Legislative Council
9 March 1999
 

Adjourned debate on second reading.  (edited transcript)

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Opposition places on record its opposition to the Bill; we believe that this Bill is bad public policy. The Bill seeks in part to extend the current stamp duty exemption for intergenerational transfer of the family farm from the owner of the farm to a niece or nephew of the transferrer. While the Opposition has not opposed that a son or daughter should be exempted from the requirement to pay stamp duty, it is our belief that it should not be extended in this way. Indeed, one might well ask the question: where would we end up? How far should we go if we go beyond sons and daughters in terms of intergenerational transfer?

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I rise to support the Bill, with some reservations. The Hon. Angus Redford could be accused of mildly overstating the case in that I would expect that there are no hordes of nieces and nephews lined up—in fact, there would be very few. In terms of the real impact across rural South Australia, the effect would be fairly minimal. The effect would be much greater on those individuals in that before we were exempting sons and daughters and now we are looking at exempting nieces and nephews, and the linkage can be a little more tenuous. The proof of the pudding will be in terms of the application of this principle as applied to the exemptions.

The exemption is not automatic, and what we will see over the next couple of years is whether it is being granted to nieces and nephews with tenuous links to the land, the only link being the fact that there is a familial relationship as distinct from cases where properties have been held in joint names where perhaps a couple of brothers or a brother and sister have been running a property jointly and one of the two may not have had any children and a nephew or niece has been working on the property. In those circumstances, where the person has been working full-time on the property and made a full investment through their labour in the property, one would not begrudge this.

It is possible that the Commissioner could in some cases grant an exemption where the link was that they went back once a year and helped with mustering, which could be acceptable under the wording. It is a question of how it is interpreted and how the discretion is used. If the Commissioner does not use it as one would reasonably expect, that is, in relation to a person who has made a genuine investment in a property in terms of working almost full-time on it, we would support a change at a later time that would take away the discretion.

The Hon. A.J. Redford: The problem is with drafting it so that you don't get people abusing the system.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I agree with that. The proof will be in the final application. It will not have any major bottom line impact on the State coffers. On that basis the Democrats are prepared to support it. We will wait to see how it is applied.

524 On a number of occasions the Farmers Federation has put similar pleas to the Government. I think that most members, if they heard some of the arguments put forward in the past where assistance has not been able to be provided, would be prepared to concede that the circumstances provided to the Government should have been such that something could have been provided. I thank members for their indication of support for the Bill whilst acknowledging that the Labor Party has indicated that it will not support it.

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.

[Home]    [SA Head Office]    [SA Branches]    [What's Hot in SA]    [Mike Elliott]    [Sandra Kanck]    [Ian Gilfillan]   [SA Senators]   [SA Parliament]    [Contact Us]    [News Releases]    [National Site]    [Election]    [Support Us]    [S.A. Links]     [Newsletter]     [Browse by Subject]