Bills

Land Tax (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can I crave the indulgence of the Chair and the committee just to indicate that it is the government's intention for the remainder of the land tax bill to be concluded in debate today and, if need be, into this evening. We would hope that that might not be necessary but, ultimately, we of course accept the democratic will of the Legislative Council.

At the outset, I did want to indicate a couple of things. In terms of discussions in relation to the land tax bill and the related associated matters, the government places on the public record that it is giving a commitment to an additional $7.5 million per annum from 2020-21 to be spent on preventative maintenance and upgrade of existing public housing stock in the South Australian Housing Authority.

Secondly, the government is committing an additional $2 million per annum from 2020-21 to increase the provision of emergency accommodation and transitional housing for people in need, including women and children affected by family violence and people experiencing homelessness.

Thirdly, the government is committing to a five-year trial for a scheme to provide a land tax exemption for private houses that are rented as affordable housing while they are managed by a community housing provider. The details of that scheme is as follows: its working title will be 'The affordable community housing land tax exemption pilot'.

From 1 March 2020, the government will introduce an affordable community housing land tax exemption pilot. Property owners may be eligible for ex gratia relief equivalent to the value of a land tax exemption when they rent their property through a registered community housing provider for affordable community housing purposes. This is a limited exemption available for a pilot period of five years for up to 100 South Australian properties in total over the pilot period.

The scheme is based on an existing two-year pilot scheme being carried out in the ACT, which commenced in March 2019. The ex gratia scheme will be administered by RevenueSA. The eligibility criteria will be as follows:

to be eligible for ex gratia land tax relief, property owners must have entered into an agreement and maintained that agreement with a registered community housing provider to make their property available to tenants for the purpose of affordable community housing;

the property must be rented to a party not related to the property owner at a rate that is less than 75 per cent of the current market rent;

the property must be rented to a tenant or tenants who have low to moderate household incomes;

the ex gratia relief will not apply if the property is not rented within three months after the date the property is made available under the agreement or, if rented, stops being rented for longer than three months under the agreement;

the ex gratia land tax relief will apply from the next land tax assessment year, i.e., for a property leased through a community housing provider with an agreement in place from 1 March 2020, the property owner will be eligible for land tax relief from the 2020-21 land tax year; and

ex gratia relief will not be available if the property is rented to a related party. A related party includes the property owner's parents, grandparents, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descendant or adopted child or their spouse and their spouse's related parties, domestic partners and their relatives.

Treasury's estimated cost of this scheme is about $400,000 per annum. At the end of the five-year pilot, it is proposed that the scheme and its effectiveness will be reviewed. I understand that it will be informed by a review that will be conducted of the ACT pilot scheme which, as I said, is only a two-year scheme that will have concluded sometime prior to this particular scheme.

Further, the government has committed to mandate universal design as a building and design standard for 75 per cent of all new public housing. The government has committed to install solar panels on a minimum of 75 per cent of all suitable public housing. The government will clarify that land subject to heritage agreements under the Native Vegetation Act is exempt from land tax. An amendment has been or is being circulated to that effect, and I will speak to that in greater detail when I move it.

Finally, the government has committed to install batteries, together with solar panels, on a minimum of 75 per cent of new public housing. With that, I thank the committee for its indulgence and indicate, as I said at the outset, that it is the government's intention to finalise the debate one way or another in the Legislative Council, hopefully this afternoon but, if not, certainly sometime this evening.

Clauses 2 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I will state at the outset that it is not the opposition's intention to delay the bill, but there are some queries that potentially indicate drafting errors, which it would be useful to clarify. In clause 5, paragraph (b) of the definition of 'beneficiary', it states that a discretion conferred 'under the trust' is not exercised. As a trust is not something that can confer a discretion, should that actually read 'under the terms of the trust' as it does at the start of the definition?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My quick glance at parliamentary counsel, as my legal advice, is that that is not an issue of concern to the government in relation to the clarity of the definition of 'beneficiary'.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I simply leave that on the record as a query. In the definition of 'concessional trust', can you advise what provision of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1993 creates a trust under a guardianship order? I thought a guardianship order was simply in regard to covering care and welfare. I do have a similar question, so perhaps I will put that question now, as it is very much related: can you advise what provision of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1993 creates a trust under an administration order?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My legal advice is that the Guardianship and Administration Act does not create a trust. The clause itself says:

