HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-10-30 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Land Tax (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 October 2019.)

Mr BROWN: Mr Acting Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (15:58): I finished up last night talking about land tax just before 12 o'clock. It is always great when you are the last one on just before the parliament is about to adjourn. I was going to say some potentially nice things about the member for Waite and I was hoping he would be here. Now that I have mentioned his name, I am sure he will come rushing down to hear what I have to say about him. He had an interesting potted history on South Australia and Thomas Playford. I did want to respond to that, so I might give him an opportunity to get down here so that he can listen to what I have to say.

Last night, I was talking about the lack of real consultation on this bill. Again and again, we have gone over the number of iterations of this particular bill. There have been five goes at it. An answer to a question today was: who knows what the final form of this bill is going to be? The devil is in the detail of this bill, and I think it is going to be interesting when we go into committee. If this bill is ever enacted—and that is highly doubtful—out there in the real world I am sure there is going to be a smorgasbord of unintended consequences.

When it comes to consultation, the contrast between the two sides is very significant. Reference has been made to the fact that since the election our leader has visited all 47 electorates around South Australia. He was willing to meet with everyone, and he was willing to hear the critiques of when we were in government what we did wrong—and we did things wrong—and what we did right. I would argue that we overwhelmingly did stuff that was right, but we also made mistakes, as all governments do.

There was a willingness to get out there and listen to people. Added to that, we have continued a practice we had in government of having the whole cabinet, in this case the shadow cabinet, go out to regional communities and, without any filters, listen to the people who come along to our forums. Once again, we have been very open to listen both to the criticisms made when we were in government and to the positive things we did. More importantly, we listened to what was important to people and what they thought we should come on board with. As I said, it is all done without any filter or any vetting. Anybody could turn up to question individually each of those shadow cabinet ministers. We were all there collectively, so there was an opportunity for people to have a real go and have some real dialogue.

In the lead-up to the land tax bill coming to this parliament, we were told by the member for Bragg that there had been extensive consultation way before the last election. It would have come as a surprise to the backbenchers to hear that there was extensive consultation on this particular bill because when it was introduced, when it was flagged in the budget, it was like putting a cat amongst the pigeons, and we have had that chaos, that policy on the run, ever since. It has been an interesting process, one that I think we should all reflect upon because it is a lesson in how not to go about a process like this.

It is incredibly important, especially when it comes to important pieces of legislation, that genuine and active consultation occurs. We are aware that a whole range of peak bodies and business bodies have serious reservations about this bill, but it appears as though the Property Council is happy now, so that is okay and we are going to go ahead with it. I just wonder how many backbenchers—and, indeed, maybe some frontbenchers on the other side—are happy with the particular configuration of the bill, which could well change yet again.

We have argued that there has been a $60 million hit on mum-and-dad investors, independent retirees and small businesses that invest in property. These people invested in a particular way under the rules that existed at the time. Retrospectively, those rules have to be changed, and their investment portfolios and investment vehicles are going to come under some serious threat. We have heard again and again of small investors who are going to be seriously out of pocket as a result of the bill as it now stands if it is enacted.

As I said, this has been chaotic policy on the run. There have been multiple versions of this particular bill, so let's see what the latest process brings us. Let's see what the growing tensions and visions are in those opposite, because I am sure that some people there still have concerns. When you have uncertainty—and this has created uncertainty—when it comes to investment uncertainty is poison.

We should not forget that there is going to be a revaluation as well. The potential consequences of that revaluation for a significant number of small investors—mum-and-dad investors, independent retirees and others—tied to the particular configuration of this bill are probably going to be very serious. Then again, these people are not the top end of town, so apparently they no longer count.

In his contribution on the bill, the member for Waite evoked Thomas Playford, who looks down upon us. I am probably one of the people in this chamber who might well not have been in this state were it not for Thomas Playford. All those years ago, Labor and Liberal politicians introduced the steelworker indenture bill 1958, ultimately setting the framework for the creation of an integrated steelworks in Whyalla, which was commissioned in 1965. As a result, in the late 1960s, my mum and dad came from Ireland, Scotland and England with us young kids to live in Australia. So I have some respect for Thomas Playford.

I find it strange, though, in the context of this bill, for the member for Waite to refer to Thomas Playford. Thomas Playford's mindset was not, 'Let's get government out of the way and let the market rip.' In fact, if anything, he was the opposite. He may well have been a socially conservative individual—and there is nothing wrong with that—but at the same time he was a serious interventionist. Playford did not believe in this nonsense of, 'We'll just get out of the way and let the market rip.' He must have turned in his grave when ETSA was privatised by those opposite, bringing with it the nasty consequences of that privatisation ever since.

It is very interesting to reflect on the capacity to nationalise ETSA. The capacity to do so was provided by the Chifley Labor government, which provided the loans necessary to nationalise the electricity assets in this state. When it comes to Thomas Playford, I think the free marketeers opposite should be a bit careful. The member for Waite went on about history, and how it was all doom and gloom under Labor and all brightness and light under Playford. Well, now the world is a lot more complicated than that.

I acknowledge the good that Liberal governments have done in the past, and I think you should always acknowledge the good things that have happened. A lot of good things happened under Playford and a lot of good things happened under various Labor regimes. The member for Waite also said that the past 16 years have been a disaster. Well, there have been ups and downs. There have been ups and downs in the economic cycle. I clearly recall that under state Labor unemployment in Whyalla went down to just over 4 per cent, on par with the national unemployment level, which it had not been for many, many years.

It is not for state governments to exclusively claim credit for that sort of stuff. We do have an economic cycle and we do have a particular economic profile in South Australia. The world that was built during those Playford years was dismantled, with the removal of tariffs and a whole range of other things, so we ended up in a far more competitive global market. Of course, the circumstances that South Australia faced were not made any easier by a federal Liberal government that actively encouraged shooing off the car industry.

Imagine if the car industry had hung on for a little bit longer, because when it went the dollar was incredibly strong, which was hammering the manufacturing sector in this state and in Victoria. This state had that disproportionate exposure to manufacturing, as Victoria did to a degree as well, so the impact on our state when it came to being part of a global market was very significant. We have all made adjustments over the years, and that has brought challenges. It brought challenges for Labor—and I could list all the good things that we did, but I will not—and it is going to bring challenges for this government as well, because these challenges are ongoing.

This land tax is not the way to go in this particular direction. When I look at my electorate and the land tax bill, it is not a priority. If I look wider afield when it comes to the land tax bill, none of the primary producers I have met ever bring it up with me. Of course, farms are exempt, but it is not raised as an issue. It is the drought and the lack of support for the drought that are raised as issues.

Last night, the member for Mawson mentioned the impact of the snapper ban on the commercial fishing industry. After an extensive period of consultation, which the member for Mawson was involved in—extensive consultation with the commercial fishing sector—the Labor cabinet came up with a package to assist the industry to restructure. An incredibly important part of that package was the $20 million buyback of approximately 100 licences and the introduction of additional quotas and zoning, and all of that disappeared.

All of that was scrapped by the current government and now they are scrambling in an ad hoc way to put something in place after doing enormous damage to people who, in the main, probably voted Liberal. None of those people from the commercial fishing sector have raised with me the priority that this government see around this particular tax.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Deputy Speaker, I call your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call on the member for Light.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (16:14): I rise to debate the land tax bill. In my view, economic insecurity is probably the biggest issue facing the people in my community. It is through this lens that I have approached my assessment of what these land tax changes mean to people living in my community. I have consulted with my community, and I will let their words speak for themselves.

From a statewide industry perspective, I believe the views expressed by the UDIA are moderate, reasonable and reliable. They have been consistent with their views and actions and, as a result, have had a great influence on my thinking from a broad industry perspective. In my view, the statement they issued yesterday provides a balanced approach to the issue. I will quote their statement because I think it is relevant to this debate. The UDIA states:

Yesterday the State Government made an announcement that they have reached an agreement with the Property Council to gain their support for the Land Tax Bill.

The UDIA and other property associations were not consulted on these changes and our key concerns have not been addressed.

These recent changes, which can be can be described as marginal, favour only the highest thresholds. They do not address the issues of shock to the housing market and investor sentiment. The UDIA remains concerned about:

The impact(s) on the market and investor sentiment, the State's economy, business confidence and competitiveness of South Australia;

A land tax regime that is unfair and broken, which is only exacerbated by proposed changes to aggregation;

The impacts of land tax that are specific to the development industry.

Which, in their view, will do quite a bit of damage. At the local level, I have received submissions from local real estate agents, local accountants, business advisers, lawyers and mum-and-dad investors. As I said, I will allow their submissions to speak for themselves. I will read from the submission of a real estate agent, who spoke on behalf of his cohort of clients. His comments have been edited purely for any necessary words.

