Land Tax Exemption to Intensive Agistment: No Consultation or Warning

	Extract from Hansard Legislative Council 19 November 1999

Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council		Parliament Index 1999 Spring Session Index Browse by Subject About the SA Parliament Hansard on line

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: This is the third bill which we have dealt with this week and which has been passed by both houses of parliament with only a few hours' notice. I can recall being a member of the previous Labor government when, if that sort of thing had happened regarding one bill, there would have been such a huge outcry that we would still be hearing about it for months afterwards. Nevertheless, the opposition accepts that from time to time measures will arise as a matter of urgency, and we have to deal with them.

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I indicate our disapproval of the speed with which these pieces of legislation need to be dealt with in this place. It may be that it is a justified legislative move, and it is interesting to note the opposition is prepared to support it. The Democrats are not prepared to support it, because the consequences of granting exemption of land tax to intensive agricultural husbandry needs to be looked at much more closely than in the dying hours of this session of parliament.

Our view is that further consideration should be given to the areas, the activity and the nature of the activity in its categorisation of a form of primary production as compared with perhaps light industrial, because we have seen how intensive animal husbandry can turn into a factory type operation. Battery hen operations are, in fact, industrial. I believe that, in those contexts, it is inappropriate to pass this measure that is before us today.

We will oppose the second reading not necessarily on the basis that the legislation has no merit but, rather, on the basis that it much more complicated than a simple measure that can be dealt with in this way and that it ought to have the benefit of longer time analysis by this parliament. Other people might have assessed it, but we have to make the decision at the time and on the information that is presented to parliament-and it is insufficient to persuade the Democrats that the bill deserves support in the second reading stage. We oppose the second reading.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As I said, if the parliament takes the view that it does not want to see this progress, then the government reluctantly will accept that. The reason for the haste is that land tax bills are about to go out next month. If it is delayed until March or April, the parliament would be delaying in the knowledge that this relatively modest land tax exemption would not be available for the 1999-2000 financial year. I understand the Australian Democrats are opposing this benefit going to farmers in South Australia for this financial year and have indicated their opposition to the bill. That is fair enough. I understand the Australian Democrats' position in that regard. I am disappointed that they are taking a view that this benefit should be denied to primary producers in South Australia for this financial year. Their endeavours to oppose or delay the legislation would deny this relatively modest financial incentive for rural communities.

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I wish to address the whole matter in general and some of the observations made by the Treasurer in a rather intemperate and I think ill- advised contribution to his concluding remarks. It is interesting to note that this bill addresses the land tax assessment for a certain defined rural area, essentially the greater Adelaide metropolitan area bounded by Gawler in the north, Noarlunga in the south and the Mount Lofty Ranges in the east, and separately parts of Mount Gambier. It appears as if the exemption is designed to affect areas where there is some ambiguity as to what are activities that are regarded as primary production and areas which may be arguably light industrial as compared to quite clearly unarguable primary production rural areas.

I note in the second reading explanation that this measure `has the strong support of the South Australian Farmers Federation.' I want to make plain again what I said in the second reading debate: there has been absolutely no opportunity for us to consult with or even get an opinion from the Farmers Federation directly and, although I do not doubt that the compiler of this contribution has reason to indicate what he or she believed was the support of the Farmers Federation, I prefer on behalf of the Democrats to get that evidence and advice personally, which we have not had the opportunity to do.

So, the reason why we are so concerned about this measure-in particular, I am concerned-is that, first, I do not believe it is of particular significance to the rural population at large. Although the Treasurer wanted to portray it as being a benign gesture from a caring government, the point is also made that the cost to revenue is minimal, so it is not what one would call a painful sacrifice by the government or a measure of consideration for the rural population at large. The actual activity of intense agistment or intense animal livestock husbandry is constantly under question, not only with those people who would be expected to do so-those people concerned with animal welfare-but also within the rural industry itself. For us to pass this measure as a clear indication that this parliament accepts the intensive production of edible animal meat in what are arguably factory conditions as being bona fide primary production and therefore exempt from land tax requires more detailed analysis, more understanding and consultation, and a longer term assessment of where we want edible animal product to come from and through what procedures.