(a) a trust of which each beneficiary is—

(i) a person in respect of…

As such, it is not actually my advice that the Guardianship and Administration Act in and of itself does not create the trust.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: In terms of the definition of 'discretionary trust', paragraph (a) refers to 'a person' making a determination, whereas in other parts of the bill it correctly refers to a 'trustee'. My query is: is that an intentional change? Is the drafting intentionally trying to create some distinction in statutory interpretation, or indeed is it simply a drafting error? Who else, apart from the trustee, can make such a determination?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My legal advice is that it does not really matter; it can be read as either 'person' or 'trustee'. Can I use the word 'interchangeable'? I thought I might have been going too far beyond my legal advice, but anyway, they are in and of the same. Parliamentary counsel are quite happy with 'person' or 'trustee' as to mean the same thing.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: For the record, can you just confirm—which I think is what you have just said—that there is no intention to create a distinction in statutory interpretation by using 'person' or 'trustee'?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised no.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Is there intended to be any difference in the use of the language of making a determination versus exercising a discretion, as is the usual situation in a discretionary trust?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My legal advice is no.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: This may or may not be something of significance, but, again, just to get it on the record, can you explain what is meant in paragraph (b) of the discretionary trust definition when it refers to 'a discretion conferred under the trust is not exercised', given that a trust is not something itself than can confer a discretion? Or should it read under the 'terms of the trust' as it does at the beginning of the definition?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is that the answer that I should give to this question is very similar to the answer I gave you to the first question. If that assists the honourable member at all—I am not sure.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: For clarification, there is no intention to make a distinction?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My legal advice is no.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: In paragraph (d) of the excluded trust definition it refers to a 'tax year'. Is that tax year defined anywhere in particular, or should that be 'financial year' as is consistently used through the Land Tax Act, and it is actually used in this bill under the superannuation trust definition? Again, is there intended to be a difference?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We would take that to have its ordinary meaning, which would be tax year or financial year.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am coming towards the end of clause 5 queries. Can the Treasurer explain the rationale behind the definition of 'widely held trust' and the reduction from the 300 unit holders in the Stamp Duties Act to 50 unit holders for the purposes of this bill? This is in relation to the unit trust scheme definition and subsequent lines.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that this is a good thing, supposedly, and that is that a widely held trust will be one that has 50 unit holders, and in that circumstance they will not be subject to the higher surcharge, whereas if it was 300 unit holders, that would be more restrictive. That is the advice I have.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: More restrictive in what way?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Not being eligible for the surcharge. In that way, if you have more than 50 unit holders you are subject to the general rates and not to the surcharge, as opposed to 300.

Clause passed.

Clause 6 passed.

Suggested new clause 6A.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Treasurer–2]—

Page 7, after line 27—Insert:

6A—Amendment of section 4—Imposition of land tax

Section 4(1)—after paragraph (b) insert:

(ba) land that is subject to a heritage agreement under the Native Vegetation Act 1991 that is noted against the relevant instrument of title, or against the land, in accordance with section 23B(3) of that Act;

In speaking to the amendment, this amendment has been moved, I think, speaking frankly, in an excess of caution. It is clarifying what we believe the intent of the law to be, but there has been some question raised about it, that is, that land that is subject to a heritage agreement under the Native Vegetation Act, in the terms of that particular amendment as to whether or not it is or is not subject to land tax. In terms of the Treasury investigation of this particular issue, given that there is a significant number of pieces of land—the Hon. Mr Parnell probably knows the numbers better than I—it was impossible to be able to work through the actual land tax circumstances of every one of them.

From the government's viewpoint, when this issue was raised, certainly the advice I had was that we believe it was not the intention, it was not the expectation, but the reality is that we were not able to definitely rule out the fact that maybe there were some being subject to land tax. We obviously think, given other initiatives that have been announced by the government in recent days, that these sorts of agreements are a good thing in terms of protecting native vegetation, and so from a government policy viewpoint we are entirely sympathetic to the view that if there is ever any doubt about this issue it ought to be clarified.

