts and finishes could be different. It could effectively be one transaction. If the minister can take that on notice, that would be good.

The CHAIR: This will be a suggestion from the Legislative Council. I put the question: that it be a suggestion to the House of Assembly to amend clause 2 by inserting part 8 at line 8.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Mr Chairman, I am always keen to learn parliamentary procedures. If we were dealing with a direct money clause, I can see why that would be necessary. I am just curious why the commencement clause is such that this council cannot just approve the amendment, unless the answer is that what we are doing is changing the period over which money might be collected. I might be answering my own question, but it seems odd that that is how it works.

The CHAIR: It deals with taxation. Much smarter people than you and I are pulling the strings on this one.

Suggested amendment carried.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Broke–2]—

Page 6, after line 10—After subsection (3) insert:

(3a) Part 7A will come into operation 6 months after the day on which this Act is assented to by the Governor.

With your concurrence, sir, I will give an overview to the house on the whole set of amendments because amendment No. 1 [Brokenshire-2] is procedural. It says that part 7A will come into operation six months after the day on which this act is assented to by the Governor. I apologise to the house for the late notice. I thank parliamentary counsel for their expediency and I thank our staff.

Yesterday, I introduced a bill that, based on advice I had received, would not affect taxation at all but would merely affect who collects the taxation—and I am glad that the NRM levy is now acknowledged as a tax and not a levy. Notwithstanding that, I accepted wise counsel from the President regarding my bill yesterday. I sought more advice today. I apologise for the lateness but I only had a chance to work this out over lunchtime. I am advised that I can move this amendment in the budget bill.

Without going through all the detail of the second reading speech I made yesterday, I will summarise it to the house. If the house wants to report progress and duly consider this over the next week before we sit again, I accept that. I think that that would be a fair and reasonable outcome at this point in time because of my lateness. The Local Government Association on behalf of councils across South Australia in the metropolitan area have made representation publicly on these matters.

I have also had constituents make representations, as I am sure have my other colleagues, particularly now with the absolutely exorbitant increases in the natural resources management levy (or tax). There is also the fact that the state government have decided to take approximately $6 million, which was otherwise in the capable hands of the NRM boards, back to Treasury. They also took another 300 full-time equivalent positions, which were transferred from independent natural resources management boards to the Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources, at corporate service charges of about $22,000 per FTE. That adds up to about another $6 million, so around $12 million has come out. On top of that, there have been other cost pressures, sometimes up to 150 per cent increases, in certain NRM boards.

This does give the chamber a chance to consider and deliberate on this amendment, which does not affect one dollar when it comes to the overall money that the government want from the NRM. But, it clearly slates the fact that this NRM levy is a government levy (or tax) which goes back to the state government. I cannot be anymore open and honest than that. Councils are now saying that if governments want to bring in new taxes, then governments should collect their taxes. Governments should then be in a position where they either receive accolades or brickbats for their new tax, depending on what the constituents of South Australia think.

This is about transparency. I am advised that this is the best way for me to be able to put this amendment to the Legislative Council. With those words, I not only move the amendment, but commend the amendment to the house. As I said, if progress needs to be reported, then I am clearly accepting of that. It could be dealt with in the next sitting week without having any impact on the government being able to write out their cheques in the meantime.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I note the amendments that were sprung on us by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire. We do not think progress needs to be reported. The NRM levy is being collected, as it currently is for quite some time, and the government just does not see a need to change that.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire is full of surprises, as always. He lobs into this chamber in the middle of the debate, plonks a significant policy issue on the table and asks for a response. He does have his plan B, which is, 'Well, let's delay the whole budget bill for a couple of weeks, and—'

The Hon. K.J. Maher: He's waiting to see his options.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes; by that time, he might have been off to the Senate by then and he will leave us with a mess to clean up.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: I will still write the cheques out.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This is and has been an ongoing debate for a number of years. As the honourable member will know, the issue of the old levies—the plant levies and others that were amalgamated into the NRM levy—were the original precursors or forerunners to the NRM levy. There is undoubtedly angst in the community at the way this government has tackled and, I think many in the regional community would say abused, the extent of NRM levies.

My colleagues are more eloquent in the area than I can be because it is their area rather than mine, but if I can be frank, I think some NRM boards have been extravagant in their expenditure. I do not absolve all responsibility away from some NRM boards. Some have been very good and acidulous, meticulous in terms of how they have spend their resources. But, I can think of one in particular, not too far from here, that in my view has been excessive in terms of its expenditure. Put aside that issue, because that is not really the issue of the debate here.

The issue the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has raised is one that has been canvassed for a number of years; that is: should local government continue, as it always has since the establishment of these arrangements, to collect the levy, or should it be done by the state government? On behalf of my party, I will not be supporting the amendment for two reasons. One is it has just been plonked on the table in the middle of the debate and there has been no discussion or debate about it, or even any forewarning that this was to occur.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I only found out yesterday when I—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, sure; I understand that. The second reason, and I can only speak personally because I have not had a chance to canvass even my colleagues in this chamber let alone the joint party room, but certainly my strong personal view has been that the current arrangement should continue. If and when we come to another debate about this particular issue, whether it be as a party in opposition or as a party in government hopefully after 2018, that would remain my personal view. In essence, I think the time for that debate will be when we have all been well prepared for it, and we can come armed with our arguments for and against it in the parliament or in the community generally.

Certainly, when asked about this issue by representatives of local government or regional communities, I have expressed the view as shadow treasurer that I do not propose to change the arrangements. That has not been our particular position and it is certainly not a policy position that our party room has adopted at any stage that I can think of. Whilst I know it has been raised by some, it is never been a policy position that our party room has adopted. For those reasons, I will not be supporting the amendment and I would not propose on the basis of this to report progress to consider this particular issue.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I have a lot of sympathy for the Hon. Rob Brokenshire's predicament, having had a bill before parliament deemed inappropriate and not able to progress. I understand that he has taken the opportunity to raise the same issue in another bill that just happened to be before us. What excites me about the honourable member's amendment is that—the note that I have made to myself is that next year, when the budget comes around and a budget measures bill is introduced that amends 13 separate acts of parliament, if I do not think the budget has done everything I want it to and I can find a different act of parliament not mentioned in the government's budget measures bill but nevertheless is one where I think some reform might be needed, I am very grateful to the honourable member for establishing the precedent that that is what we can now do with government budget measures bills.

