HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-10-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Question Time

Land Tax

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (14:26): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Treasurer regarding taxation.

Leave granted.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The Liberal government has previously insisted that last week's version of the land tax bill was the final version and was not open to any changes, other than minor technical change. Given there have now, in fact, been changes made to last week's version of the land tax proposal, will the Treasurer advise whether this newly negotiated, non-negotiable version of the bill is once again non-negotiable, or should South Australians expect even more changes to be made?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (14:27): The government announced its position clearly last evening and we welcome the fact that the Property Council in South Australia has, coming from a position of having opposed the changes when first announced in June and continuing to argue for further changes, now publicly welcomed the government's amended package, which was approved last evening. There have been amendments filed in the House of Assembly today.

The opportunity this parliament confronts with land tax reform is once in a generation. As I said this morning to media, and I am happy to repeat in the parliament in response to this specific question today, if this bill is defeated, as the Labor Party and others have indicated is their current intention, then no government, Liberal or Labor, will go anywhere near significant or comprehensive land tax reform for the next 20 or 30 years.

Sadly, from South Australia's viewpoint, that would leave South Australia with the highest land tax rate in the nation at 3.7 per cent. It would leave South Australia in the situation where—and I have challenged members of the Labor Party and, indeed, anybody else who opposes the government reform package to answer this simple question: how is it fair that I can own $3 million in property and, because I structure myself into seven separate trusts, not pay a single dollar in land tax? How is that a fair land tax system?

What the parliament will have an opportunity to vote on over the coming weeks is a package which drives down the top land tax rate from the most uncompetitive in the nation, from 3.7 per cent to 2.4 per cent, but to also solve the equity issue as to how it is fair that I, as a single individual, can structure myself into seven separate companies or seven separate trusts and not pay one single dollar in land tax. I look forward to the debate in this chamber because I will be putting, should the opportunity present itself, to members who might want to oppose the legislation: at least have the courage to stand up in this chamber. I put the question directly, Mr President, through you, to the Leader of the Opposition, who has asked this question, and indeed others: you stand up and defend a situation where an individual can have $3 million in property and not pay a single dollar in land tax.

One of the problems with South Australia for the last 20 years under a Labor administration is that we have had roughly half the employment rate of the nation, we have had roughly half the economic growth of the nation, our population has grown at roughly half the rate, and that is because Labor governments and Labor parties and others have been unprepared to take the hard decisions to make reform, to drive investment into South Australia and to try to drive jobs growth and economic growth in South Australia. Labor parties right across the board, for 20 years, have been unprepared to take on the difficult decisions, the hard decisions, to reverse what has been a 20-year decline in terms of jobs growth, economic growth and population growth in South Australia.

The Marshall government is unprepared to accept just the status quo. The forces—the coalition of the noes—that oppose shop trading hours reform or oppose rate capping or oppose land tax reform or oppose all of the reforms, they will be decisions that the Labor Party, ultimately, will have to defend. They can defend their record of half the employment growth of the national employment growth, half the economic growth and half the population growth.

The government's position is: we have engaged in almost five months of consultation. We have indicated a willingness to listen to those stakeholders and their concerns. We have made two series of significant amendments to the government's package, having listened to the concerns of stakeholders, members, individuals and others who put a point of view to us and have put a point of view to stakeholder groups that they wanted to see change, they wanted to see the top rate come down more significantly than the government originally talked. They wanted to see it happen more quickly than the government originally proposed.

We have listened to those concerns and the proposition, the bill that we have, is before the House of Assembly at the moment and, should it pass the House of Assembly, it will be before the Legislative Council in the next sitting week or so and we can then debate the details of the bill. On the publicly stated positions of the Labor Party and others, we may well not get to a position of debating amendments in the committee stage because the Labor Party have made their position quite clear that they will oppose any reform. They will defend—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Six minutes already in your answer, Rob—six minutes.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, you asked the question. They will defend the indefensible and that is that I can own $3 million in property and not pay single dollar in land tax.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Point of order: it was a very specific question and it has taken six minutes to not answer that question yet.

The PRESIDENT: That's not a point of order. You probably had time for a point of order about a minute ago, but you were listening so intently, Leader of the Opposition, I didn't want to disturb you.

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