I am sure that you will receive many submissions dealing with investment, retirement incomes, etc. However I have had several discussions with people who think this is just a wealth tax and who cares if people have the wherewithal to buy more properties then let them pay super taxes such as these.

This is how they see this tax. They see this tax as a super tax. These are people in small business, who act on behalf of other small businesses in my community. This is their view of the changes to the land tax. He goes on:

These views are ignorant of the actual effects to the housing stock in particular.

I will come back to that because I think the impact of these changes to housing stock is very important. He goes on to say:

It takes 20 to 30 years of consistent application of savings to put together a portfolio of properties, risk borrowing lots of money and hoping that it can be paid off. You make these decisions—

in other words, the investors—

under existing legislation and structure all things according to the laws, both Federally and State.

Again, this is an important issue. They are saying that people have invested in property to prepare for their retirement based on the rules of the day, and now this government wants to change the rules halfway through the game. He continues:

Eventually they are paid for and should provide an alternative to living off the state allowing those who most need it, also to receive benefit—

In other words, this person is saying that by becoming self-funded retirees his clients reduce the burden on the state and therefore the state can look after people who are more in need—

The new land tax changes without quarantining existing investments will have unintended consequences. We do not have many interstate investors as generally they see South Australia as a backwater—

These are his views. They see South Australia as a backwater. That is what these people—

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner: That's the 3.7 per cent tax cuts.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, let me finish. They are talking about your proposed laws. This submission is based on your land tax changes. These comments are based purely on the bill I sent to them. I sent them a copy of the bill and your explanatory statements and I said, 'Please provide me with your comments.' I provided no commentary except to say, 'Tell me what you and your clients think of this bill by the Liberal Party.' These are their comments about what you are doing to this state.

It was interesting today that the Premier talked about capital moving interstate. This person is actually in business—unlike the Premier, who is not—and says that this bill is sending capital interstate. As I said, this is—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There has been quite a bit of banter across the chamber over the last few minutes. It is out of order and I ask the member for Light not to encourage it but to concentrate on delivering his contribution.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: And you will provide me with protection.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: All of that, member for Light, of course. You know that.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This person says that there is no real capital gain so they invest elsewhere. This is a person in my community who advises people on how to invest in property in this state saying that what this land tax proposal will do is dampen investment in property in this state and people will move their money elsewhere. He goes on to say:

The impost of many hundreds of thousands of dollars of extra tax—

This is what will happen; this is part of this bill—

[ignores] the fact that while paying more for these properties, many do not have the excess income to pay the tax will have to sell their investment homes to owner occupiers to get by. That will result in less rental housing stock…

This is a firm that deals with property and advises other investors, particularly in the residential market. These proposed tax changes by the Marshall Liberal government will result in less rental housing stock as the number of available homes to rent shrinks. There will be no new additional places and fewer existing investors in the marketplace. I will come to that point because I think it is very important to explain the impact this tax will have on people who need to rent.

This person went on to say that those who have paid for their properties and are trying to receive an income will sell, as many of them will not have the money from the additional income because of the additional cost to maintain them. He thinks this land tax bill will actually increase homelessness in our state. That is his view. This is a person who has probably voted Liberal most of his life. He probably would not vote for our party. This is what he thinks of your bill. This is your bill. He said:

Ultimately who picks up the problems and the homelessness that this poorly thought out super tax—

And that is how they see it—

has caused…and the negative impact on business and the state, starts to fulfil the interstate investors' view of us.

This is what one particular businessperson in my community thinks of this tax. I will now come to an accountant, because I sent out a copy of the Premier's bill and a copy of the Premier's explanation to all the lawyers, accountants, real estate agents and conveyancers in my electorate. I also put it on my Facebook for general mum-and-dad investors. This is the feedback that I have been getting. The accountant said:

My understanding is that the aggregation will affect some of our clients substantially. This will increase their current land tax bills from one or two thousand dollars to tens of thousands [of dollars].

This is the impact the bill will have on investor clients of this particular accounting firm in Gawler. He goes on to say:

These are not wealthy clients, but merely people that have multiple rental properties (more often residential than commercial). They have received advice to structure their affairs quite legally to minimise their tax (and maximise their wealth), and they are now going to be caught [out by these changes].

In addition, these people do not benefit from the reduction in the land tax given they currently do not own property in any one structure that is caught by the maximum tax rate.

This is a theme, which I will come back to, from a couple of the businesspeople who have responded. They say that what this government is doing is hitting small investors and using that money to allow for deductions for the big end of town, which is something that this government has form on. You might remember the tax for the big banks. This is when the government opposed our bank tax and the royal commission exposed the hypocrisy of the banks' behaviour, which this government, when in opposition, supported.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: If you are going to make comments, try to be in your seat. In addition, he said:

This increase in cost will have to be passed on to the lessees, and I would suggest, overall will see an increase in rents for residential properties.

This person is an accountant. He is speaking on behalf of his investor clients, and this is what they see to be the implications of these tax changes—an increase in rents and lease prices. The accountant goes on to say:

Personally, it seems a negative on encouraging people to invest in being self-sufficient for their retirement—

this is his assessment—

and to be able to provide residential rental accommodation at a reasonable price.

This will send rent prices through the roof. It will not provide for people's retirement. In other words, lose, lose, lose right around, except, of course, the big end of town—some of the Property Council members who this government has done a grubby deal with.

I now come to another person who responded to my email. You might call them a mum-and-dad investor. They own a small bed and breakfast business in Gawler, and this is their story to me:

We are writing to you regarding the Marshall Liberal Governments proposed increases in Land Tax and the unfair way they now propose to collect it.

As a small business we pay our share of income tax, land tax and GST plus other levies and rate taxes to contribute to the economy of the nation. We also have 4 permanent contractors who work for us that also pay their tax contribution.

We set up our portfolio of properties within the legal guidelines as advised by accountants and other advisers at the time of making purchases and this has cost us extra charges over the years to keep these properties in the various entities that they were initially set up in.

It seems now that the Marshall Liberal Government—

and these are their words—

want to alter the way they collect Land Tax revenue from us and this will result in us paying a much higher rate than previous.

This is how they see themselves. These are their words:

We are only Mum and Dad investors and have worked hard to secure our future so we will not be a burden on the Federal Government come retirement time. We don’t expect to get a pension or any other cash handouts because we have tried to secure our future for ourselves.

They go on to say:

We are asking you for support to block any legislation to alter the way Land Tax is collected.

This is from a mum-and-dad investor. Then today—

The Hon. C.L. Wingard: How many properties do they have?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I think they have eight—probably fewer than some of your members.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay, back to the task at hand. It is all very well to chat across the chamber, but it is not in order, as we have discussed before. Member for Light, you have the call.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Today, I received another late email from a local lawyer, another lawyer—

Mr Pederick: That's three.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Actually, I did consult. Unlike your side, I actually consulted widely. I consulted—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Light, can you take your seat for a minute. The member for Hammond is called to order. Member for Light, you now have the call and there is no need to respond to any further interjections. We are nearly there.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I said, unlike those opposite, I actually did consult with my community. I did actually consult with probably what you might call traditional Liberal voters. In fact, probably the people I most consulted with would be traditional Liberal voters, and it is interesting that it is their views that I am expressing today, not the views of those you might call traditional Labor supporters.

These are the views of your support base: small business people, people who invest in their own retirements and their own income. Today, I received an email from a lawyer talking about his clients. I know he is a Liberal supporter because I have actually seen him at the booths at election time handing out how-to-vote cards for Liberal Party candidates. He says that he has noted that yesterday we announced that Labor will be opposing this land tax bill, and he actually fully supports it.

He supports it personally and on behalf of his clients. He supports our action to oppose and to defeat this proposal. He goes on to say that, from his point of view, it is completely unfair and it actually just favours the top end of town. This is from a local legal practice who would probably work with a whole range of clients to set up their own future. He is saying that the small investors are being targeted at the expense of the top end of town.

When you look through all these submissions I have received from people in my community, these are the things that come out. I have actually consulted with my community—and I must confess that I have not consulted with the Property Council. I know that the Liberal Party has done extensive consultation with the Property Council—nobody else, but certainly with the Property Council. When you read these submissions from my constituents, from these people who are actually in business in my community, these are the themes that come out.

First of all, this government are moving the goalposts halfway through the game, which will make it tougher for business. Secondly, it will have a negative impact on housing stock. In their view, this will have a negative impact on the provision of housing and the development of housing, both for rental purposes and new housing. It will have a negative impact on new housing development. It will increase rents for people who need to rent and cannot afford to buy a home. It will increase rents because these people say, 'If we have to pay the extra tax, we will increase the rent to recover the additional tax that we are going to pay.'