I will be looking forward to perhaps using the precedent that the honourable member has created with his amendments to this bill being accepted, because I think it is going to be important for us, in representing South Australians, to make sure that we get the best possible budget that we can and that all relevant matters are considered. Notwithstanding that, for the very same reasons that the Hon. Rob Lucas gave, I am not able to support the actual amendments at this stage. We will see whether there is some other way that these issues can be brought to a debate. So, good try to the Hon. Rob Brokenshire but no cigar today, but thank you for setting the precedent.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I am sympathetic to the Brokenshire amendment mainly because if the government of the day had given any thought to this situation when the natural resource management levy came in, they would have automatically attached it to the emergency services levy, which is taxing exactly the same properties.

The CHAIR: We have heard the contributions. I am going to put the question, but this amendment is a test for all the other amendments; do we agree on that?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Yes, sir, for expediency. I can count.

Suggested amendment negatived.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Emp–1]—

Page 6, line 11 [clause 2(4)]—Delete subclause (4)

This amendment is in relation to the first amendment that I moved earlier and is consequential.

Suggested amendment carried; clause as suggested to be amended passed.

Clauses 3 to 7 passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Employment–3]—

Page 7, lines 21 to 25 [clause 8(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

This amendment relates to the introduction of the new limited major betting operations licence class contained in this bill. The new limited licence class allows wagering operators to establish a telephone and/or internet based wagering service in South Australia. The current drafting of the bill contains a requirement that the minister must be satisfied that the holder of the limited licence has substantial business assets and infrastructure located in South Australia. This amendment will remove that requirement. This will reduce the compliance burden obligations placed on betting operators who may want to take up a proposed limited licence.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I just need to seek further detail in relation to this particular issue. This amendment has been moved subsequent to briefings that I had with the government outlining their position and subsequent passage in the House of Assembly. I am told that it has been as a result of lobbying by some of the sports betting companies. Can the minister outline what meetings have been held between the government or Treasury officers and sports betting companies that have prompted this particular amendment?

The bill as it was drafted, and as I was briefed, made it quite clear that the minister was going to have to, in essence, say that the minimum requirement is that you have substantial business assets and infrastructure located in South Australia. I am assuming that someone has come along and said, 'Hey, we either don't comply or will not comply with that, but we still want to be approved.' What is it that has changed, where the government is no longer going to insist on it?

The suggestion which the minister has just read out is that this will reduce the compliance burden. That clearly says nothing. Yes, it does reduce the compliance burden, but the government, in the advice I was given, was going to insist on this but has now decided not to. I am told, or I understand, that it is as a result of lobbying by some sports betting companies. What is the background and the true reason for the removal of this requirement?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. My advice is that, after substantial stakeholder consultation, the government no longer thinks that this is required to meet the aims of this scheme.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Is it correct that some operators have said that they would not or could not comply with the draft requirements, or the bill requirements, of substantial business assets and infrastructure being located in South Australia?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The advice I have on that very specific question is that they are not aware of that having been said, but I am happy to make sure that Treasury officials provide any further advice on that for the honourable member.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to receive it on notice, but one can only assume that the logical or rational explanation for the removal of this requirement is that somebody has told the minister and/or the government that they either do not or will not comply with this particular requirement, otherwise the requirement that was there would have just continued. I am happy to accept the minister's assurance that he will provide advice on that, and that is specifically, as I said: have some companies advised that they do not and will not comply with that particular original requirement and that that is the reason why it has had to be removed?

My question then is: is it possible that the minister will approve a sports betting company with, in essence, virtually no infrastructure or business assets in South Australia? That is, the requirement for substantial business assets and infrastructure has been removed, but there is no new requirement in there. So, in essence, it would appear that the minister has the flexibility to approve any company, essentially, which has either no or virtually no business assets or infrastructure in South Australia as a qualifier for this particular licence.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As you have outlined, that is correct.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government's position is that that is not of concern to them, obviously, that is, that the position of having operators with these licences not being located in South Australia is of no policy or practical concern to the government?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am informed that, in terms of the regulation and the costs of regulating these that we have cost recovery provisions for any licenced operators, and we can recover costs of the regulatory regime for them.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think this is the appropriate section to ask the question. I stand to be corrected, as so many of these betting companies have similar names, but I think it was Sportsbet that went public and announced—and they certainly met with me and told me they were going to do this and then they did announce publicly—that a $20 million data centre that they were going to establish here in South Australia, with the associated number of direct and indirect jobs connected with that, as a result of this legislation would not proceed. Can the minister confirm whether government advisers met with that particular company, and is it correct that this data centre that had been discussed with the government is no longer proceeding?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that we are not aware of a meeting that that particular agency had with government representatives where they put that scenario to the government, but the government became aware of their view through a media release.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In relation to the whole notion of this place of consumption wagering tax, the government has answered some of the questions I put at the second reading, but as we debate this today are the government advisers aware of whether any other jurisdiction in Australia is currently actively considering the implementation of a similar place of consumption wagering tax?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that the regime that we are doing in South Australia has been raised with a number of other jurisdictions around Australia, but whether they are actively contemplating it or not, I cannot speak for a cabinet or a government.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will take it from that that at this stage you are not aware that any other government is actively considering its implementation. When I met with a number of the sports betting companies, who are obviously implacably opposed to the government's proposed arrangements, a number of them raised what their response would be. One was that they would not proceed with a $20 million data centre with associated jobs. Clearly that threat has been followed through and they are not doing it.

The threat of a number of companies, in terms of their response to this, was that they would do one of two things: some of them may well not accept bets from South Australian located customers, and the second option a number of the companies indicated was that they would reduce the extent of the payout on a sports bet to the extent of the tax. That is, South Australian punters would get a lower return than punters in other parts of Australia. Are the government advisers aware of whether any of the companies are pursuing or are continuing to threaten either of those two options in terms of the ramifications of this legislation for South Australian punters?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. We are aware of statements that some companies have made; we are not aware of any companies taking any action to follow through with such suggestions.

Suggested amendment carried; clause as suggested to be amended passed.

Clauses 9 to 34 passed.

Clause 35.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Broke–1]—

Page 13, after line 39—After inserted section 40D insert:

40DA—Payments to Fund

(1) Subject to this section, the Commissioner of State Taxation must pay, out of the taxation revenue collected under this Division during each financial year, an amount of $500,000 into the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund established under the Gaming Machines Act 1992 (the Fund).

