Land Tax

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (14:45): Supplementary: can the Treasurer explain why mum-and-dad investors owning land in their own name are charged one rate but if they choose to own the same land in a trust they pay a higher rate?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (14:46): Mr President, I am not sure that I really understand the honourable member's question in relation to the issue. It will depend on the circumstances in relation to the honourable member's question. If she wants to give us some details of what particular property she is talking about and what the structure of those—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, I am happy to answer the question if you give me the detail of the problem. In general terms, not that the honourable member has referred to the issue of surcharge, if that is the import of her question, but she didn't mention the issue of surcharge because I am not sure if she understands the package and the questions that she has been asked. If she is referring to the issue of the surcharge, the reason for a 0.5 per cent surcharge is to try to prevent the use of multitrusts to avoid the payment of land tax. That's what occurs in Victoria, and the package that the government released yesterday is essentially modelled on Victoria's, with some elements of the New South Wales package as well.

So if that's the import of the member's question, that she is talking about the 0.5 per cent surcharge—not that she mentioned that, but if that's the question—then the reason for that is to avoid minimisation techniques through the use of multisplitting.