It will increase the cost of living for those who can least afford it. It will have a negative impact on retirement incomes. A number of people have said that this additional tax will have a negative impact on their retirement income. This is their view: it will punish those who have worked hard and saved; it removes the incentive for people to become self-sufficient; it has a negative impact on investment and business confidence; it will drive investment interstate; it has a negative impact on business incomes because it raises business costs; it hits mum-and-dad investors for six; and it will damage the local economy. These are their words, not mine. This is a group of people who run businesses and who advise other businesses in my community.

The most important issue facing Australians today is economic insecurity. This bill increases that level of insecurity in our community. When we have economic insecurity, people are fearful about the economic future for themselves and their families. Economic insecurity drives most behaviours in our community, including those involving the environment. Economic insecurity drives people's reluctance to spend and invest. Without investment, we do not have job growth, and that further fuels economic insecurity. This is the product of this bill. For these reasons, and because of the views expressed by people in my community, I will not be supporting these proposed land tax changes.

The primary reason for opposing the Marshall Liberal government's proposed changes is that they will have a negative impact on jobs. Scores of small businesses have told me that these land tax hikes will have a devastating impact on their bottom line, which will inevitably cost jobs and limit their ability to create new jobs in the future. This would compound South Australia's unemployment problem at a time when the jobless rate has increased from 5.6 per cent to 6.3 per cent since the election. Construction work is down 5 per cent over the past year and housing finance commitments are down 3.2 per cent.

I know that the Premier has expressed the view that the growing unemployment rate in this state is not an issue, that it is not a problem. I beg to differ. Only a few weeks ago, a woman came into my electorate office to explain to me the impact of unemployment on her partner. It has cost them their relationship. The fact was that he had worked for many years but had now lost his job as a result of privatisation—another favourite economic lever of the Liberal Party, privatisation—and how it had devastated him and made a person who looked forward to going to work, with a positive view of the future for him and his family, to someone with a view that led to the breakdown of the relationship.

This government have no idea what impact these changes will have on ordinary people. If they did, they would not be doing what they are doing. It is interesting to note that they actually use the basis of fairness to support this proposal. If it is about fairness, they would have supported our bank tax and say that those people with a greater ability should make a greater contribution, but they opposed that tax.

Interestingly enough, this government has failed numerous times to provide the modelling that underpins this bill. That is because I do not think they want to release that information because it damages those small investors, those mum-and-dad investors in my community and, for those reasons, I will oppose it.

Mr BOYER (Wright) (16:34): I, too, rise to voice my opposition to the Land Tax (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. I think it was the member for Kaurna, in his comments yesterday, who made the observation that 'miscellaneous' was an interesting word to include in the title of the bill. It may be apt because it actually covers myriad sins. I think 'miscellaneous' is a word we use to cover collectively a bunch of things that have no coherent thread whatsoever through them. In that sense, I think 'miscellaneous' is right on the money in terms of the bill we have before us today.

Much ground has already been covered by those who have spoken before me about how it is that we come to be where we are today. I do not intend to go over all that ground again. Rather, I would like to use this time to focus on the disunity opposite in regard to the bill that continues to plague the government. That disunity may have been contained at the eleventh hour on Monday with a fifth iteration of the bill, but anyone who was here watching proceedings yesterday or today would know that that disunity is barely contained.

In fact, sitting where I do in this place and having the opportunity to watch the faces on the government's backbench at length, it reminded me a little bit of my children's toy cupboard after we ask them to clean up their room. All the stuff they do not want you to see has been hurriedly picked up and hidden from view, but if we were to open that cupboard just a tiny crack it would all explode back into view. It is all still there; it is just barely contained behind the cupboard door. Of course, what the Premier has so desperately tried to project in this place this week is a sense of cohesion and a sense of jubilation, even.

He wanted his own backbenchers to believe that this was a triumph of consultation and a triumph of compromise. He wanted his party room to believe that he had found a pathway through all the dissent and delivered a bill that would receive unanimous adulation. But here is the thing: when they are with you, you do not spend all your time on your feet directing remarks their way. When they are with you, there is no need to rally the backbench.

I am sure what the Premier saw this week when he looked over his shoulder, which I think he did more than he has done on any other occasion during the time I have been a member of this place, gave him absolutely no confidence and no comfort at all. There was no sense of jubilation. There were lots of downcast eyes and there were members pretending to be busy on their phones, but certainly there was no sense of relief, no sense of victory. In fact, it all looked pretty flat.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: No eye contact.

Mr BOYER: No eye contact, exactly right—downcast eyes, pretending to look busy. There were a few furtive sideways glances after a few comments were made by people who may not have necessarily been agreeing with or sharing the Premier's enthusiasm. It looked flat. It did not look like a team that had just had a win. The Minister for Child Protection was trying to stay awake, the Minister for Environment was trying to save his own political skin and the Minister for Primary Industries was so off his game he even forgot his own catchphrase.

There is a very simple reason for the depressed state of the government in this place. The process that has led to the bill before us now, land tax 5.0 or 'land tax revisited'—I heard someone earlier refer to it as 'land tax genesis', which I thought was very clever—has been so shambolic, so poorly communicated and so devoid of any grassroots support that the truth of the matter is that those opposite are actually just as confused as the South Australian public about where they have landed.

I accept that by their very nature issues around taxation are complex. But when you add to that the inability of the Premier to get agreement from his party room on land tax version 1, otherwise known as 'land tax origins', and the subsequent four rewrites of that bill, then what you have is a real mess.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: A new hope.

Mr BOYER: A new hope. I do not think we have got to a new hope yet. What you actually have here now, five versions deep into this debate on land tax, is the worst-case scenario for a government because they have not communicated the problem, they have not communicated the solution and they have a team that does not agree on what the solution is anyway. Anyone who has been around politics for even just a little while would know that that is the worst-case scenario for a government.

Then you add into that mix some really unsightly spats on social media with key stakeholders—Liberal Party donors, Liberal Party members—and what starts bubbling to the surface are some really legitimate questions about who these changes actually benefit because people are so confused. People on the opposite side of this house, now five versions deep into this bill, are also confused about what it is they are delivering and to whom they are delivering it.

It did cross my mind that the government was trying to use the Property Council as a bit of straw man, a clever kind of artifice that would enable the government to appear as though it was being held to account, and willing to make genuine concessions, and similarly allow the Property Council to posture to its membership that it had delivered those concessions to them. But then the Property Council inexplicably rolled over at the eleventh hour and let Rob Lucas tickle their tummies.

What we have before us today is a bill that nobody really seems happy with. It felt a bit like a badly fixed fight, where the boxer who has been paid off to take a fall flops a bit easily and a bit too early and the whole crowd gets a sense that this is all just for show. The public are amazing and they can pick up on that kind of thing. We do not give them enough credit. They can smell when it is a bit off. We had weeks and months of what we now know is a staged fight between the Treasurer and Daniel Gannon from the Property Council. Then, at the eleventh hour, there is a photo of the two of them enjoying a macchiato somewhere in the city, staring deeply into each other's eyes and talking about the old days.

However, I do accept that there are some winners, and I can only assume that the price for the flop by the Property Council was securing the preselection of Mr Gannon, although I am not sure if that is going to be with the real Liberal Party or just the regular Liberal Party. He might be hedging his bets. It seems to be a skill. The Treasurer will also be happy because what we have here before us—and let's call it for what it actually is—is a revenue measure, and treasurers love revenue measures. Even this Treasurer, who had us all believe before the last state election, and many state elections he has been a part of before then, that new taxes and more debt were like kryptonite to this Liberal government. But here we are.

Ms Stinson: They love it.

Mr BOYER: They love it. Just 20 months on and state debt is going up and we have before us right now proposed changes to taxation that will result in more revenue coming into government coffers. What about all those promises made by the Premier during his many speeches on land tax reform? The Premier claimed that his government's bill would boost business and consumer confidence. The evidence shows the opposite. He claimed that it would create jobs. Again, the evidence shows the opposite. He also told us that it would put more money into the pockets of hardworking South Australians, but still today has refused to provide any evidence to back up that claim.

The Premier did make this rather prophetic comment during debate on the proposed bank tax in 2017. He said, and I quote:

The new taxes will only serve to undermine confidence and make the situation harder for families, business and employers.

Well, he got that one right, and on this count we have some pretty considerable evidence. In the 4½ months since the state budget, business confidence has bottomed out. In fact, the ANZ/Property Council Survey showed that business confidence in South Australia had the biggest drop in the country. That index went from 144 in June 2019 to 101 in October. I understand that that drop of 43 points is the largest drop for any state in the history of that survey since it commenced in 2011. That is significant. That cannot be ignored.

When Daniel Gannon from the Property Council was asked why he thought business confidence had tanked, he blamed the proposed land tax reforms. He said they were taking a bulldozer to business confidence, which brings me to the fundamental reason we oppose the bill—and this point has been made by all the speakers who have come before me on this side of the house—and that is jobs.