(2) The amount required to be paid into the Fund in respect of taxation revenue collected during a particular financial year is, on or after 1 January 2018, to be adjusted on 1 January of each year by multiplying the amount that would be required to be paid in accordance with subsection (1) by a proportion obtained by dividing the CPI for the September quarter of the immediately preceding year by the CPI for the September quarter, 2016, on the basis that the quotient used for the purposes of the adjustment will be calculated to 2 decimal places and that the amount obtained from the adjustment will be rounded to the nearest dollar.

(3) Regulations made under section 40G(1)(i) may require the Commissioner of State Taxation to pay amounts into the Fund in addition to the amounts required under this section.

(4) If in any financial year the revenue collected under this Division is insufficient to make the payment required by this section, the Commissioner of State Taxation is relieved of the obligation to make the payment under this section to the extent of the insufficiency.

(5) Amounts paid into the Fund under this section may be applied and dealt with as if they had been paid into the Fund under the Gaming Machines Act 1992.

(6) In this section—

CPI means the Consumer Price Index (All groups index for Adelaide) published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

I will just give a brief outline to this. Family First commend the government—as we often do—for their initiative in trying to get some taxation that otherwise would not have been available to the state. Several million dollars is the estimation from Treasury, and out of that the government have agreed that through the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund they will receive $500,000 each financial year from a share of the moneys generated from the new gambling tax.

To simplify it, I have been on the record as saying I thought that while $500,000 is better than nothing, it is still measly really when you consider that the AHA (SA) and NGOs put a lot more money into problem gambling and gambling rehabilitation and counselling than the government. I would like to see the government get off of the gambling problem that they have with taxation, mainly driven through Treasury, I am sure, and realise the impacts and the damage caused to not only the direct percentage of people who become addicted to gambling, but their families and loved ones.

However, as I say, $500,000 of additional funding is better than nothing, so for that I give an accolade. What we do not want to do in time is see this slip back, and so this amendment simply says that it be adjusted according to CPI each year. CPI at the moment for Adelaide is not that high, I think it is less than 2 per cent, but there will be times when it will be considerably higher and that is when, in real terms, you lose opportunities of the original intent of the sharing of this income for government.

I also have a further clause there that does protect the government, and of course I am very keen to always protect the Commissioner of State Taxation. If there are any years where there is less than $500,000 then we cover the fact that the commission is only obliged to pay whatever they do raise, up to and including the $500,000. The key point of this is simply to cover it with CPI. I would hope the goodwill of the government is there and that they will support this amendment. I commend it to the house.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can advise that the government supports this amendment. Simply legislating the new contribution amount by betting operators will give greater assurance to the office of problem gambling that administers this fund.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: As I understand it, the difference between the Brokenshire amendment and the Darley amendment is that the Brokenshire amendment is $500,000 CPI adjusted, and the Darley amendment is 5 per cent. My question is, maybe of the mover of the motion, are they roughly the same amounts that we are talking about?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: The short answer is that the Hon. Mr Darley's amendment would actually be a larger amount. He has gone for the large cake, and I can understand why and I support him with that, but sometimes in this place it is clear that it is about the art of being able to get a compromise.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the honourable member for his response, because the Greens' position was to support the greater of the two amounts. The minister said he is supporting the Brokenshire amendment. Can the minister give any indication that if that was unsuccessful that he would support the Darley amendment?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government's position is that if the Brokenshire amendment is not successful, we will not be supporting the Darley amendment. I think, as the Hon. Rob Brokenshire points out, sometimes it is the art of the possible in this place to make sure that results are near to what we like.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I will be supporting the Brokenshire amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Darley–1]—

Page 13, after line 39—After inserted section 40D insert:

40DA—Payments to Fund

(1) The Commissioner of State Taxation must pay 5% of the taxation revenue collected under this Division during each financial year (or such greater percentage as may be prescribed by regulations made under section 40G(1)(i)) into the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund established under the Gaming Machines Act 1992 (the Fund).

(2) Amounts paid into the Fund under this section may be applied and dealt with as if they had been paid into the Fund under the Gaming Machines Act 1992.

This amendment will allocate 5 per cent of the tax revenue collected through the place of origin of betting operations, to go towards the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund. It is different from the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendment, which is suggesting that $500,000 be placed into the fund and then indexed at CPI each year. The government has projected that this tax will raise approximately $10 million in the first year of operation. They have undertaken to commit $500,000 from the tax alone to the GRF, which is equivalent to 5 per cent. If this taxation revenue increases, it is only fair that the amount that goes to problem gamblers is also increased.

Similarly, if taxation revenue decreases, the amount that is allocated to the GRF will decrease. Although this will result in less moneys going to the GRF, I am not unrealistically greedy and am only asking for a very small proportion of the tax revenue to go towards the GRF. I understand the government's argument is that there is no precedent for placing into legislation how much money will be allocated to the GRF. However, as I pointed out in my second reading speech, the method of determining current contributions to the GRF is unknown. I ask again: how are contributions to the GRF determined, whether from the government, Casino or hotel sectors?

In the 2013-14 financial year, only 1.5 per cent of total gambling taxation revenue was committed to the GRF. If the government continues to contribute 1.5 per cent of the total gambling taxation revenue to the GRF, but added the proposed $500,000, the government would still only be committing 1.58 per cent of the total gambling revenue to the GRF in the 2017-18 financial year, and this is not enough. Whilst $500,000 is a good start, the amount going to the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund is clearly not enough, as the government not only reduced funding to the Statewide Gambling Therapy Service, but has also awarded the delivery of the service to a private company.

The Statewide Gambling Therapy Service is one of the government's most successful gambling therapy programs, yet it is earmarked to close in December. If funding to the GRF were increased, we may be able to see this service continue to operate and assist problem gamblers.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Consistent with the position that we outlined in the second reading, if the government is prepared to support the Brokenshire amendment we will support that and not the amendment being moved by the Hon. Mr Darley.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire's suggested amendment carried.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): We now do not proceed with the Hon. Mr Darley's amendment.

Clause as suggested to be amended passed.

Clauses 36 to 64 passed.

New clause 64A.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Emp–2]—

Page 22, after line 17—Insert:

64A—Amendment of section 2—Interpretation

Section 2(1)—before the definition of business of primary production insert:

association includes—

(a) a group consisting of 2 or more persons (whether or not incorporated); and

(b) any person, or group of persons, holding land on trust (whether or not incorporated);

These amendments insert a definition of 'association' into the Land Tax Act 1936. The insertion of this definition will ensure that, where a trustee holds land on behalf of any association that is eligible for a land tax exemption under section 4 of the act, the trustee will qualify for that land tax exemption. The amendments reflect feedback included in the Hon. Robert Lucas's second reading speech.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I support the amendment and thank the government, in particular the RevenueSA officers, who, consistent with last year's practice when they received advice from tax lawyers experienced in the field, did reflect on those further submissions and moved some amendments to the government's legislation. This is an example where, having received the views expressed by the eminent tax lawyer, they have moved this particular provision. I am pleased to support it.