As I said, I suspect the Hon. Mr Parnell may well know a bit more about the numbers of pieces of land, and I will bow to his greater expertise should he choose to speak to this particular amendment. Nevertheless, I have moved it, and I recommend it to the committee.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I rise to strongly support this amendment. As the Treasurer said, my understanding is that the practice, over many years, has been that people who make the altruistic decision to protect some of their private property in perpetuity for conservation purposes have not been charged land tax.

What we are talking about are people who enter what is known as heritage agreements with the Minister for Environment. Effectively, that is private bushland, if we like. It might be part of a farming property, but it is bushland, and the agreement between the landholder and the environment minister is that the landholder agrees to protect the natural values of that area. Usually, that means excluding stock, so you are not having sheep and cattle grazing in there; you basically have private bushland being conserved and protected for conservation.

I think if you went down Rundle Mall and did a vox pop and asked people whether someone who has made that altruistic decision should be taxed on their land or rated by their local council, most people would say, 'No, they've done the right thing. They've added to the conservation estate of our state of South Australia.' The government has not had to buy the land, but it is effectively a private conservation park.

Now, my reading of the Land Tax Act over recent days and hours suggests that it is effectively a discretion as to whether or not to charge land tax. Certainly, it is possible to exempt, and I think the practice has been to exempt, but it is not stated in black and white that the people who have made that altruistic decision to protect their bushland will be exempted from land tax on that particular parcel. What is in the act is a provision for non-profit conservation groups, for example. A good example would be Birdlife Australia. I was up at their Gluepot Reserve, birdwatching, a few weekends ago. They are protecting their land. There are other people in the Adelaide Hills who have protected usually large areas of bushland and they are not specifically provided for in the act.

So I think, yes, the minister is correct that this could be clarifying what is the status quo; it is putting it into law. But most importantly, when we look at this measure in conjunction with the concession that the Greens extracted from the government some time ago in relation to reinstating the fund to provide grants to people in relation to their heritage agreements—when you put those two things together—there is now a very clear incentive to people who have bushland on their property to go to the environment minister and say, 'Look, I'm interested in passing this bushland down to future generations. I want to make sure it is protected in perpetuity. I am happy for it to go on the certificate of title.'

They might put their hand out and say, 'Look, if you can sling me a few bucks for fencing to keep the sheep out, that'd be really helpful as well.' And as part of the incentive package, if this amendment passes, it will now be written into the act in black and white that you do not have to pay land tax on that particular parcel of land. I think it goes a little bit beyond abundance of caution. I think it actually provides a real incentive to people who have this quality bushland on their private property to sign up for heritage agreements and see it protected. So I think this is a very worthwhile amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting this amendment, but if I could just explain: we have a heritage agreement on native vegetation. The Valuer-General ascribes no value to it at all in terms of site value.

The CHAIR: Just for the benefit of members, particularly those that are young in the chamber, none of these amendments are actually of the normal kind; we are actually only making suggested amendments throughout here. So even though I am using sometimes the word 'amendment', and so is the Treasurer, we both mean—all of us should mean—'suggested amendment', because only the House of Assembly, after the settlement between the two houses, has the right to pass money clauses.

Suggested new clause inserted.