The member for Croydon has conducted what I suspect is probably the most thorough consultation carried out by a leader of the opposition on these proposed changes. That consultation has told us over and over again that land tax hikes for small businesses will have a devastating effect on their bottom line. Those small businesses will respond to that hike in the only way they can: they will have to reduce their costs. That will mean either retrenching staff or, at the very least, not taking on new staff—no more hiring.

The seat of Wright, which I proudly represent in this place, now encompasses Salisbury South, which is almost exclusively businesses. Some are big, famous South Australian businesses, such as Bickford's and R.M. Williams, but aside from those they are almost exclusively small businesses. This approach from the Marshall government really flies in the face of all their rhetoric before and after the election about how they would support small businesses such as those residing in Salisbury South.

That rhetoric usually takes the shape of catchphrases or slogans, of which this government is very fond. Some good examples are: 'Small business is the engine room of the economy,' 'Small business underpins our state's economy,' and 'Small businesses are the backbone of our state's economy.' But the changes proposed in the bill show that those kinds of statements really are only rhetoric.

Although this Premier is very fond of telling us how his government is going to take the handbrake off the economy, for many small and family businesses, such as those that operate in Salisbury South in the north and north-eastern suburbs of Adelaide, these changes to the state's land tax regime are actually going to act as a handbrake on employment. Of course, this will only compound South Australia's unemployment problem at a time when the jobless rate has increased from 5.6 per cent to 6.3 per cent since the election, construction work is down 5.2 per cent over the past year and housing finance commitments are down 3.2 per cent. It is the worst possible time to introduce any disincentive for small businesses to employ new people.

What about the effect on the rental market? This is a government that talked a really big game before the state election about the burden of electricity prices and the cost of living but has no qualms about introducing a revenue measure that will be passed all the way down the line to the low income earner renting property. It does not take a genius to work out how landlords will respond to a higher land tax bill: rents will go up. The cost of the changes proposed in the bill will be passed on to renters. This will mean that lower income earners living in rental properties will be hit hard, potentially driving some of them into a public housing system that is already overstretched.

How did it come to this? These changes were rushed into the state budget at the last minute. There were inaccurate costings and no consultation. Those opposite have held five different positions on land tax so far. I suspect that the Premier may be confused about what makes a good decision-maker. I think it is quality over quantity. Just because you have made five different decisions on a bill does not mean you are a good decision-maker.

By contrast, the opposition has undertaken a considered consultation process, a lengthy consultation process, that has involved our leader, the member for Croydon, fronting the South Australian public face to face, giving them the opportunity to ask any questions they want and making himself available to them. He did all the things that this government avoided doing, and we now know why. Based on that consultation, we cannot support these unfair land tax hikes, which are going to hurt local jobs, hurt small businesses and drive up rents.

Before the state election, this Premier promised lower costs and better services; instead, we are getting higher costs. We said that we would be a constructive opposition, and we have been, but we also said that if this Liberal government sought to introduce measures that would hurt working people, families and small businesses, then they would not have our support. I know that the people in the north-eastern suburbs and the people of Wright who elected me to this position would expect me to stand up for them in debates like this. They are confused—as I think we all are at this point—about what the Marshall Liberal government is now trying to deliver. We will keep our word.

Let's not forget that today, when the Premier was asked whether he could rule out a sixth version of this land tax bill, which I am calling 'Land tax: the next generation', he refused to do so. There have been five iterations of this bill so far, with possibly another one to go. If the five versions that we have seen so far in a pretty short period of time are anything to go by, we know what they will be.

They will be like the one before us today. They will be divisive, they will be destructive and they will be unfair. They will put unfair pressure on small businesses, vulnerable households and family businesses. They will act as a handbrake on employment in this state, and all at a time when we have seen unemployment in South Australia jump to 6.3 per cent since the state election. For those reasons, we oppose this bill and we intend to keep our word.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sir, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (16:53): I rise to speak on the fifth incarnation of the government's land tax bill and join with my colleagues on this side to oppose it. Despite what the government might now be working overtime to spin, these changes to our land tax system represent a tax hit on thousands of landowners in South Australia—in particular, people who have worked hard to invest in their own futures.

This is a tax hit on people who had plans for a self-funded retirement, people who are doing the hard yards and giving up weekends or working two jobs to buy investment properties to secure their family's financial future, new parents trying to forge their way in the world, and postwar migrants who have invested in bricks and mortar.

This tax hit is from a party that has long repeated a low tax mantra, a party that talked about lower costs and lower taxes, yet has found that its propensity for overpromising in opposition has led to not only underdelivering in government but breaking key promises even to its own voter base. The lower taxes mantra is sounding pretty hollow and is being replaced with the howls of loyal Liberal voters crying foul.

Coming into this place I did not think I would be hosting so many forums with so many Liberal voters, first on school zones and now on land tax. For me, the question with this bill is a matter of fairness, and balancing that has had to be carefully thought through. I do understand the government's argument around restructuring aggregation, and really that is a major sticking point for many people who have raised the issue with me. However, when we look at how that is applied and the unfair result, that is a cause for concern in my community.

Another facet that we as the Labor Party examine with all economic and financial reforms is jobs: will this build jobs or risk them? On that front, too, this policy has been found wanting. These are not easy decisions. There are numbers to be balanced and views and experiences to be considered. On this side, we have gone out and asked people what they think of these changes and how they will be affected. We have then gone through and thoroughly debated the merits among our team and announced our unified position—one single unified position.

For those opposite, a single unified position is of course a mirage that they repeatedly find out of their grasp. When this proposal was first put out there by the government, I have to say I was unsure about its impact on the people in my electorate, so I was pleased that we have a strong leader who put together a plan to go out into our communities in an organised and measured way to invite people to tell us what they thought.

The presentations put forward by my colleagues, particularly by the shadow treasurer (hopefully the next treasurer of the state) were measured, detailed and without any sort of political bias. They just told it as it was. There were simple screens of information for people who wanted to know what this meant for them. We did not know what people would say when we embarked upon this. We did not know if anyone would turn up or even if they would talk to us, but it turns out we need not have worried about that.

I have been to two of those community forums nearest to my electorate at Goodwood and Lockleys, and about 600 people attended in total. I have to say that, along with looking at the policy detail, hearing the stories directly from people in my area has been instrumental on where I have arrived with this bill. To put a face to the numbers on a page is a valuable, informative and moving exercise. I say thank you to all those who took time out of their busy lives to come along and help us to understand the impact and make a decision we feel is in the interests of South Australians.

I have to say that when I hosted the community forum at Goodwood I did not anticipate the level of emotion and, indeed, grief at the proposed changes. Man after man and woman after woman lined up to have their say. While there was the occasional question, most people were very well informed about the details of the land tax changes, or at least at that time the fourth version that the Liberal government had put forward. They came with typed speech notes, with figures and diagrams drawn on pages and with legal and financial advice to hand. They were keen to share with us the impact this tax hike would have on them and they were keen to persuade us that this is bad law.

Time and time again people begged us to oppose this bill. They told us frankly that they had never voted Labor. Some pledged to vote Labor if we opposed this bill, telling us that they felt abandoned by the party they had loyally followed, even donated to, saying they had hoped for a better deal under a Liberal government but have found they have been left worse off. One man I spoke with at the Goodwood forum even asked me for a Labor Party membership form and has since joined the Labor Party, and of course I hope many more follow him.

Mr Boyer: Wow!

Ms STINSON: Wow, indeed. There were some key messages from my electorate, phrases that I heard again and again at the different forums and also when I have been talking with people at schools, sports clubs and even at my local centre when I have been doing shopping.

I will run you through a few of those phrases I have heard more than a few times—first, 'We are not tax cheats.' There has been white hot anger at the forums in response to the Treasurer labelling landowners as 'tax cheats'. People quite furiously explained to us that they have played by the rules. They have not cheated anyone. They have used the laws, very well-known laws, to structure their financial affairs in the best way they could and within the law. To say that people have found the accusation offensive is an understatement. It is clearly a slur that many are unlikely to forget in a hurry. At every forum I went to, this message was repeated again and again: 'We are not tax cheats.'

Another message—and this is one that is probably particular to my electorate and also the electorate of West Torrens—is the comment that this is just like the school zone changes all over again. It has not escaped residents in Badcoe that this situation shares some common ground with another injustice in my area: the changing of school zones. The two are obviously unrelated policy areas, but when you think about it it is not too much of a stretch. I can see why people are seeing the Liberals impose these tax changes on them, these land tax changes changing the rules, and they are saying, 'Well, hang on, this has already happened to me. I played by another set of rules, that of school zones, and this new Liberal government has pulled the rug out from me on that as well.'

The first similarity is that this is a significant policy that was not disclosed before the election but then imposed upon people after the election. It is a broken promise to tell parents that you are providing better services when you are actually removing access to their local school, just like it is a broken promise to tell people that you are lowering costs when you are slapping them with a huge tax bill.