Suggested new clause inserted.

Clause 65.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Emp–2]—

Page 22, lines 19 and 20 [clause 65(1)]—Delete subclause (1)

Amendment No 3 [Emp–2]—

Page 22, line 22 [clause 65(2), inserted subparagraph (i)]—Delete ', or that is owned on behalf of a trust,'

Amendment No 4 [Emp–2]—

Page 22, line 27 [clause 65(2), inserted subparagraph (ii)]—Delete ', or that is owned on behalf of a trust,'

I propose that amendments Nos 2, 3 and 4 standing in my name are consequential on the first amendment that has been moved.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government advised in the second reading that they responded to some of the details raised by the tax lawyer that I put on the record in the second reading. In relation to comments and concerns raised about clause 65(2), I provided RevenueSA's response to the government's response to the initial concerns. I have received further advice from the tax lawyer and I want to place those comments on the record before we conclude debate on clause 65(2). Those comments are as follows:

2. The intention may be to expand the exemption to commercial land of certain sporting and racing bodies, but it does so by introducing limitations that do not currently exist. In particular, the exclusion of vacant land as previously highlighted could have unintended consequences.

3. No basis for the assertion that the proposed amendments will not limit any existing rights or impact on clubs, establishing themselves is provided. This is an annual tax and it is generally to be applied as at 30 June in each year based on the existing facts. As previously highlighted:

3.1 a newly formed association holding land for development and use of their association but as yet undeveloped may not satisfy this requirement at one or more taxing points;

3.2 the exclusion for vacant land may also impact adversely on the poorest or simplest of cricket and other sporting clubs that have the most basic facilities; and

3.3 land that is below a floating marina moored to adjoining land may not constitute vacant land.

4. As the primary concern in the foregoing is with the 'vacant land' that is actually used or about to be used or in the course of development for use, I would suggest the exclusion for vacant land be so qualified by expressed words. This simply addresses the issue.

I do not seek any detailed response from the government's advisers unless there is a tax expert sitting amongst the assembled multitude of advisers. I assume there is not, but I place on the record the ongoing concern of this particular tax lawyer.

Suggested amendments carried; clause as suggested to be amended passed.

Clause 66.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Darley–1]—

Page 24, after line 10 [clause 66(1)]—After inserted paragraph (ad)(iv) insert:

(ae) land may be wholly exempted from land tax if—

(i) the land is owned by a natural person (whether or not he or she is the sole owner of the land); and

(ii) the buildings on the land have a predominantly residential character; and

(iii) no part of the land is used for a business or commercial purpose; and

(iv) the Commissioner is satisfied that the person has temporarily ceased to occupy the land as his or her principal place of residence because the person is working elsewhere; and

(v) the person is not receiving an exemption from land tax under another provision of this subsection in relation to other land that constitutes the person's principal place of residence;

Amendment No 3 [Darley–1]—

Page 24, after line 42—After subsection (2) insert:

(3) Section 5—after subsection (12) insert:

(12aa) An exemption granted under subsection (10)(ae) will remain in force for a maximum period of 12 months only but may be applied for again at the end of that period.

These amendments are paired, so I will speak to both of them together. My amendment provides a 12-month exemption for a person's principal place of residence in the circumstances where they are not able to live there because they have to live elsewhere for work. The most obvious example of people who would be caught up with this are fly-in fly-out workers, who are required to be away from their home and live elsewhere for extended periods of time.

For example, a FIFO worker owns a property in Woodville but works at Roxby Downs. They are on a rotating roster of three weeks on and then one week off. While they are at Roxby they live on site with a small suitcase of possessions, such as their clothes and laptop. Notwithstanding the fact that the vast majority of their personal possessions are at their Woodville property and that they consider Woodville to be their home, RevenueSA may determine that, because they principally shower, eat and cook at Roxby, they are liable to pay land tax on the Woodville property. A member of the Armed Forces may find themselves in similar circumstances.

This is an unfair situation and can be a cause of great financial stress. My amendment would allow someone in this situation to be eligible for an exemption, provided they are not earning any income from the property. This could be checked by way of rental and rental bonds being automatically advised to the Commissioner of State Taxation by the commissioner for business affairs. The exemption will be valid for 12 months; however, there is provision for this to be renewed in following years if circumstances are still the same.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his explanation of his amendment; however, the government does not support the amendment. It is considered appropriate that a residential property becomes liable for land tax where it is not used as a principal place of residence. Owners who relocate for work have the option of renting out their former principal place of residence when they are not living in it and, if they do spend any time in the city where their former principal place of residence is located, looking for other options that may be cheaper than what they can derive from the rental income.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: For the reasons we have outlined in the second reading we will not be supporting this amendment. However, I do have a question to put to the government, and I appreciate that they may need to take it on notice. Should a change along the lines of the Hon. Mr Darley's be approved, what would be the annual cost to revenue? Has that been calculated? If it has not, is the government prepared to take that on notice and provide advice?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised, via slight shakes or nods of the head, that we do not have that information available but that we are prepared to take it on notice and provide what we can as an answer.

Suggested amendments negatived.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The tax lawyer had raised some questions in relation to clause 66, and some specific questions on whether the word 'repairs' would also be included in proposed section 5(10)(ad), as well as some other specific questions. There was a response provided by RevenueSA to those. I just place on the record the tax lawyer's further comment on this. I am happy for the government to take it on notice and, if there is any further response by way of letter, I would be pleased to receive it. The tax lawyer says:

5. The submission previously suggested (based on some authorities) there was some doubt about whether renovation and rebuilding covered repairs and demolition and reconstruction. Whilst the Government is of the view they are covered, is there any reason why any doubt cannot be removed by express provisions addressing such concepts?

As I said, I am happy for that to be taken on notice.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can indicate that we are happy to take that on notice.

Clause passed.

Clauses 67 to 77 passed.

Clause 78.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I have more questions in relation to the point-to-point levy. I asked a few before but some are more directly relevant to this part of the bill, so I will ask those questions first and then move my amendment. I asked a question before, which the minister agreed to take on notice, in relation to what might more strictly be called ride sharing. I have taken the opportunity to reacquaint myself with the fine detail of the bill.