Clause 7 passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Can the Treasurer advise: is there any time limit on how far the commissioner can go back in imposing land tax assessments once she, or in future potentially he or she, forms the requisite intention?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised five years.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Can the Treasurer advise if there are any penalties or interest that would then apply on a retrospective land tax assessment and, if so, what are they and what interest rate would apply?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: There are penalties. It is a decision of the commissioner, so I am advised, and it depends on her judgement in relation to culpability. Having seen some of the decisions that have been appealed or complained about, sometimes at the lower end, the commissioner may well have formed the view that there were circumstances beyond someone's control, or whatever it is, but in other circumstances where the commissioner makes a determination that someone was deliberately intending not to pay, or whatever it was, in terms of culpability the penalty would be at the higher end.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: That answers the question in regard to the penalty but what about in terms of interest?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that it is exactly the same. The commissioner has that discretion both in relation to the penalty and in relation to the interest. She will make her decision in relation to her view of the culpability and she will impose penalties within the act in relation to both penalty and interest.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Is that whether interest applies, or does she also have the discretion of interest at what rate?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The interest rate is set each year but it cannot be differentially applied to different taxpayers. You cannot whack someone with a 50 per cent interest rate penalty and someone with a 5 per cent interest rate penalty.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: In the example, if the commissioner did go back five years, potentially there are different interest rates applicable to each of those years and they would have been interest rates that were gazetted in the year that is relevant; is that correct?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is yes.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: What avenues are available to taxpayers who disagree with the commissioner's opinion or decision?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: They can write to the commissioner in the first instance to see whether or not the commissioner will change her mind and then they have the right to appeal to me, as the fair, compassionate and independent Treasurer of the state, in relation to it.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: In the appeal to the fair and compassionate Treasurer—or indeed to yourself, the Hon. Mr Lucas, whichever one happens to be in office at the time—is there any further right of appeal following that?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, they can then appeal against my determination to the Supreme Court.

Clause passed.

Clauses 9 to 11 passed.

Clause 12.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 10, line 35 [clause 12(1), inserted subsection (1)]—Delete 'for the 2020-21' and substitute:

clause 2 for the 2020-21 and 2021-22 financial years and in accordance with the table in Schedule 1 Part 2 clause 3 for the 2022-23

Amendment No 2 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 11, line 3 [clause 12(1), inserted subsection (1a)]—Delete 'for the 2020-21' and substitute:

clause 4 for the 2020-21 and 2021-22 financial years and in accordance with the table in Schedule 1 Part 3 clause 5 for the 2022-23

This has been well discussed during the debate on this, but let me explain it. This amendment, in conjunction with amendment No. 8, seeks to amend the general land tax rates. It will see a reduction in the existing 1.65 per cent marginal tax rate for the taxable value of land between around $755,000 and $1.1 million to 1.25 per cent in 2020-21 and 2021-22, and it will then be reduced further to 1.0 per cent for 2022-23. These amendments will provide further relief to taxpayers. I do not believe I need to further expand on it as it has been much debated.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Mine is a question which relates to a number of amendments, so I hope the Treasurer is happy to answer. Can he provide an estimated cost for each element of the extra measures that he announced yesterday and today?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not believe I can answer all of those questions but I am happy to take it on notice and provide an answer in writing to the honourable member. But I can provide some detail here. The tax cuts for affordable housing development via ex gratia relief are estimated to be about $2 million a year. The tax cuts for expanded company de-grouping for residential developments are estimated to be about $2 million per year. The transition fund, which I think I have already put on the public record, is $25 million over three years: $13 million, $8 million and $4 million.

Bear in mind, of course, that that is subject to eligibility and also to application. Treasury would obviously assume that everyone is going to apply who is eligible, and that might not be the case in terms of that, so that is an estimate. The estimate of the combination of the tax rate reductions and the threshold reductions is about $15 million a year in the first two years and $31 million in the third year. But I am happy to see what further information I might be able to take on notice should the bill pass and provide further information to the member. That should give her a fair indication.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I am in the committee's hands. I have amendments filed to clause 12, so I think we probably need to deal with those now. I want to tell the committee that I will not be moving those amendments and I will take a few moments to place on the record my reason for that. The amendments to clause 12 that I had filed were the same amendments that Frances Bedford in another place filed. They did not find favour with that chamber and my guess is they would not have found favour here either.

These were amendments that I had intended to move on behalf of SACOSS. SACOSS was proposing that the government bill be amended to change the tax scale so that the top rate of 2.9 per cent would apply to landholdings over $5 million and that the government's 2.4 per cent rate would only apply to properties between $1.1 million and $5 million. SACOSS was also very keen to see a doubling of the surcharge on trusts to an additional 1 per cent and, most importantly, they were keen to see the revenue retained by these measures, which they calculated to be approximately $40 million, to be invested in the maintenance and expansion of public and community housing.