We have seen and heard the problems of using extraneous material for feeding in feed lots, and about the mad cow disease in the UK and the proscribing of certain products from being fed to pigs. It is not just the benign activity of turning animals out to open pasture, feeding them a bit of hay or grain and then going through the processes which have been in place for decades or centuries: this is a highly skilled and, if done properly, a scientific activity very much on a parallel with a well organised manufacturing occupation. The argument that it, therefore, is entitled to be exempt from land tax is not in my view clearly established in the second reading explanation. It may well be that, with further discussion, some seminars and analysis of activities, there is an argument for an exemption from land tax, at least for some of the activities but, on the basis of the evidence that has been presented, the background of our doubts about the activity taken as a whole and the lack of time for proper and adequate consultation, I have absolutely no embarrassment nor qualms of conscience about the Democrats opposing the second reading.

The Treasurer has a penchant to misrepresent the arguments presented by other members in this place, and I repeat that he has deliberately done so in this case. We believe that this is not the time to pass this bill. It does not mean that the Democrats are categorically against a land tax exemption for this activity, but it must be questioned and looked at thoroughly, and it must not be presented as a measure of any significant consideration and benefit for rural primary producers at large.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I think the Treasurer's comments during his second reading response against the Hon. Ian Gilfillan were unnecessary. As I indicated earlier, at the end of this session the non-government parties have been extremely cooperative in getting late bills through. I am sure that when the current Treasurer was in opposition he would have protested with great voice indeed-

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: -yes; with gusto-if the then government had tried to have bills passed at the last moment.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The point I want to make (if I have the opportunity to do so without interjection) is that, because my colleagues in another place had virtually no chance to look at this, they indicated their opposition to it yesterday, but in the past 24 hours we have had a chance to look at the bill. We are in a dilemma now, what do we do? Do we uphold the important principle that adequate notice be given before bills come through parliament, which principle we would hope that in all but exceptional cases would be upheld? Do we trade that off against providing benefits to a section of the rural community, albeit a very small section? We have decided to support these benefits being passed on, because we have had a chance to at least look at the bill in a limited amount of detail, given the time available. That is why we have come down in support of it. I think it was quite unnecessary for the Treasurer to be critical of opposition parties when we have had so much legislation to put through this parliament-about 20 or 30 bills have been passed by the parliament in the past week-in a very limited time. I think it ill behoves the Treasurer to make those sorts of unnecessary remarks against members who have tried to be cooperative in the passage of bills.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As I indicated, if the majority in the parliament took the view that they did not want to see the passage of this legislation and that they believed that the principles which they espoused and which I agree with were greater than the benefit that we were about to provide to the people who need that benefit in rural communities, the government would be prepared to see the bill adjourned. With the Democrats and Independents in both houses the opposition has the capacity to seek to adjourn and delay the passage of the legislation. I acknowledge the views that the Hon. Mr Holloway has just put, but this is actually-

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: The second reading explanation states that `the cost to revenue is minimal.' I interjected earlier about the number of primary producers affected. If the government has stated that `the cost to revenue is minimal', I would like to know what it means by the word `minimal'. Having made that statement, I assume that there must be an estimate of the number of primary producers involved, so I ask the Treasurer for those details.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will try to obtain the detail of that for the honourable member and provide him with a further response. However, when we say that it is minimal, we are certainly not talking about millions of dollars but much less. Ultimately, it depends on how many people pick up this provision. I cannot put a figure on it, and I will not put parameters on it. As I said in my reply to the second reading debate, it will have a relatively modest impact on the budget.

The second and more important issue is that, if you accept the view of the South Australian Farmers Federation that this area is likely to grow in terms of the structuring of businesses in rural communities, the impact on the budget is likely to be more significant in the future than it is now.