Clause 80 inserts schedule 2, which deals with the point-to-point transport service transaction levy. That makes clear that the levy is $1 per point-to-point transport service transaction. It makes it pretty clear that, if somebody rings up for a taxi or they get their phone out for an Uber, it does not matter how many passengers they have: they pay $1. That seems pretty straightforward.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Yes, same origin, same destination, one booking—you pay $1. The bill also deals with the situation, as has often happened at this place when the parliament sits late at night, where one person books the taxi and drops off colleagues on the way home. That is clearly covered as well because clause 80, new schedule 2, section 3(2) provides:

The taking of a booking for a point to point transport service to transport more than 1 passenger in a vehicle, or that results in the passengers being transported to different destinations, is to be taken to be 1 point to point transport service transaction.

What is not clear from the drafting is the situation that, I understand, is more common with an Uber ride sharing, where there are multiple pick-up points. It is not about people being transported to different destinations. They might all be going to the same destination. They are all going to the pub, the Casino or the concert but the booking system allows them to be collected from different locations. In other words, the pick-up points can be different, rather than the destination point.

My rough interpretation is that those people would be caught. The eight-seater van picking up eight people from eight different locations and dropping them all at one destination would result in an $8 tax on that ride. I know the government has taken it on notice and I am not going to pursue it at great length now, but it seems to me that that is possibly an oversight in the legislation.

I think what they have in mind is the situation I mentioned before where the van might pick up eight people from Parliament House and drop them at eight different destinations. That is one transaction. However, if it picks them up from eight different houses and takes them to one destination, that is $8. If it can be answered now, that is great. If it cannot, I ask the minister to take it on notice, but I point out that we may need to come back and fix that up. If the minister has any further observations on it, I will hear those now. Otherwise, I will move on.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that on notice, but I want to be clear what exactly I am taking on notice. I am only familiar with how Uber works in a couple of overseas jurisdictions. I have not known it to involve picking up eight different people on one trip and dropping them off at eight different locations. Is your question: if a ride sharing service exists (or one came into operation) that was somehow able to pick up eight different people from eight different initial start points then somehow drop them off at eight different locations, with some overlap of some of the trips—

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: They are all going to one location.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Eight different people are all going to one location—not to different locations. If eight different people are going to one location, would that be taken as one trip? Is that the question?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that on notice. I am not going to speculate. I suspect that it may be covered, but I am happy to take it on notice and see whether any refinements are needed.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for his answer because my recollection from my discussions a year or more ago with Uber, and looking at how it worked in San Francisco for example, was that one of the exciting things about this was that it could provide a fairly efficient service that was far cheaper than taxis and certainly far cheaper than driving your own car and finding a car park, especially in the congested cities. The way it was put to me was, say there is a baseball game on and you have eight people all wanting to go to the baseball game and they all happen to live close by, then a single van is dispatched. It is up to the passenger. If they want to get there faster, then they are going to say, 'No, just me, and you take me to the destination.'

But if it is a longish trip and all the other people who want to get picked up live in the same neighbourhood, and it is going to mean that it is going to cost them a fraction of what it would have cost them to get an exclusive trip, then apparently that happens. The thing that I found quite exciting about it is that what Uber tells me is that, in some of those big American cities, having a facility like this available means that some people are dispensing with the need for a car. They can use these sorts of services, not have their own car, save on the garaging costs and it is a good thing all around. Anyway, I do not need to pursue that any further.

I want to ask a few other questions that have been put to me by Uber. One of the things that they are concerned about is that the government has not provided any information on who will be compensated and whether any of those people compensated need to show that they have suffered any loss. They make the point that South Australia is the only state that provides compensation irrespective of the number of licences held by an entity, and that the South Australian approach seems to be a fairly blunt instrument. Is the minister able to cast any more light on exactly who is going to be getting compensated, how much they will receive, and how many of those recipients are companies and trusts as opposed to individuals who drive their own taxis?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the assistance package is $30,000 per taxi licence and they will be available for those held as at 12 April 2016, and there is no cap on the number of licences held. I am further advised that the South Australian industry assistance package is comparable with those offered interstate. For example, in Queensland and New South Wales, financial assistance for plate owners is $20,000 capped at two plates. WA has announced $20,000 per plate as financial assistance to the taxi industry. In Victoria, licence holders will be eligible for payments of a maximum of two licences: $100,000 for the first licence and $50,000 for the second licence.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for his answer. Does the minister have any figures on how many recipients of South Australian compensation have more than two licence plates, because that is the cap in those other states that he has referred to? What proportion of licence plate holders are multiple licence plate holders who hold more than two licences?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have those figures but I am happy to go away and see if they can be brought back. The figure I have is that there are 1,035 eligible taxi licences in South Australia, but I will go back and see if we can break it down some more.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for his assurance and I look forward to the answers. I have a supplementary question in the same vein. In the information that Uber have given me, they say:

While the government refuses to release taxi licence information, the taxi industry has previously stated that fewer than 40 South Australian taxi licence holders actually operate their taxi.

The source for that information is the report of the Select Committee on the Taxi Industry in South Australia 2009. If that is correct, and it is only 40 of 1,035, then on my calculation 995 taxi owners are going to be compensated for an unlimited number of licences and they are not people who drive taxis.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As for the last one in terms of multiple licences, I do not have that information, but I am happy to check the veracity of the assertions that are being made.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: In order to expedite the matter, I will move the amendment standing in my name, that it be a suggestion to the other house that the amendment be accepted. I move:

Amendment No 1 [Parnell–1]—

Page 30, after line 10 [clause 78, inserted section 62A]—After the present contents of inserted section 62A (now to be designated as subsection (1)) insert:

(2) This section and Schedule 2 will expire 4 years after the day on which this section comes into operation.

In doing so, I want to put on the record two recent submissions that I have received. It will come as no surprise to the minister or to members that all of the people to be subject to this levy oppose it. I have a letter from Suburban Taxis and another letter from Uber. I will read the letter from Vince Mazzone, the CEO of Suburban Transport Services Proprietary Limited. It is quite a short letter. He writes:

Dear Mr Parnell,

I would like to express my support for your proposed amendments to the Statutes Amendment (Budget 2016) Bill 2016 regarding the introduction of a $1 levy on taxi trips.

Collecting a levy remains a significant cost on the taxi industry at a time when there is substantial reduction in passenger transport services. For my business to collect a levy from drivers a significant upgrade to infrastructure and systems would be required.