Since I filed these amendments, planet Earth has turned around a few times. As a result of other negotiations with other parties, there has been other movement on the tax rates, and we will be hearing a bit more about those in other parts of clause 12. But I certainly wanted to put those thoughts on the record to make it clear that the Greens do not resile from our preference and we think that the amendments we had filed would have been a better way to go. We support the rationale that SACOSS gave for putting them forward.

We are disappointed with the way negotiations have gone over several weeks, months even, which have not involved the Greens, that they have now become a little bit redundant. However, I want to make the point that a progressive land tax scale of rates is still very much a part of what the Greens want to achieve. It appears that the tax rates that we are likely to legislate through this bill are somewhat flatter than the Greens would like.

Nevertheless, there have been a number of other announcements both in relation to the bill and outside the bill that do go to affordable housing and other measures, and I will have some things to say about those later. For the benefit of the committee, I wanted to clarify that I will not be moving any of the amendments that I filed, which were to clauses 12, a new clause 17A and to clause 18. I will not be moving any of those amendments.

Suggested amendments carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 11, table after line 34 [clause 12(4), inserted subsection (3a), table]—Delete '$1,600,000' wherever occurring in the table and substitute in each case '$2,000,000'

Again, we have had debate on this, but let me explain it quickly. The threshold for the top marginal tax rate of 2.4 per cent for non-trust land under the current bill is set at $1.35 million in 2020-21 and 2021-22, increasing to $1.6 million from 2022-23. This amendment seeks to increase the threshold for the top marginal tax rate from $1.6 million to $2 million from 2022-23. The amendment will provide further relief to taxpayers.

Suggested amendment carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 12, formula after line 4 [clause 12(4), inserted subsection (3b), formula]—Delete '$1,600,000' and substitute '$2,000,000'

This amendment, in conjunction with amendment No. 3, seeks to index annually the top threshold of $2 million in 2023-24 and subsequent financial years, in line with existing threshold indexation practices in the act.

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

Clause 13.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 19, line 22 [clause 13, inserted section 13A(1)]—Delete '2020' and substitute '2021'

This amendment seeks to extend the period of time available to a trustee of a discretionary trust to nominate a designated beneficiary. The date will be extended from 30 June 2020 to 30 June 2021. This will allow trustees and taxpayers a longer period to consider their options under the new arrangements. For nominations made during 2020-21, a trustee can elect if the nomination will take effect from 2020-21 or the following year. The nomination of a designated beneficiary will continue to be an optional measure and all other nomination requirements continue to apply.

I must admit, there was a coalition of various people who have suggested this amendment to me over time: the Hon. Mr Darley was one, a member of the Labor opposition during a briefing session was another, as were the member for Colton and a number of my other colleagues, together with some other stakeholders and legal groups. For the reasons I have outlined, I am pleased to move this amendment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Could the Treasurer advise the chamber of the cost of the exemption for land being held for the purpose of being developed as a residential development of more than 10 allotments or lots?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is about $2 million per year.

Suggested amendment carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 28, line 25 [clause 13, inserted section 13J(5)]—Delete 'because of the operation of section 13G(5)'

Amendment No 7 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 28, lines 31 to 34 [clause 13, inserted section 13J(6)(a)]—Delete paragraph (a) and substitute:

(a) that the land is being held for the purpose of being developed as a residential development of more than 10 allotments or lots; and

The current bill includes provision for the Commissioner of State Taxation to de-group property developers from the corporation grouping provisions where land is being held in a fixed or unit trust and treated as a related corporation and, due to proposed section 13G(5), subject to certain criteria. This amendment, in conjunction with amendment No. 7, is seeking to expand the provisions to include all corporations holding land for the purposes of residential development of 10 or more allotments or lots, not just those corporations treated as a related corporation due to the operation of proposed section 13G(5).

This will allow developers, who have not structured their affairs using trusts to also be eligible for the exemption. The existing criteria for the de-grouping provision will continue to apply, including the exemption being available for an initial maximum period of up to five years and development commencing within two years of application, unless the commissioner considers an alternative period is required.