The second similarity is that this is a situation where the rules are suddenly changed. The rug is pulled out from under people who had made serious financial decisions based on a firm and well-known policy position, leaving people with limited options and in a financially worse off position. The third similarity is the accusation from the government that people have been cheating or doing the wrong thing, when they have been playing by the rules. People are no more breaking the law by setting up a trust than they are by buying a house in a new school zone.

The fourth similarity is that of course on both these issues there has been a complete lack of consultation or will to listen to everyday people and there has been no capacity, once announcing the policy, to entertain any transitionary arrangements that might ameliorate the pain for people in some way. So, whether it is privatising public transport, imposing a bin tax, axing the Fund My Neighbourhood fund, changing the school zone, shutting down our nearest Service SA or bringing in a harsh new land taxes, it is becoming pretty standard for people in my area to feel aggrieved by the sudden cuts and broken promises of this government.

Isn't that a sad state of affairs? We are only 18 months into this government, yet people in an inner city marginal seat do not even expect the government to do anything positive. They now expect this government to break their promises because they have done it so many times in relation to serious financial decisions that people in my area have made.

The next comment I have heard quite a bit, and probably not one I was expecting to hear, is, 'I rent and I'm worried too.' I was surprised to hear from renters in my area, many in affordable private rentals, who are opposed to this change because they fear rent hikes. Badcoe is a pretty mixed electorate. There are houses selling for over $1.3 million in Millswood, while just around the corner there are families in social housing or low rent flats and, of course, there is everything in between. That means that, along with investors and owners of multiple properties, there are also those in my area doing it much tougher, and their fears of rent rises are well founded.

At the Goodwood forum, one landlord talked about how he really gets along with his tenants and he does not want to make life any more difficult for them as low income earners by boosting their pretty reasonable rent, but currently he is paying a land tax bill of $4,000 and under the changes that will rocket up to $23,000. He has calculated that that will mean he needs to put up the rent at each property by $80 a week to meet his new and much higher land tax obligations, or he can sell his properties, which are currently providing housing for 11 low income earners. Clearly, that is not a state of affairs that we on this side of the house can put up with.

Another comment I have heard is, 'We will just sell up and invest interstate.' Several investors in the area, including some people I am quite close friends with, have told me that they will simply sell their South Australian properties and buy interstate if these changes are brought in. I have also had quite a lot of people fearing a slump in the market from this change. This is the big one, the big comment that we are hearing again and again: 'I did the hard yards to save for my own self-funded retirement.' By far and away the most common cry I have heard is from people who have sacrificed so much in their personal, family and work lives to be able to afford to invest in the Australian dream of home ownership.

They have invested to allow themselves a self-funded retirement. They have invested in order to provide a home for their children or even to provide an inheritance for their spouse and loved ones. Many of the people making this argument in my electorate are postwar migrants and many are also recent arrivals, people who have believed in the value of bricks and mortar as an investment strategy and people who did this according to the rules. I will give you a few examples of the impact from my electorate.

On Anzac Highway at Everard Park, there is a low cost motel called the Capri Lodge Motel. It provides affordable lodging for people who are being treated at the nearby Ashford Hospital or who are visiting loved ones who are there. The owners are now facing a huge land tax bill. They have no idea how they are going to meet that land tax bill. Last year, they were paying $9,537 in land tax. This year, it is going to be $17,854. These people are not well off. This is their one and only business, and it is also a business that provides a really important community service in my area, a place where people can stay when they need it most and a place that is really affordable. Now they have to consider selling up or drastically increasing the otherwise very affordable nightly rates.

Kosta came along to the Goodwood forum. He was warmly supported by the crowd as he shed tears telling his story, and I have to say that his story really moved me. I was not expecting to turn up to a community forum and feel my heart tugged like that as a man in his 30s told his story about his taxation situation. But, of course, it is not just about tax, is it? It is about people's lives. Costa is a self-employed business owner and he is starting a young family. He has one little one and another one on the way. His wife is heavily pregnant, and she has gone on leave and she does not have any paid leave.

The plan was to save up money and invest in property and have something to sustain them moving forward. He employs numerous people and puts his own capital into the business. It will cost him an extra $15,000 a year because of the way he has set himself up, which is according to the existing rules. Costa says that he will have to sell his properties, likely at a loss due to low growth, and he is already eating into his savings. As I said, this was a grown man who was shedding tears as he was describing the situation for him and his wife and, to be honest, that is enough to make anyone cry.

I got a phone call from Adam, who is from Keswick and who is now facing a $20,000 land tax bill. He is a tradie and he is married with two kids. Adam, good on him, owns five domestic homes and he has two commercial properties. He is a tradie and he has acquired those commercial properties as part of his work, and he has done really well. He told me that he started saving when he was just 17 years old. He did not get any money from his parents. He just started saving from the age of 17.

He was really clever and he got advice, and he structured his affairs in a way that enabled him to own five domestic investment properties and those two commercial properties. Now, because of these changes and because of that extra $20,000 land tax bill, he is going to need to sell his properties. He does not have any other choice. Not only that, but he also listed off to me his relatives who are each in a similar situation; in fact, some are even worse.

I have also been made aware from one of our forums of a builder who has called a halt to a townhouse development in my electorate. As the person who raised this said, that is 12 cabinetmakers, 12 plumbing jobs, 12 carpet-laying jobs, 12 tiling jobs, and so on, and so on that are now lost because this project has been put on hold as the developer does not think that they will actually be able to finish it with the new land tax arrangements.

Thinking of all those jobs, it is absolutely horrible to consider what losing that volume of work means for those tradies and for their families, and our unemployment rate is not so strong that we can simply give away jobs. As I said, jobs are the number one consideration for this side of the house when evaluating this policy, and clearly when you look at these examples it fails.

While some people are yet to know the true dollar figure of these land tax changes, for some of my constituents, those who live in the City of Unley, the calculation is a little more exact because people in that area have already gone through the land revaluation process. Many of them now know the extent of the increase on the value of their properties, and for many it has made for some pretty scary figures in terms of calculating what they will now owe.

I have listened to the arguments of people who have said to me that Labor should not let this bill go through. Some have advanced the argument that greater revenue—and that is what this is, revenue raising—could be spent on helping vulnerable people in our community to get greater support and live easier lives, and of course I agree with that objective. SACOSS has advanced that argument, as have many individuals in my area I come into contact with by virtue of my work in child protection and arts.

However, the thing is that when I have said to those people, 'Okay, well, if the Liberal government does reap in all this money, do you expect the Treasurer then to spend that money on social justice initiatives?' every single one them has answered no. They know that that is not a priority for the Liberal government. They know that that money is simply going to be scooped up and that it will not be spent on social justice initiatives. There is no expectation that this government will suddenly refund the programs it has so cruelly axed. The land tax revenue is plainly not going to re-employing the 59 financial counsellors or restoring the cuts imposed on the arts.

At the end of the day, I am pretty sick of this government promising one thing and doing another. I am pretty sick of the rules getting changed under people's feet and then people in my electorate being labelled as cheats. I am pretty sick of the lack of consultation when it comes to the biggest financial decision many of them will ever make—the purchase of a property. I am pretty sick of broken promises, and people in my electorate are pretty sick of it, too, and that is why I am opposing this bill.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

Ms WORTLEY (Torrens) (17:15): I rise to speak on the Land Tax (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. When the Marshall Liberal government announced its intention in the 2019-20 state budget to retrospectively change tax laws, it served a massive hit to business confidence in South Australia. It also resulted in many families, seniors, employers, businesses and workers facing uncertain futures.

Labor did not instantly jump on board, nor did we automatically oppose it. We wanted more information. There were inaccurate costings, there was no modelling and, in fact, there appeared to be almost no consultation. A few weeks ago, along with some of my colleagues, I attended a forum at the Mache Club with the Leader of the Opposition. Throughout the evening we heard from men and women who came up to the microphone to tell their story.

We heard in this chamber from the shadow attorney-general about a gentleman who spoke about working hard week after week for years, including weekends, missing out on watching his son play soccer and justifying it to himself and to his family because he was working hard to secure his family's future. He spoke about how he taught his children that hard work and putting in those extra hours pays off. He also told those gathered at the Marche Club that evening that he was going to go home that night and tell his children that hard work and making sacrifices does not pay off. That is how badly he felt about these proposed changes.

Generation after generation of hardworking South Australians have played by the rules. They have done everything expected of them. They have worked hard, paid their taxes and made long-term investments for their future. Many are new migrants who packed up a few of their most treasured possessions and migrated to Australia in the fifties and sixties to make a new life, a better life for themselves and for their children. They worked hard and saved and invested in property, in bricks and mortar, to secure their future. Many of them started up small businesses. Today, many are feeling tricked, betrayed and angry.