Importantly, while the levy has been introduced as a means of paying compensation for taxi licence owners, the Bill put forward by the South Australian Government provides no indication that the levy will cease once the total compensation has been paid.

Your amendment ensures the levy will cease once the compensation package for taxi licence holders has been paid. This provides an important guarantee to my business and our customers that this will not be an ongoing tax.

As such, we welcome The Greens opposing a new ongoing tax on our industry.

I think that goes to the heart of my amendment; it is why I have introduced it. The government has said that they want this levy to raise money to pay compensation to the taxi industry. The compensation is to compensate them for the introduction of competition that they say they were not expecting. That was the purpose of this levy.

How long will it take to raise the amount of money necessary to pay the $30,000 per plate, plus there is another ongoing 12-month compensation period? On the government's own figures, it is about four years. In other words, four years of levy does all the work that the government said it wanted to do. The only interpretation of the government's bill is that its intention is for this to be an ongoing open-ended tax beyond the period of collecting the levy. In other words, after the four years is up, we are talking about consolidated revenue.

I am grateful to the Hon. Rob Lucas. He asked questions early on as to the government's intentions. I think some of that has been taken on notice, but clearly there is nothing in this bill that guarantees that the extra money raised after year four—in years five, six, seven, through to 400, 500, whatever—would in fact be spent on the matters that the minister said it would be spent on. It is going into consolidated revenue. The minister could just as well have said hospitals, schools, police; he could have said anything.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: They sound like things you would like, though.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Hon. Rob Lucas interjects that they sound like things the Greens would like—and he is right. The Greens are very fond of helping the government to maintain a sensible taxation base, but the question we are asking ourselves here is whether the best taxation base for this state going forward is to tax people getting home. It is not something the government has put to the people at an election, for example, as an ongoing tax. They are basically sneaking in an ongoing tax on the coat-tails of a need to raise compensation.

I will refer to the submission that Uber has written to me just recently. I will not read the whole of the letter. It is signed by Mr Tom White, the general manager of Uber in South Australia. He points out that introducing a per trip levy will significantly reduce mobility options for the travelling public, stifle important innovations, such as carpooling networks, and limit economic opportunities for thousands of drivers in South Australia. He says:

Whilst the levy has been introduced as a means of collecting compensation for taxi licence owners, the Bill put forward by the SA Government provides no indication that the levy will cease once the total compensation has been collected.

Your proposed amendment ensures the levy will not be established as a new and permanent tax on the travelling public and would see the levy cease when it has achieved its stated purpose—collecting the compensation package for taxi licence holders. This provides an important guarantee to the hundreds of thousands of South Australians who rely on point to point transport to get around that their cost of living will not permanently increase.

As such, we welcome The Greens taking a leadership role and opposing a new tax to get home.

Then they go through a number of other reasons. As I pointed out before in my second reading contribution, ride sharing will become 8 per cent less affordable. There are serious disincentives to carpooling, the levy will be expensive to collect, and they conclude with an assessment of the lack of transparency on the economic modelling that has led us to this point. Mr White says:

The government has to date not made it clear who will be compensated or provided the modelling for why this should be the case. Information on who owns taxi licences, including whether it is trusts or companies is not publicly available. In addition, unlike other states, the South Australian Government is providing compensation irrespective of the number of licences held.

Prior to the levy being implemented, it is critical that the government is transparent with the South Australian public and the various business required to pay the levy and provide the modelling that outlines the economic case for compensation.

Mr White concludes, under the heading, 'A price tag on progress':

A levy on new market entrants deters innovation. It would mean asking new customers to pay for the repair of bad laws. This is an unprincipled approach to law reform and the levy amounts to a price tag on choice, innovation and progress.

That is why the Greens have decided to assist the government to be more open and honest with the South Australian public by clarifying that this new tax is for precisely the purpose that the government said it was, and no more.

We welcome the opportunity to work with government about creating additional taxes that will raise more money for consolidated revenue. We can talk about taxes on pollution; we can talk about a whole range of taxes on activities that we want less of in the community—why are we taxing things that we want more of, such as ride sharing?

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The minister's interjections get me on my soapbox. We can get into taxation policy and principle. Why do we tax things we want more of; why don't we tax things we want less of? If we think that things like ride sharing are a good idea, why on earth do we tax them more? It is a bizarre way to look at raising revenue for the works of this state. I will not take the minister's bait and get into a lengthy discourse on this, but I will say that supporting this amendment gives the government what they said they wanted.

I will add at this point that the Hon. Rob Lucas has been consistent in everything he has said in relation to this. They will not support this amendment; they do not support amendments to the budget bills unless they are car parking taxes, and they have another reason for doing that. I am disappointed that the opposition is not joining with the Greens, and I hope members of the crossbench, in holding the government to its word.

It is a good opportunity for us to do it now, and I am disappointed that this will not get through at this stage. I am sure the Hon. Rob Lucas might have a word to say about it, but if he does then I will not need to divide as I will have everyone on the record stating their positions.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the Hon. Mark Parnell for his contribution, but I have to say that this is the quintessential example of having a bob each way in trying to appeal to everyone on everything. His line of prosecution a bit earlier in his questions on behalf of Uber against the taxi industry suggested that the taxi industry is getting too much and has been too generously compensated. Then he turns around with letters from the taxi industry as their best friend. He is having an absolute bob each way on this one.

It is cynical and hypocritical politics from the Hon. Mark Parnell, quite frankly. He comes in and says, 'I am all for taxes and all for schemes in any other way,' and he talked about a pollution tax—he brazenly mentioned the pollution tax. We all remember, under prime minister Rudd, it was the Greens who voted down the emissions reduction scheme that would have been permanently in place to this day if it were not for the Greens. I am not going to have a bar of him sitting there saying he is for things that reduce pollution and pollution taxes, and I am not going to accept, unchallenged, that he is going to prosecute on behalf of Uber that we are being too generous with the taxi industry and then hold up a letter and say, 'I am the best friend of the taxi industry.' That is not going to cut it, so I just want to pull him up on those points.

In relation to some of the specifics that he has talked about, he wants this to stop after a four-year period. I answered an earlier question from the Hon. Rob Lucas about the expected revenue and the cost over four years. Under the current scheme, you stop it after four years and there is a shortfall in the package. As such, you will be making sure the industry—and I think is what you wanted from your earlier line of questioning, Hon. Mr Parnell—is not compensated, as is suggested in this scheme, because after four years of about $8 million a year, that falls short of the compensation scheme that has been suggested.

