HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-09-10 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Question Time

Land Tax

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (14:28): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Treasurer regarding land tax.

Leave granted.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The South Australian Liberal Party have experienced a tumultuous winter break with the land tax aggregation issue dominating the political landscape. The former Liberal state president and member for Davenport, Steve Murray, described the proposal for land tax aggregation as 'neither fair, nor sustainable, nor competitive'. Liberal senator Alex Antic said he was 'deeply concerned about the impact that this proposal will have on our state's economic future'. An unnamed Liberal MP also mentioned dispatches when speaking on the aggregation of land tax and was quoted as saying, 'The policy development on this has been an absolute train wreck.'

We have also heard as recently as today from Daniel Gannon, the head of the Property Council—a former staffer to both the Premier and the Treasurer—saying, after the most recent land tax announcement, 'If aggregation is still part of the plan, it's not a plan that we support because it's incomplete and underdone.' The UDIA chief, Pat Gerace, told InDaily yesterday that 'reducing the top rate is always welcome but there's still a number of losers in this outcome'.

After changes to land tax over a year ago, we saw land tax 2.0 in the most recent budget, which included the wildly unpopular aggregation measure. We are now seeing another fiddle, with land tax 3.0 keeping the proposed aggregation measures, albeit the Treasurer's revenue estimates were wrong by some hundreds of millions of dollars over the next decade. Alienating your colleagues is a curious tack to take, particularly given Premier Marshall has claimed that 'we are really running a cabinet government'.

Given the Treasurer styles himself as a campaign genius—you just need to ask him—and that he has a wealth of political experience, can the Treasurer explain to the chamber why he didn't stop Premier Steven Marshall from introducing this land tax aggregation measure which has so heavily damaged the Liberal Party?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (14:31): I welcome the Leader of the Opposition's land of fancy imagination or fanciful imagination. It's sad to see that the Australian Labor Party are lining up to defend a situation where somebody can actually own $3 million or $4 million in property and not pay a single dollar in land tax. These are the people who are defending a situation where someone can own $3 million or $4 million in property and not pay a single dollar in land tax.

It's the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and the shadow treasurer who are defending the indefensible position of someone being able to own millions of dollars in property and, because they structure themselves in a complicated series of companies and trusts, not pay a single dollar in land tax. It's the Australian Labor Party who are standing arm in arm. For 20 years they refused to do anything about it. They didn't have the ticker to do anything about comprehensive land tax reform.

I'm surprised that old-fashioned lefties, like the Hon. Mr Hunter and the Hon. Mr Maher—although he's not an old-fashioned one; as the Hon. Mr Hunter pointed out on a previous occasion, he was one of those newfangled, new-stage, touchy-feely lefties. He wasn't an old-fashioned lefty like the Hon. Mr Hunter. There are two views of the lefties within the Labor Party. There is a very erudite speech from the Hon. Mr Hunter on the public record in relation to the 'leftiness' of the Labor Party. But whatever degree of 'leftiness' there is in the Labor Party, the Labor Party are defending the indefensible position where someone can own millions of dollars in property and not pay a single dollar in land tax.

The comprehensive land tax reform package that the government announced yesterday, supported by the joint party room, is a package which reduces total land tax collections by $70 million over the next three years. It drives down the top rate of land tax from 3.7 to 2.4 per cent in South Australia. For 20 years, the Labor Party refused to do anything about it. Whilst investors were turning their investment taps on in Sydney, in Melbourne and in Brisbane and were refusing to invest in Adelaide because of our uncompetitive 3.7 per cent, the Labor Party turned a blind eye to it because they wanted to defend the indefensible. Some of their friends and mates who hold millions of dollars in property are not paying a single dollar in land tax.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We know their names. We know their names, and the former Treasurer knows their names. Driving down the top rate of land tax, increasing the threshold to $450,000—this package will mean that 92 per cent of individuals, contrary to the claims from the Property Council and others, will be better off as a result of the land tax reform package announced yesterday.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Ninety-two per cent of individuals will be better off; 8 per cent will be worse off. Even more persuasively, 75 per cent of company groups in South Australia will be better off as a result of this particular package; 25 per cent of company groups will be worse off in relation to the land tax reform package. That is why there is a reduction of $70 million in total land tax being collected over the next three years from the government's land tax reforms.

The government stands wholeheartedly behind a comprehensive and bold reform package. It will be for the Labor Party and indeed others to stand up in this chamber and defend a situation where someone can own $3 million or $4 million in property and not pay a dollar in land tax, or stand up in this chamber and say to the 92 per cent of individuals who will be better off after 1 July next year—it will be up to the Labor Party whether they are prepared to say to those 92 per cent of individuals who will be better off that they are not going to support them being better off.

The Labor Party has to make the decision: will they support the 8 per cent, or will they support the 92 per cent? Will they support the 25 per cent, or will they support the 75 per cent? We on this side know who we are supporting. We are supporting equity, we are supporting fairness, we are supporting a better economic environment for investment in South Australia and we are supporting 92 per cent of individuals and we are supporting 75 per cent of the company groups. This is a bold, comprehensive package. The Labor Party did not have the ticker for 20 years to take it on. The Marshall Liberal government has taken that on, and it will be up to the parliament to decide what to do.

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