Today, I spoke to a resident, Maria, who is of Italian heritage, who told me that for 40 years both she and her husband worked hard, saved and invested in properties to secure their future. She had also worked hard maintaining the rental properties and told me that they have never really taken a family holiday. She felt so passionate about the proposed land tax changes that she came to my office last week and that is why today, when I returned her call, she wanted to spend time telling me about how she felt.

Maria calculated that the land tax hike would cost her and her 86-year-old husband $35,000 a year. She said that they spend just over $200 a month on medication, and they also help to support her mother, who is in her 90s. They recently had to secure the services of a letting agent because Maria is no longer able to do that work as most of her time is spent looking after her husband and helping out with her mother.

She knew that I was going to speak about this in the chamber and she wanted me to say that they have never been a burden on government, and that they have always been self-supporting. The tenants in their rental properties are young families who find it hard to make ends meet. Maria said that they often get behind with their rent, but they cannot put them out on the street and they allow them extra time to pay and catch up.

She said it was awful when only last week she had to go to the two families with young children and explain to them that while they can cover the rent getting behind at the moment, if the changes to the land tax get through, then they will no longer be in a position to do so. They will not be in a position to help them in this way. I asked her what the options would be. She said that she could not put the rent up for this family because if she put the rent up they would not be able to afford it (they can barely afford it now) and their only option would be to ask these people to leave and put in new tenants, or they would have to sell their property because with the added burden they just would not be able to afford it.

Maria sounded despondent when asking me not to support the bill, saying she could see no hope if it were passed. She told me that this has caused so much stress and will impact so badly on so many people she has spoken to and that they are saying they will never, ever forget what the Liberals have put them through. She told me that they did not go to the election with this policy. If they had, many of her family and friends would not have voted for them.

I do not know for sure, but I am guessing that these people are generally Liberal voters and, according to Maria, they no longer will be. And the reason? Because as a result of the Marshall Liberal government's land tax changes many of them will be financially worse off. They will not only be financially worse off but they will feel insecure and uncertain about what the future holds. This came across at the forum we had at the Marche Club.

There were so many people there talking about the uncertainty, that they did not know what lay ahead for the future and that they thought they had put away for their future. It was in the time before superannuation that many of them started saving their money and investing in property so that they would be able to be self-supporting in retirement. Another resident I shall refer to as Anne wrote to me and said:

My husband and I are completely dismayed at the proposed changes to the calculation of Land Tax in South Australia. Our new anticipated Land Tax will so severely reduce our income that we will be forced to sell property in South Australia and [we will have to] invest elsewhere…

For self-funded retirees who have worked hard to become financially independent, the ownership of more than one property has in many cases become a necessity. Owning one rental property may exclude the investor from eligibility for the Age Pension, but owning just one investment property may not provide sufficient income for an adequate standard of living. This applies in our own case as my husband does not have sufficient superannuation to support us without the added income provided by our investment properties…

As our properties offer accommodation at the lower end of the rental market scale, people on government pensions or lower incomes have been our main tenants over the years. If this proposed Land Tax increase goes ahead, they will be subjected to significantly higher rents which they will barely be able to afford, or be forced to leave when we are forced to sell. This will result in a diminishing pool of low-rental accommodation when other investors are forced to do the same.

When the Government has got its figures for its expected returns from this measure so wrong and has had to make continual readjustments, how can we believe that it really knows what it is doing and has considered what the likely repercussions of its actions will be?...We live very modestly in a three-bedroom house which we have occupied since 1976 (no refurbishments, no renovations, no extensions)…We have worked hard to purchase and maintain our rental properties. I have painted interiors six times…the last time being in 2014 when I was 71, including two coats for both the interior and exterior; I have sewed complete sets of curtains for all rooms for five properties; and I have cleaned the properties myself numerous times when tenants had vacated them. My husband and I continue to manage the properties ourselves, including preparation of tax returns. How can we be fair targets for these proposed Land Tax increases?

Please do not support this measure, and vote it down when it is presented to the Parliament. It is ill-thought-out and its negative effects are far too great on individuals and the State as a whole.

During the lead-up to the 2018 election, we heard nothing from the Premier about aggregating property interest to bring untaxed properties into the tax regime. We heard nothing from the Premier about shifting the goalposts, leaving thousands worse off. So what are we faced with now? Broken promises by the Marshall Liberal government that will, if this bill is passed, have a significant impact on the way some of these families will live their lives, not just today but for years ahead.

It also impacts on the way they feel, they way they think about the lives they have lived and the things that they have done: working so hard, missing out on family holidays, putting money away, making personal sacrifices—all for what? That is the position they are putting to me.

Land tax hikes on some property owners will in turn result in rent increases. Again, those who can least afford it, those in the lower income bracket will also bear the brunt, putting even more pressure on the public housing system. We will see significant pressure on small business, particularly in cases where an increase in land tax will also lead to an increase in rent and the flow-on effect of increased cost of living.

I want to refer to a submission to YourSAy, a public place for people to have a say about the land tax. This person writes:

I am writing this submission to express how anxious, depressed and disheartened I am feeling about these new land tax reforms and the effect they will have on my family and the countless other families, individuals and businesses in this State. I feel the future of property investing in this State is so bleak and uncertain. I was once so positive about investing in property but now I lay wide awake at night worrying about my family's financial future and whether all our hard work has been in vain.

I am one half of a mum and dad investor with three children ranging from ages 11 to 15 years. We have a mortgage…several in fact. In the whole scheme of things, we are merely two small fish in the big ocean of property owners and investors but we have worked so damn hard to get to where we are and want to know that our concerns actually mean something to someone. Both my husband and I come from families of migrants. We watched our parents slave in factories to put food on the table and to provide a secure home over our head. We were taught as youngsters to dare to dream and aspire to be self sufficient in our adult lives and not to rely on the government. That Australia is the land of plenty and if you are prepared to work hard and make sacrifices then your wildest dream can come true. Today I am questioning whether this dream has been forsaken…

As property investors and owners we do more than simply own a property; we actually give back in terms of job creation for [countless] tradespeople and others that are involved in the property sector. Owning a property comes with immense hard work, penny pinching, worrying and discipline! Property investing WAS…attractive to me because it was an asset I could see, touch, feel—its [bricks] and mortar. But why do I feel like I'm being punished for trying to get somewhere in life?...

I'm beginning to think it's better not to have any long term financial goals and aspirations and instead to make money while you are young and spend EVERY penny of it and have a good life FULL OF EXPERIENCES and then live off a government pension when you retire. Maybe Gen Y and Gen Z have it correct after all?!?! The way things are going I definitely would not advise my children (who will be future tax-payers) to invest in property in this State. It will be better for them to get an education or trade and move interstate or overseas where they can be treated fairly with respect and acknowledged for their hard work rather than being torn to shreds by their government…

During our property investing we did not cheat the system by using 'loopholes' to minimise tax. We based our investment strategy around the existing law and made significant financial commitments within this framework. Changing the goal post mid way through the game is not only unethical but catastrophic for us. We already pay land tax on ALL our properties, we are not complaining about that…we are opposed to aggregation as it will be extremely detrimental and we will not even be able to cover the cost of holding onto some of our properties…

How can we as property owners know what amounts of land tax we will be up for if we are not even given a starting value of what our properties are worth under the new revaluation scheme? This whole reform will be an end to property investment in South Australia.

That was from another South Australian resident who was saying that the bill, if passed, is going to impact so significantly on their life, on their family and on the people who rely on them for jobs that their investment in the future will not be here in South Australia: their investment will be interstate or overseas. Tax hikes will hurt local jobs. They are unfair on small businesses and small investors, and they will drive up commercial and residential rents.

If this bill is passed, in some instances it will impact negatively on my residents in Torrens who have worked hard and invested in property to secure their future in retirement. In some instances, it will impact on my residents in the lower income bracket who cannot afford to buy their own home and who rely on private rental. In some instances, it will impact on my residents who shop at the local fruit and vegetable shop or go to the local hairdresser or any of the other businesses that, as a result of these tax hikes, will have their rent increased, forcing up the price of their goods and services.

Labor has consulted widely on these proposed land tax changes. We have had the forums and street corner meetings, and we have spoken in sporting complexes and at gatherings. It is really interesting that people from all walks of life are opposed to these changes. They do not think they are fair. They do not think they are Australian. Implementing this sort of increase in tax is not a level playing field when people are not prepared for it. As others have said, they played by the law and they did the right thing.

We have consulted widely with the information available to us. We have come to the conclusion that these unfair hikes will hurt local jobs, they will hurt small businesses, they will drive up rents, they will impose higher costs and they will see tradespeople out of jobs. We do not and we cannot support a bill that impacts so negatively on hardworking people and families, seniors, small businesses and vulnerable South Australians. I stand here today in opposition to the bill.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I draw your attention to the state of the house, sir.