I am exceptionally surprised that the Hon. Mark Parnell would be suggesting, as has been outlined, and it is the acknowledged hearing earlier on, that some of the things that the government anticipates putting the money in after the compensation scheme is paid is for things like guaranteeing a flat fee lift for access cabs, replacing the hire meter charge, which is something we have been asked for. If the Hon. Mark Parnell is against doing that, I am sure our advocates from the disability sector would be very keen to talk to him about it. The government does not support his amendments. They will make this scheme for compensation fall short, which he might well think is a great thing, but it will mean that other things we want to do later on will not be able to be done. We strongly disagree with his amendments.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I am not going to take too much of that bait, but I will just make the point—

An honourable member: Just a little bit.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Just the right amount.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I am going to nibble on the hook; I am not going to swallow it. It is not inconsistent. Think about it: neither the taxi industry nor Uber want this tax. Sure, the taxi industry likes compensation, but they do not like the tax. Uber does not like the tax. There might be some slightly different reasons as to why they do not like it, but what is entirely consistent is that neither of them want to collect this tax. It is expensive, you have not told them how it is going to work, and you have not offered them any help to collect it. One thing that they are both in furious agreement on is that, in the absence of the Liberals stepping in and challenging this measure, they recognise this tax is coming in, and they are in lockstep agreement that it only lasts for as long as the government said it was needed.

The minister provided some figures before and he now says that four years is not enough. That is a bit different to the figures that I was provided earlier, but let's say it is five years. Does the minister want to agree that we will end the tax after five years? The point is the minister does not want to end the tax at all. The only thing that he did not promise to spend this extra money on was cute puppies. Just about every other thing that you could imagine—some good cause—he may want to spend it on cute puppies. The point is you cannot just raise a new tax and then trot out a list of things that the public all like their taxes to be spent on. That is really dishonest. The point is here—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The CHAIR: Will the minister allow the Hon. Mr Parnell to make his contribution.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The point is that if the government was saying to people, 'We are going to create a permanent tax on your ride home. By the way, we are going to use it for the first few years to pay compensation, and after that we are just going to put in consolidated revenue,' then that would have been honest and that would be fair enough. We could have judged on its merits, but that is not what you have done. You have basically said it is a levy to compensate the taxi industry and then when people ask how long that will take, you are now fudging on the figures. Maybe it is four years, maybe it is five, but the government admits that it will raise much more money than is needed. The only people being dishonest here are the government. This is a brand new permanent tax on people getting home. I was not going to divide. I see where the numbers lie, but if the minister keeps baiting me, then we might have to go down that path.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister has the numbers and he keeps provoking him. In relation to the compensation package that is being paid, is the minister proposing to compensate the taxis in the fair city of Mount Gambier? As the minister knows, the taxi arrangements in Mount Gambier are quite different from those in the metropolitan area. Are they currently proposed to be compensated in the same way as taxis in the CBD?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that this scheme operates in the metropolitan area, so none of the regional areas will be paying the levy; but, by the same token, they might be eligible for the compensation.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I ask the minister whether that applies to the Mount Barker taxi services, which are country plated?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that it depends on what plate they are operating under. Very specifically for Mount Barker, I am happy to take that on notice and help the honourable member with that.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If I could generalise the question: if a taxi which services the metropolitan area is country plated, will it be subject to this change?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that it is only metro plates.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not sure how recently the minister has used the taxis in the fair city of Mount Gambier, but if he has he might be aware that some of those drivers have indicated some concern in relation to the impact of Uber and ride sharing arrangements on their profitability. Some have indicated very significant reductions in the value of the trading of licences in Mount Gambier. As a frequent visitor to Mount Gambier, is the minister aware of those concerns and what is the government's response, if he is aware of those concerns, in relation to Mount Gambier taxi drivers?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I know a couple of taxi drivers in Mount Gambier but no, those concerns have not been raised with me.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party's position in relation to the amendment, consistent with what we have said in the second reading, is that we will not be supporting it for the reasons that we gave, which are on the record. What I can indicate, and I would ask the minister to take on notice—he has taken on notice to provide some greater detail in relation to the expenditure post the four-year period. I think from recollection the numbers that he added up came to a bit over $40 million, which would have required five and a bit years, if the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendment was to get up—it is not going to get up, obviously.

What I would also seek from the minister is further detail—and he gave the actual allocations of expenditure; I think it was about $19 million or $20 million in the first year or so—as to the components of that. How much of that is actually the $30,000 compensation and how much are other expenditures? My recollection was that the $30,000 per number of licence holders was not going to add up to just over $40 million. There is clearly other expenditure that is involved. Can the minister provide, for each of the forward estimate years, a breakdown of the compensation and the other expenditure that comprises the figures he placed on the record earlier?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take those on notice. I think the figures I provided earlier, the global figures, were directly out of the budget papers. In relation to what sits behind those, I am happy to get the good people who work in this area to find out for you

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think this is an important policy issue, and it is one that any government elected post 2018 will obviously need to address. Should the Liberal Party be in government, we will need to address as part of our budget deliberations, as a matter of policy, do we continue it after the five-year or six-year period, or whenever it is? Do we spend it on the cute puppies that this current minister has outlined it was going to be expended on, or do we have other cute puppies that we would wish to spend it on?

The minister has made it clear that it is not binding, so clearly an incoming government could either agree with some or all of what is proposed by this government, or indeed could find alternative good purposes for the expenditure of that particular revenue source. That would be a decision that, if there was to be an alternative government, an alternative government would need to make upon its election.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: You said only a little bit.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I am here to help the chamber because questions have been asked about the fair City of Mount Gambier and the fair City of Mount Barker. I note that the $1 levy does not apply for journeys that commence outside metropolitan Adelaide. I do not know how many people in Mount Barker might get taxis to and from the city, but it would seem to me that, if you get in a taxi in Mount Barker and you go to the theatre, you do not pay a dollar but, when you get in a taxi on North Terrace to go back to Mount Barker, you do pay a dollar. Whether that taxi is based in Mount Barker or based in Adelaide is irrelevant.

This bill is not about who gets the compo, this bill is about who pays the levy. I think there is going to be an interesting issue raised about whether or not compensation is only going to be paid to people who operate entirely in an area where the levy is collected. I think there is more work for the government to do here. He has committed to consultation with the taxi industry and Uber, and I am sure some of these things can be ironed out. Just bear in mind that you are putting some of these things in the legislation and, if it turns out that they are wrong, you are going to have to come back and fix them up.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member, and I certainly will take that back so that those who are in charge of this policy can discuss them. Unlike his previous contributions, I suspect that was actually helpful.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

Suggested amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 79 passed.