If I can speak briefly to amendment No. 7. The housing industry in particular has expressed concerns about the slowness of the property market, etc. One of the concerns they were expressing was that, for greenfield and brownfield developments, particularly in relation to 10 allotments or more, the capacity for some of the changes that the government has envisaged are potentially putting a bit of a handbrake on greenfield and brownfield residential developments. Certainly, the government would not wish that to occur.

Equally, we did not want to see a situation where people could use this particular provision for land banking provisions; that is, sit on vacant land for, in some cases, decades, as the Hon. Mr Darley and others would know, and not develop the land and not be paying any land tax on it. This was the position arrived at after a lot of discussion with a number of industry stakeholder groups. From this particular viewpoint, we believe it prevents the circumstances that many were envisaging, that perhaps it would be a significant handbrake on greenfield and brownfield residential developments. I am pleased to move amendments Nos 6 and 7 standing in my name.

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

Clauses 14 to 17 passed.

Clause 18.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 8 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 31, lines 1 to 12 [clause 18, inserted Schedule 1, Parts 2 and 3]—Delete Parts 2 and 3 and substitute:

Part 2—Scales of land tax

2—2020-21 and 2021-22

Land tax for the 2020-21 financial year and the 2021-22 financial year is calculated on the basis of the taxable value of the land in accordance with the following table:

3—2022-23 and subsequent years

Land tax for the 2022-23 financial year and for each subsequent financial year is calculated on the basis of the taxable value of the land in accordance with the following table:

Part 3—Scales of land tax for trusts

4—2020-21 and 2021-22 (trusts)

Land tax for the 2020-21 financial year and the 2021-22 financial year is calculated on the basis of the taxable value of the land in accordance with the following table:

5—2022-23 and subsequent years (trusts)

Land tax for the 2022-23 financial year and for each subsequent financial year is calculated on the basis of the taxable value of the land in accordance with the following table:

Again, this amendment has been well discussed previously, but let me explain it specifically. This amendment, in conjunction with amendments Nos 1 and 2, seeks to reduce the existing 1.65 per cent marginal tax rate for the taxable value of land between around $755,000 and $1.1 million to 1.25 per cent in 2020-21 and 2021-22. It will then be reduced further to 1 per cent from 2022-23. For land held in trust and subject to the higher rates of land tax, the proposed 2.15 per cent marginal tax rate for the taxable value of land between around $755,000 and $1.1 million will be reduced to 1.75 per cent in 2020-21 and 2021-22. It will then be reduced further to 1.5 per cent from 2022-23. I commend the amendment to the committee.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: A question on clause 18: compared with the current land tax regime, what is the cost of changing the scales in the financial year 2020-21?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: On the very last clause and the very last amendment, you may well have stumped my advisers. They will have to work that out and calculate it. I do not propose to delay the committee for that, so I will take the question on notice. I am happy to write a letter to the honourable member and give her, box and dice, the estimated cost.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Could the Treasurer indicate how soon that letter would arrive? I suggest he does not use Australia Post.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I suspect I will be able to send it to the honourable member tomorrow; how about that?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you. In that case, I assume he would like to treat the next two questions in the same way: compared with the current land tax regime, what is the cost of changing the scales in 2021-22 and, similarly, in the year 2022-23?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will certainly take that on notice and, hopefully, include all of that in the letter to the honourable member tomorrow.

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

Remaining clause (19), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with suggested amendments.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (17:23): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I know this has been a long process. Members talked about weeks and months, and it seemed like years on occasions. Can I thank honourable members in the committee for the respectful way the debate has been conducted in the chamber. Can I thank those members with whom I have engaged over, as I said, what seems like years, but it was months. I thank them again for the respectful debate.

In the end, some of us have ended up on different sides of the view in relation to the legislation; nevertheless, the discussions in this chamber, anyway, have been conducted respectfully. I am not sure whether that has always been the case in the public arena—I am not talking about the members; I am talking about others—but I do thank members for their contribution to the debate. I look forward to the speedy passage of the third reading.

The council divided on the third reading:

Ayes 10

Noes 9

Majority 1

Third reading thus carried; bill passed.