A quorum having been formed:

Mr GEE (Taylor) (17:35): I rise to oppose the Land Tax (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2019. Well, here is another broken promise by the Premier and the Treasurer, who mentioned nothing about aggregation before the election. Their promise was lower costs for South Australians. This bill will have the opposite effect and impact negatively on the economic stability of South Australia and it will cost jobs.

The people of South Australia have spoken clearly at several forums organised by the Labor Party. The leader (member for Croydon) and some of my other colleagues heard from hundreds of residents who will be negatively impacted by these changes. These property owners were angry and distressed that the state government would seek to criminalise a practice that has been legal for many years, and would look to punish them for legally minimising their tax liability, which is something that many individual and larger businesses do every day.

As we know, this is the fifth version of this bill, but even after five attempts this is still bad policy. It is policy on the run. The Property Council may now be happy, but everyone on this side of the house and many on the backbench of the government know that these changes will be bad for the economy, bad for jobs, bad for mum-and-dad investors, bad for renters and bad for small business.

In his second reading explanation, the Premier claimed that this government's bill would boost business and consumer confidence. He claimed that it would create jobs, and further claimed that it would put more money into the pockets of hardworking South Australians. Today, he would not produce any evidence to support these claims. I do not believe that any of these claims will turn out to be true. This bill does not recognise migrant culture and does not consider the world before superannuation—a world where it was normal, if you could afford it, to invest in property, in real estate, in bricks and mortar, a real asset that you could use to fund your retirement.

This was a world where workers did not have the protections they have today, such as superannuation, income protection insurance and the ability to securely invest your savings for a rainy day. These changes, if passed, would have a major impact on law-abiding South Australians who invested in our state. these South Australians have invested in bricks and mortar to secure a future for themselves, their children and grandchildren.

These South Australians have worked hard and saved their money, probably missing out on seeing their kids and having holidays, in order to ensure that they could build a future. These South Australians are now being punished. They are being punished for following the law and doing what they believed was best for their families. These people do not deserve a retrospective tax change.

I have two investment properties, one of which I owned for many years prior to entering this place. I earned an average wage and worked to do the best for my family. As I have said before in this place, I have lived in the north since I migrated to Australia, and I worked at Holden. I worked a second job at the Adelaide Produce Market, packing fruit and vegetables from the Angle Vale, Two Wells and Virginia areas, which I am now pleased to represent.

My wife and I were fortunate enough to have a Housing SA property in Salisbury North while we saved a deposit to buy our first home together. Like many former Holden workers, we worked hard and invested our savings to ensure a future for our children and grandchildren. I am unsure how these changes will affect everyday South Australians, including families in my electorate—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr GEE: —who are being targeted by this government because this legislation keeps changing.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: No, you are not. You are a beneficiary.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Attorney, please stop interjecting.

Mr GEE: Members of our community should not be financially disadvantaged for taking advantage of our laws to pay less tax to the state government. While not every member of the community will agree with the trust legislation as it is right now, the provision of trusts has been around for decades and it is a legitimate financial product.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: So you've got two property trusts, have you?

Mr GEE: I have to say that I do not have a trust.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Taylor, I am going to ask you to take your seat for a minute. I am going to have a talk to these members. This is the last contribution, as I understand it, on the second reading. I ask that you cease interjecting and give the member for Taylor the opportunity to make a contribution.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Sir, the time is still going.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will make sure we look after that, member for West Torrens. So I ask members to cease interjecting and listen to the contribution in silence, as they should. Member for Taylor.

Mr GEE: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Members of our community need to be supported by this government, not be further burdened with further tax increases. The current legislation is not necessarily fair to all, but the proposed changes are certainly not the answer. These proposed changes will penalise South Australians who have worked hard while rewarding the top end of town with more than a 1 per cent cut in land tax.

This bill will have an impact on housing construction, renters and small business owners across my electorate and neighbouring electorates in the northern suburbs. My electorate contains some of the fastest growing areas in South Australia, with new housing construction in Andrews Farm, Angle Vale, Davoren Park, Eyre, Two Wells and Virginia. Angle Vale is the fastest growing area in South Australia, and the City of Playford is one of the fastest growing, if not the fastest, communities in Australia.

Does this Liberal government really want to further put the brakes on when we know the construction industry is already suffering? The CommSec State of the States report released this week shows South Australia is placed sixth among the states and territories. Construction work is down 5.2 per cent compared with a year ago, and housing finance commitments are down 3.2 per cent for the year in South Australia, which is the worst of all states and territories. We also know from the CommSec report that dwelling starts are down 10.7 per cent, or nearly 11 per cent, on the decade average in South Australia. These figures are very concerning for many members of my community, especially small business owners and tradies.

This bill will further impact on housing construction across my electorate and the electorates of Elizabeth, King, Light, Narungga and Schubert in the north. Investment will be impacted and home owners will be subjected to higher costs in an already tough housing market. We have heard from the Master Builders Association and other industry groups that these changes need to be delayed. As the member for Croydon said yesterday—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for West Torrens and the Minister for Police will—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: He is out of his place, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That may be, but what I am going to say is that the interjections are out of order and the across the chamber banter is out of order.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: He is behaving like a child, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens, I am dealing with this. The member for Taylor is making a contribution and we will listen.

Mr GEE: Thank you, sir. Builders, realtors and tradies are all wondering where their next job is coming from because of the uncertainty around these land tax changes in combination with the revaluation process currently being undertaken. People looking to buy a house will be asking the agent not only what the stamp duty is but, 'How much is the land tax?' We need investors to build and buy properties in South Australia and build and buy properties that they can rent at an affordable price. As we know, home ownership is well beyond many South Australians who need access to affordable rental properties.

The electorate of Taylor will be further impacted, as there will be less work and therefore fewer job opportunities for tradies, apprentices and suppliers. There will be fewer people moving into the electorate, which will impact on local small businesses, local sporting clubs and the whole community. I talk about tradies and apprentices. This state government talks a big game when it talks about training and skills. The state government announced the Skilling South Australia project in July this year, with a promise to train 2,600 trainees and apprentices over the next four years. I hope not too many of these people want to train in trades associated with the construction industry. If this bill passes, they may be disappointed to find that there are not so many jobs and that they have been sold false hope by this government.

This government speaks about bringing people back to South Australia. Many of them would surely be wondering whether it is in their best interests to invest here, with this Liberal government's agenda of closures, cuts, privatisations and tax increases. South Australia should be a place where people want to live, work and play, due to our wonderful climate and natural environment, our events and our festivals and our high standard of living. This government is taking South Australia backwards. They are more interested in pleasing the top end of town than protecting our environment, supporting our workers and ensuring the best future for our children.

The impact on small business across South Australia will be felt very soon if this bill passes. Figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that there are more than 143,000 small businesses employing fewer than 20 people operating in South Australia. Most businesses in my electorate are small businesses—local butchers, fruit and veg shops, clothing shops, hairdressers and delis, all providing the essentials, and, in the case of fruit and veg shops, supporting our local growers on the Adelaide Plains.

Then there is the local fish and chip shops and Italian, Greek, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodian and Indian restaurants and many more cafes and bakeries, just to name a few. I think about the award-winning Two Wells Bakery, Sole Savers at Virginia, Robbo's Snack 'N' Chat in Angle Vale, SA Quality Meats at Burton, the Quality Fish N Chip Shop at Salisbury North, the Rosewood Deli-Takeaway at Elizabeth North, Panda Mechanical and Towing at Edinburgh North, Cibo at Smithfield, the Flora African Shop at Smithfield Plains, the Andrews Farm deli, the Middle Beach Caravan Park, Coco's Pizza over at Eyre, the Parks Fish and Chips shop at Davoren Park, and so many more small businesses across my electorate.

All these small businesses employ a small number of employees who rely on the hours to get their pay to pay their bills, to feed their children and fund their education. We know that when business costs rise and demand falls, jobs are lost. The owners of these businesses are not millionaires; they are mums and dads, sons and daughters or grandparents working every day to serve our community.

The owners of these businesses must ensure their business is viable so they can pay their own bills, feed their children and ensure that they continue to employ their staff. They must balance revenue and expenses, which usually include one third labour, one third materials and one third overheads. The overheads include either site ownership costs or rental. I do not know how many of the small businesses in my electorate will be hit by either an increase in tax liability or an increase in rent, as owners pass on the land tax increases.

Let me tell you who else does not have this information: the Premier and the Treasurer. They do not have this information because their latest policy is less than 48 hours old, and it may change again as I speak on this bill. I regularly speak to local businesses in my electorate. These small businesses are already doing it tough and not because of anything they have done. They are struggling because rents are rising, spending is slowing down and people across the country are increasingly spending more at discount stores such as Aldi or shopping online or simply just cannot afford to spend as much as the cost of living rises.