Clause 80.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Emp–1]—

Page 31, lines 4 and 5 [clause 80, inserted Schedule 2, clause 2(1)]—Delete 'during an assessment period is liable to pay' and substitute:

of a point to point transport service during an assessment period must collect from persons using the service, and pay to the Minister,

This amendment relates to the $1 levy on all metropolitan point-to-point journeys. It clarifies that the relevant provider must collect the levy from the passenger and pay it to the minister for each assessment period.

Suggested amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Emp–1]—

Page 31, after line 6 [clause 80, inserted Schedule 2, clause 2]—After subclause (1) insert:

(1a) A levy amount required to be collected from a person using a point to point transport service is separate from, and does not form part of, the fare or consideration payable by the person for the use of that service.

This amendment clarifies that the $1 levy is separate from the fare itself and to reduce the likelihood that GST will apply to the levy component.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My question relates to the reason for the amendment being moved by the government. Has somebody raised concerns with the minister that there were problems with the original drafting?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is based on advice to make it as clear as it possibly can be that this is not part of the levy, to make sure that there is as great a likelihood as possible that that levy will not attract a GST component.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I accept that, but what I am saying is: was this something that the government's own officers devised or suggested, or did someone, such as Uber or someone else, raise this issue as a matter of concern, and is that why it is being clarified?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that this was not someone external coming to us but that this was internal from within government.

Suggested amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Emp–1]—

Page 33, line 35 [clause 80, inserted Schedule 2, clause 10(1)(a)]—After 'levy' insert 'to the Minister'

This amendment is so that, where regulations may make provision for the paying of the levy, this amendment clarifies that the payment is to be made to the minister.

Suggested amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Emp–1]—

Page 33, after line 37 [clause 80, inserted Schedule 2, clause 10(1)]—After paragraph (a) insert:

(ab) make provision in relation to the collection of the levy by a relevant provider of a point to point transport service from persons using the service; and

Simply, this amendment will allow for the four regulations to make provision in relation to the collection levy by a relevant provider.

Suggested amendment carried; clause as suggested to be amended passed.

Clauses 81 to 89 passed.

Clause 90.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thank the minister for RevenueSA's response to the tax lawyer's questions and concerns on clause 90. I place on the record the further advice from our tax lawyer as follows:

6. If the provision is administered in the way suggested, then it should address the concern at a practical level. The issue is that the words still appear to be open to a broader interpretation and that could be applied in border line situations or pursued in the Courts.

Again, if RevenueSA on reflection has any further advice to provide to me, I would be pleased to receive it by way of correspondence from the minister.

Clause passed.

Clauses 91 and 92 passed.

Clause 93.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: This is the provision that relates to the extension of concessional stamp duty for purchases of off-the-plan apartments. The policy regarding the current concession, which started in the CBD moved to the inner suburbs and is now going statewide effectively, is that if you buy an apartment off the plan, you do not pay stamp duty. I had a briefing with the minister's staff for which I am grateful. We discussed this at some length, but an issue has arisen in the meantime which has me perplexed. It relates to the old Royal Adelaide Hospital site. What we are going to see there apparently is luxury apartments for a few thousand people.

My understanding is that they will probably be similar to the situation in Canberra in the ACT where they are very long-term leases, 99-year leases or something. You are not going to be able to buy an apartment in the Parklands. You are not going to be able to buy part of the Parklands. You cannot get rid of the title to the Parklands without this parliament agreeing to it, and we have not done that yet.

Whilst it might seem a little bit academic because maybe people are not going to be in a position to be buying apartments on the old hospital site off the plan before June 2017, my question is a bit broader. Let's say the apartment has been built. If you buy an apartment already built in the city, you did not buy it off the plan, you buy it and you pay $600,000 for it. You pay $26,830 stamp duty. It seems to me that if you buy one of these new apartments on the old Royal Adelaide Hospital site for $600,000, you will not pay stamp duty at all. So, my question is: is the government now cutting the price of luxury apartments on the old Royal Adelaide Hospital site by some tens of thousands of dollars by not collecting stamp duty on those transactions?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: To clarify, is your question whether there is some other form of title?

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Other than tenants in common or fee simple or strata or community title, if it is some sort of lease title, do you pay stamp duty? Is that the question basically?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I will just explain a bit further. Under the Stamp Duties Act, section 71DB, there is a definition of a qualifying, off-the-plan contract, and it says that means a contract for the purchase of an apartment. When we talk about buying apartments we talk about buying the freehold or strata, or whatever title it might have; what we do not have in this state is the idea that you would actually be buying an incredibly long leasehold, which has a similar effect to being freehold.

It might seem a little bit out of left field, but I will change it if you want. Let us say that before 2017 someone buys, off the plan, an apartment on the old Royal Adelaide Hospital site. Under this amendment no-one is paying stamp duty in that situation, but if they buy it after the expiry of this scheme will they pay stamp duty? It is a really simple question: will the new apartments on the old Royal Adelaide Hospital site attract stamp duty?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. It is a hypothetical academic question at this stage. I do not have that answer; it was not something we came prepared to look at for this bill. However, it is an interesting question and I will make sure that the honourable member is provided with a briefing on those forms of ownership and what may or may not apply in terms of stamp duty.

Clause passed.

Clauses 94 to 106 passed.

Clause 107.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I place on the record the tax lawyer's further commentary on RevenueSA's response:

8. As previously described, up to the 2015 Budget voluntary dispositions of property wholly for charitable or religious purposes were exempt from duty. The 2015 Budget legislation effectively removed the requirement that disposition be voluntary, but then limited the exemption to property that was not used for commercial purposes. At the same time Government announced the phased abolition of duty on commercial land.

9. This amendment now moves the exemption to the general exemptions. In doing so it persists with the exclusion of commercial property, even when the property is a voluntary disposition, this is notwithstanding the proposed complete abolition of duty on commercial properties by 1 July 2018. The policy approach is in the circumstances, I suggest somewhat puzzling.

Again, if RevenueSA has further commentary on that I would be pleased to receive it by way of correspondence from the minister.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that on notice, and I thank the honourable member for more commentary from the tax lawyer.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (108 to 132) and title passed.

Bill reported with suggested amendments.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (17:19): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.