The last thing these small businesses need is this bill, which will only make the situation worse. This bill will see rents rise for local small businesses and we will see prices rise for all South Australians. Another impact on my electorate will be the thousands of residents across my electorate who rent. If landlords and owners of properties are forced to pay more, we know that they will pass on these costs to not only our small businesses who rent but also local families.

The major issue that my team assists with every day is housing and homelessness. The member for Elizabeth spoke last night about the Housing SA waiting list. I believe there is currently a two-year wait for residents on priority 1, and if you are not listed as priority 1 you are going to have to rent in the private or community sectors.

We know that, even if you are lucky enough to have a Housing SA property, you have seen rents rise under this government. If you are one of the families renting in Taylor and this bill is passed, you will see your rent rise. These families have already seen rent rises as a result of landlords passing on the extra costs associated with the bin tax introduced by this state government. They will now see further rent rises if this bill is passed and landlords and owners pass on the increased costs as a result. These families have already seen large rises in state government fees and charges. They will likely face higher fares under a privatised public transport system and we will see longer queues at Service SA offices as they are closed.

I know that a number of families renting in my electorate are already struggling to pay their rent as other costs are continually rising. The extra costs being passed on as a result of this bill could even result in homelessness for some. Does the Treasurer want these families to be forced to live in cars or seek emergency accommodation from Housing SA? Does he want to place even further stress on these families who are living from pay to pay as they strive for a better future for themselves and their families?

This bill will not deliver more jobs, lower costs and better services as promised by Premier Marshall and Treasurer Lucas. Land tax bill version 5 only benefits the top end of town. It will not benefit mum-and-dad investors who have worked hard, paid their taxes and are now being targeted by the party that many of them would have voted for only 18 months ago.

The Premier often criticises the previous government. The previous government was a progressive and reformative government that improved South Australia in many ways, including transforming the City of Adelaide and delivering quality modern schools, road safety projects and much more in my electorate. What does this government have to show for their first 18 months in office? Prior to the election, they promised more jobs, lower costs and better services. The Marshall-Lucas government have delivered privatisation, closures and cuts. We have a health system where nurses and doctors are overworked.

There are not enough ambulance officers or ambulances to meet demand. The jobs of train and tram drivers, Service SA personnel, prison officers and many other workers are under threat due to cuts, closures and privatisations. We have a state government that believes tax relief for the top end of town is a priority. I would think that members in marginal seats such as Adelaide, Elder, Heysen, King and Newland must surely be concerned that their leadership has not listened to them or their residents and small businesses on this issue.

All these electorates, particularly the seat of Adelaide, contain many small businesses that are likely to be negatively affected if this bill is passed. If I were one of these members, I would be concerned that my leader had not listened to the concerns of my community. The Liberal backbenchers should be thanking Labor for opposing this bill and protecting their communities from this poor piece of legislation. I encourage them to join with Labor and oppose this bill or at least thank Labor MPs for protecting their communities.

I think one lesson that our leader, the member for Croydon, has taught the Premier and Treasurer is to listen to people, whether they be business, community, renters, an investor community or your own backbench. Good leaders listen to those who support them and true leaders also listen to those who they may not agree with, those who may not vote for them, and act on the advice that they receive. That is what our leader has done. He has shown respect. He has done his research. He has done the hard work and he has listened. The Premier and Treasurer will not even listen to their colleagues.

In all its versions, this bill fails the pub test, it fails the fairness test and it will fail to deliver for South Australians. I urge all members, particularly those on the government backbench who know that this will have a major impact on their constituents to join with Labor members to do the right thing, the fair thing and the economically responsible thing and vote this bad bill down.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (17:55): I wish to thank all members for their contribution to the debate. I note that members of the opposition—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Point of order.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —had not indicated their support for this bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Attorney, there is a point of order from the member for Lee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I seek your guidance. The Premier was the mover of this bill, not the Deputy Premier. If the government wish to take up their moving rights at the conclusion of the second reading debate, surely the Premier should come in and do it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My advice is that the cabinet can work as a collective on this. There have been instances in the past where somebody other than the mover has closed debate. Are we comfortable with that?

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Attorney has the task, on behalf of the government, of closing debate. Attorney, you have the call.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I was particularly impressed by the contribution of the member for Taylor who, in a great act of self-sacrifice, has come in to indicate to the parliament that he is going to oppose the bill, notwithstanding his own personal circumstance where he would be a significant beneficiary of the lower rate to be paid as the higher threshold would apply to him and his wife and their two investment properties with no family trust.

I would have liked to be a fly on his wall when all the people he just described came into his office to tell him how outrageous this is and how he would have explained to them, 'Actually, I'm a beneficiary of this proposed legislation, but I'm going to sacrifice myself by coming to the parliament next week to explain all the reasons why this legislation should be opposed. I'm just going to take the hit. I could, of course, have the benefit of this if it were to go through with my support, but I will take the hit. I'm not going to give the money to charity. I'm just going to take the benefit if it gets passed and I'm going to slavishly adhere to the script throughout this debate,' which has been very repetitive.

I thank the member for Taylor for his generous act of contribution, donation and self-sacrifice. On the other hand, should he be alerted that he is one of the 92 per cent of the 47,000 taxpayers who actually get a benefit from this, he might like to go back to the fish and chip man and all the different small businesses that he has outlined and perhaps reappraise the advice that would be given to him. I commend the bill to the house and again thank the member for Taylor for his excellent contribution.

The house divided on the second reading:

Ayes 24

Noes 21

Majority 3

AYES
Basham, D.K.B. Bell, T.S. Chapman, V.A.
Cowdrey, M.J. Cregan, D. Duluk, S.
Ellis, F.J. Gardner, J.A.W. Harvey, R.M. (teller)
Knoll, S.K. Luethen, P. Marshall, S.S.
McBride, N. Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S.
Pisoni, D.G. Power, C. Sanderson, R.
Speirs, D.J. Teague, J.B. Treloar, P.A.
van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Whetstone, T.J. Wingard, C.L.
NOES
Bedford, F.E. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K.
Boyer, B.I. Brock, G.G. Brown, M.E. (teller)
Close, S.E. Cook, N.F. Gee, J.P.
Hildyard, K.A. Hughes, E.J. Koutsantonis, A.
Malinauskas, P. Michaels, A. Mullighan, S.C.
Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, A. Picton, C.J.
Stinson, J.M. Szakacs, J.K. Wortley, D.

Second reading thus carried; bill read a second time.

Referred to Select Committee

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (18:04): I move:

That the bill be referred to a select committee.

I seek leave to make my remarks after the dinner break.

Leave granted.

The SPEAKER: Would someone like to adjourn until 7.30pm? Would someone like to so move? Minister for Education.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Sir, I so move.

The SPEAKER: Is that seconded? It is carried.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So the house is adjourned until 7.30pm?

The SPEAKER: Until 7.30pm—suspended.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The motion was 'adjourn'. You adjourned the house until 7.30pm.

The SPEAKER: I would like to correct the record.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sorry, sir, you cannot correct it. You moved a motion to adjourn the house until 7.30pm, sir. The house is adjourned. The house is adjourned, sir. You have done it. You did not say 'suspend until 7.30pm'. The motion was to adjourn.

The SPEAKER: One moment, member for West Torrens. I am going to ask for the indulgence of the house here, member for West Torrens. I should have said 'suspend' instead of 'adjourn'.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order, sir.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Yes, the house cannot adjourn until 7.30pm. It can only suspend until 7.30pm.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Sir, I would like to apologise to the house for moving an incorrect motion that was not in accordance with the standing orders and move that the house be suspended until 7.30pm.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I think we all understand what has happened here, member for West Torrens and, as the Father of the House, I am asking—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Yes, I am asking for the indulgence of members here. I have very clearly made a mistake here. I should have said 'suspend' instead of 'adjourn' so I am asking for members' indulgence and I will correct the record, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Standing orders, I think, are clear that if the house chooses to adjourn it is adjourned and we must meet again tomorrow.

The SPEAKER: One moment. The motion was out of order. You cannot adjourn until 7.30. Would someone like to move that the house be suspended until—

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Acknowledging that the motion that was verbalised by you but formally moved by me was out of order—which you have done and which you have ruled—the motion having been ruled out of order, I move:

That the house suspend until 7.30pm.

The SPEAKER: That has been seconded that the house suspend until 7.30pm. I am going to put that now. All in favour say aye and against say no.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens, if I can just beg your indulgence, I put it that the house be suspended until 7.30pm. It has been moved and seconded.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: How can you even do that when the house has been adjourned?

The SPEAKER: Well, because of the reasons that we have explained.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Yes, the motion was out of order. It should not have been accepted. It was out of order. I am going to put it now.

Motion carried.

Sitting suspended from 18:08 to 19:30.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT