Mr DEAN ( Windermere - Motion) - Madam President, I move -

That the Legislative Council calls on the State Government to urgently address the issue of land tax and aggregation, particularly given the recent increases in land values and the level of community disquiet.

Madam President, I might say that the level of disquiet is increasing daily, with many many people expressing their frustration with what is currently occurring with land tax in this State. We have had in this House on many occasions in the last few sittings questions asked on the land tax position and what the State Government is going to do to try to get on top of it to satisfy and help people.

Last week, Madam President, there was discussion on issues and private members' motions being moved. I agreed that I would not be moving ahead with my motion in relation to the Department of Police and Emergency Management and DPIPWE. However, the outcry from the public has been such that I feel it is important that I do move and proceed with this motion today. I have had a number of contacts from constituents.

Mr Parkinson - You could have brought it up on the adjournment.

Mr DEAN - I do not think I would have had sufficient time. I do not intend to be long today and I will leave it up to the other members who will either speak to the matter or be happy with what has been said and not proceed further. I suspect some comment will be made because I should imagine the matter is impacting on them as well and has been brought forward to them by their constituents.

I realise the tight time frame we have but that has not been my doing, nor has it been of the independent members within this House. If I had not moved it today, when else could I have moved this motion, Madam President? It would be mid-next year before this matter could be raised in this forum and in this Chamber.

Mr Parkinson - The question is whether you needed to move it at all and what the value of having an agreement is with you in future.

Mr DEAN - The agreement related to the other two motions. I will stick to my position. The fact is that this matter is at an extremely critical stage. It is an important matter and I have had a lot of pressure put on me by my constituents and I have the opportunity to raise the issue today. That is my intention and I will proceed, Madam President.

I do not intend to speak at length on the motion because I have not had sufficient time to do the research that was necessary in addressing this matter. For that I apologise to those people who currently are suffering from the land tax burden. It is a huge issue and it surprises me that the Government going into an election in a few months is prepared to sit back and watch what unravels without taking any major step, or any step for that matter, to do anything about it in the short term, and it is the short term that we are talking about.

Mr Parkinson - Did you read today's paper?

Mr DEAN - Yes, I have read today's paper and I intend to comment on that in a moment as well. The Government would realise -

Ms THORP - Excuse me, Madam President, on a point of order. Could I get a direction from you, please? I am wondering whether, when we are discussing land tax, standing order 103 relating to pecuniary interest will apply, given that it is possible that members may financially benefit from changes to land tax.

Madam PRESIDENT - I do not even have to look at the Standing Orders to respond to that. This is a general debate on land tax issues that affect all Tasmanians who may have property outside of their own permanent residence or rural property and as such it is not specific or generic to members in this House in exactly the same way as when local government sets rates and we all get a bill. There is no pecuniary interest in that so I rule that out of order. The member for Windermere could please return to the podium.

Mr DEAN - Madam President, I can understand the reasons for the honourable member raising that. It is a very sensitive issue and they do not want the matter discussed, of course. I was expecting that to happen and I am grateful for your ruling, Madam President.

The Government is in a position, I would have thought, that they would have wanted to address this item now rather than let it linger on. It is a matter that needs quick attention.

Madam President, I just want to start with the underlying principle for land tax, and if I am wrong I will be corrected. As I understand it, the underlying principle for land tax was to encourage development on high-value land. It was to discourage developers and others from buying up valuable land, sitting on it and doing nothing with it while waiting for valuations to increase. What is happening now in fact is that the way land tax is currently operating, it is deterring all people from buying additional properties and making investments in this State. That is the impact that it is now having and, as I understand -

Mr Parkinson - All people, is it?

Mr DEAN - Of course, all those people who are able to invest in this State -

Mr Parkinson - Real estate agents aren't selling any property anymore?

Mr DEAN - They are selling properties. A lot of people are buying a property. They need a property.

Mr Parkinson - You just said 'all people'.

Mr DEAN - It is certainly causing a lot of investors to reconsider their positions moving forward.

Ms Thorp - Where do you get that from? Based on what do you make that statement?

Mr DEAN - Land tax is causing a lot of difficulties and a lot of problems in this State now. If the honourable member is not aware of that then I would suggest -

Ms Thorp - You have just made a statement that said a lot of developers and a lot of real estate agents are now reconsidering. What is your basis for that?

Mr DEAN - I have had developers coming to me, raising the issue of land tax and saying that it is a matter that they are greatly concerned about and that it is impacting on them and what they are going to do in the future in this State. I have had that happen.

Mr Parkinson - How many?

Mr DEAN - I have had that happen, Madam President.

Mr Wing - At a briefing several weeks ago, one Hobart investor said he was selling three conjoined units, I think in Davey Street, because he could not afford to pay the land tax, and that is only one of many.

Mr DEAN - That is right.

Mr Parkinson - More likely he wanted the profit from the increase in values.

Mr DEAN - This was going to be a relatively short speech, Madam President, but I can see that it is going to draw out and probably occupy the whole day.

Mr Parkinson - I've never seen you make a short speech yet.

Mr DEAN - I have taken over from the honourable member for Murchison.

Mr Parkinson - No, there is a scale.

Ms Forrest - I hold the record and I'm proud of it.

Mr DEAN - Madam President, the notion that the property owners will pay the land tax is erroneous in many ways because it is paid by the tenant, or by the people leasing properties or the purchasers in many instances. The tenant is the person in many cases who ends up paying land tax.

Mr Parkinson - How much was your land tax bill this year?

Mr DEAN - I will ignore that comment, Madam President.

Many people have come by a property through inheritance and other similar circumstances and are neither cash-rich nor property-rich and yet, this unfair tax impacts on them in the same way as it might on somebody who is wealthy. A person in ownership of a large land portfolio can probably make provision to cover the costs that are incurred here without causing them any great hardship and so, it is said to be - and many people raised this - a wealth tax. But unfortunately, it is now impacting on many other people, people who are not and probably will never be wealthy. It is not means-tested, it is based purely on forward potential and aggregation, and in many cases these property owners neither develop nor desire to reach the possible potential with those properties, Madam President.

The Government's position is one of not accepting that businesses will not be attracted here or will not leave or will not develop and it is prepared to call their bluff and, to me, that is a dangerous move for the Government to take and that is not a risk that I would take in this environment today. This, to me, is a dangerous game to play in this financial climate and at a time when employment is hovering, when we need development, when we need to provide employment opportunities for people and when we need investors in this State. It is a dangerous game to play.

I realise you need to take risks and realise that the Government is reliant on taxes for the purposes of providing the services that the community not only needs but demands. This is not about dismissing taxes, it is not about that at all. It is about a fair and equitable system moving forward. That is what these people are saying.

Mr Aird - What do think is fair? What do think is equitable?

Mr DEAN - What do I think is fair?

Mr Aird - What is your idea?

Mr DEAN - That will come out as I progress through my speech as to what I think is fair and reasonable. I do not believe that prices escalating 100 per cent, 200 per cent, 500 per cent, 1 000 per cent in one case that I am aware of, is reasonable.

Mr Aird - Over a six-year period?

Mr DEAN - I do not believe it is reasonable, not at all. In my opinion, to ignore the grounds full of alarm and angst within the public arena on the imposition of land tax is both foolhardy and arrogant of the Government - a government that can ill-afford to demonstrate such a position at this very time. There is likely, - and I use the word that is in the headlines in the paper - there is likely to be a revolt relevant to this matter if the Government does not demonstrate some interest. That has come from a release in the Mercury dated 13 November 2009. People would have read it, would have seen it.

Mr Parkinson - It is our bible.

Mr DEAN - The heading is 'Giant land tax revolt', and it contains a photograph, in fact a nice photograph of our honourable Treasurer, Mr Aird. If I can just make a couple of quotes from that Mercury article, Madam President, this is what is happening in this State currently:

'More than 2300 people have lodged formal objections against their property revaluations this year as part of a massive revolt against huge land tax increases.

But there are concerns many others may have already missed out on a chance for appeal.'

Madam President, we know that a lot of people have appealed. We know that there are a lot of people out there that probably wanted to appeal but have now missed the boat. We also know that the Valuer-General has received about 197 objections that were received out of time and that the Valuer-General will make a determination whether or not he will accept those objections and in fact make an inquiry in relation to them. That was on 13 November 2009. We have moved on a few days since then so who knows? There could be a lot more of those coming in by this.

I quote again:

'The revaluations across nine municipalities, including Hobart, Kingborough and Huon Valley, have been blamed for land tax increases of up to 1000 per cent in some cases.'

Further down it continues:

'Angry developers, investors and shack owners have demanded a review of the policy which has delivered the State Government a 344 per cent increase in revenue since 1999-2000.' .

So it is a huge increase over a relatively short period of time.

Madam President, another issue I want to raise at this stage is that now that the land tax bills have gone out in this State, I would suggest that the Government ought to be in a position to tell us exactly what they will recover in the position of sending out these land tax accounts. They ought to be able to tell us exactly the amount that they will receive. The honourable Treasurer may well be able to answer that question if he speaks on this matter.

We are told that the Government was expecting a return of about $90 million. I am told, on some information that I have, that that amount is likely to increase substantially over and above the $90 million mark. It would be of interest to us to know what it is likely to be.

As I said before, people are not saying that they do not want to pay taxes. We know we have to pay taxes, but it is the way in which this tax is formed and the way in which it operates that is creating the concern.

Mr Parkinson - Well, it is a wealth tax.

Mr DEAN - It is a wealth tax. The unfortunate thing about it, as I said previously, is that it is now impacting on people who are not wealthy - people who have a shack or another property that they have probably inherited or they have come by some means other than putting their own funds into it; it has been left to them or what have you. It is impacting on everybody. It is just not doing what it was designed to do in the first place in my summation.

That is what people are saying. I cannot understand why the Government are procrastinating on this issue. I would have thought that they would have been very anxious to do something now to start and get things -

Mr Parkinson - Do you think it should be abolished?

Mr DEAN - No, I have never said that, and I have not had one constituent who has come to me yet to say it should be abolished. Nobody has said that to me. All they are saying is, it needs to fair and it needs to be equitable. That is what they are saying, they are prepared to pay this tax.

Mr Aird - Yes, but what does that mean? What does the configuration mean, how much revenue do you lose? You need to answer some of these questions if you are putting forward a problem.

Mr DEAN - For a start, you have indicated that you expect a return of about $90 million from this land tax. I would like to know, and I have asked the question, is that what you will get back or will you get well over the $90 million?

Mr Aird - That in itself is not an issue, is it?

Mr DEAN - It is an issue.

Mr Aird - The fact is that it is a budgeted amount. But I think that you need to go back and look at the whole issue, not just the revenue collected.

Mr DEAN - It is an interesting comment that you make, but I will refer in a moment to the West Australian Treasurer in his budget speech of this year, what he said in relation to land tax in that State - where they gained a windfall and what they are going to do. I will quote from that speech shortly.

Mr Parkinson - If you are happy for it to be fair and equitable, then you should be saying what is in your view fair and equitable.

Mr DEAN - I am trying to get to that; I am trying to raise the issues in relation to what I believe to be fair and equitable. I do know that the current system to me is certainly not fair and equitable. The position that we have had is that the Government have continually said that they are relying on the Henry review, of which we are all aware in this House. The fact is that that review is not due to be handed in, I think, until December of this year and by that time it is unlikely that it will be actioned or that anything will happen in relation to that report, I would suggest, for 12 months.

In my view, any of the findings or the issues coming out of that will be a long way away, and we cannot afford to have land tax continue in the way that it is for that further period of time.

The reliance on that matter is of concern to me and an issue that needs to be considered.

We know that many developers and others, property owners, are in dire trouble, with probable loss of development and employment opportunities in this State. Cash flow is an issue and while the Government have offered support in this regard - and that is commendable of them - the collection of land tax must be adjusted.

Providing assistance with cash flow to those people at this stage is one issue, but it goes much further than that. They will have to pay back that support given to them. On top of that, they will have next year's land tax to pay as well. It provides some comfort in the short term.

The $25 000 threshold for the commencement of land tax in this State, in my opinion and the opinion of a lot of other people, is quite ridiculous, and it catches almost everybody in this State, certainly with an additional property. $25 000 is a ludicrous threshold to have, particularly when you look at all of the other States and where their threshold starts, for example South Australia, the closest to us with about $110 000, the others being much higher than that and I will refer to those in a moment.

The Government have said to us that the soaring land valuations have been a cause of the soaring increases in land tax. Well, that being the case, why have they not looked at the threshold limit of $25 000? I know it was changed in about 2005-06 from $15 000 up to $25 000, but why has it not been considered since that time? We have gone on another three or four years since then without any increase in that threshold.

I want to quote from a speech that was made by the honourable Treasurer in Western Australia. It is the budget speech for this year and it was handed down on Thursday 14 May 2009. It reads:

'Land tax reform: Excessive land tax is an impost that can be a disincentive for business to invest in this State. And not just landlords - land tax is passed on to tenants, large and small.'

That is exactly what I said a while ago. It is the tenant in this State that will pick up land tax in many instances, not the property owner. The quote continues:

'In recent times, a combination of rising land value, a highly progressive tax scale, a narrowing tax base, and the effects of aggregation have led to dramatic tax rises.

One of our first acts in Government was to reduce land tax rates across the board to return to taxpayers a $43 million windfall gain from recent large land valuation increases.

And today I am announcing we will mitigate the harsh impact of any future steep land tax hikes. The annual volatility of land tax bills will be moderated through the introduction of a 50 per cent cap on the increase in valuations in any one year.'

They are pretty strong words for a treasurer to utter in another State in relation to land tax; exactly the same situation that we have here in this State, Madam President; soaring land tax bills as a result of land valuations increasing. That is what the West Australian Government advocated and, as I understand, have done or are doing.

Ms Thorp - Is there a date on that?

Mr DEAN - Yes, there is a date on it and I read the date; the date of this speech was Thursday 14 May 2009. A pretty strong statement, Madam President, but yet here in this State we have ignored it.

Madam President, I want to refer to some other documents that I have. We know where the other States lie in relation to this and where their threshold commences but I just want to refer to them again just to allow members to reflect on it. In Queensland, for instance, the threshold commences at $599 000. Nobody pays a land tax on properties under that value. If we go to the other States, some of these figures are quite remarkable. South Australia is the closest to us and their threshold commences at $110 000 but then the scale is significantly different to ours moving forward from that amount of $110 000. That is the important part of all this; you have to look at the scale that follows. In New South Wales the Valuer-General has determined that the land tax threshold there for 2009 is $368 000. In Victoria the land tax threshold commences at $250 000, and once again the scale is significantly different to Tasmania moving forward from there.

So, Madam President, I think that is an indication of where the other States fit with their land tax and its impost on people who are developing and people who own a number of properties.

An interesting quote again was in the Sunday Tasmanian on 15 November, the weekend just gone. It was an opinion expressed by Mr Bruce Felmingham whose opinions are well recognised and respected.

Mr Parkinson - Last Sunday's newspaper?

Mr DEAN - Yes. Most people would have read it but I quote:

'How come an expert committee such as the State Government-appointed Business Tax and Regulation Reference Group produces a recommendation about tax reform that is so on the nose?

They apparently see land tax as a preferable option in spite of the effect property revaluation is having on those unfortunate enough to be affected by the spectacular boom in property prices. Those liable for land tax find a land tax exploding in similar fashion.

… the reference group has studied the literature of land tax and found a consensus that when it comes to the merits of different forms of taxation, land tax is rated among the "best of the worst".'

Mr Parkinson - A good quote. No tax is good but it's the best of the worst.

Mr DEAN - You are right. People do not like taxes but they realise they have to pay taxes. People realise that we need taxes and that we need services, as I have said before, and nobody is saying that we do not pay taxes.

Mr Parkinson - You're being very fair. I'm surprised you quoted Bruce Felmingham.

Mr DEAN - I have no problem with quoting Bruce Felmingham. I need to be fair about this. The document goes on:

'The Tasmanian Liberal Party keeps hammering away about land tax and promises to abolish it, which is not the point. It is the way in which the tax is being collected and administered. The Libs should continue their attack but redirect it at the clumsy fashion in which the tax is administered at present.'

Mr Felmingham is also critical of the way in which this tax is implemented and its impact on people and that is what we are talking about, Madam President. The Government seems to think that my position is, and the position of the people out there is, that they do not want to pay this tax. That is not the case. It is very difficult to get that through. It is the way it is done and its impact on people that is of concern.

I had the Treasurer's document in relation to the Business Tax and Regulations Reference Group and I just simply refer to that document where some comment is made in relation to taxation.

Yesterday, Madam President, there was a briefing that you and others were present at. I was not able to be there for the entire briefing. It was interesting that in this State on 9 October the Land Tax 2010 Coalition was announced with nine founding coalition members. This is a group that was set up specifically in relation to land tax in this State to consider it, to work with people, to work with businesses to see and to find a way forward in relation to land tax in this State. There are a number of members of that coalition group and I just want to refer to some of them. This is how strong the group is to have such people onside.

The membership of that group currently, Madam President, is the Property Council of Australia Tasmania; the Master Builders Association, Tasmania; the Master Plumbers Association, Tasmania; the Federation of Civil Contractors, Tasmania; the Real Estate Institute of Tasmania; the Retail Traders Association; the Tasmanian Small Business Council; the Tasmanian Independent Retailers; the Motor Traders Association; the Launceston City Prom; the Launceston Chamber of Commerce; the Hobart Chamber of Commerce; STEPS; the Australian Hotels Association and the Restaurants and Caterers Association.

According to the document they provided me with yesterday, this is the first time in 15 years that there is a concerted campaign to bring land tax reform front and centre to all political parties to achieve commitment to reform now and in a new term of government. In addition, a community committee is being formed out of the concerned people who attended a Wednesday 11 November public meeting at the Shipwrights Arms pub in Hobart. This coalition and the community committee will be coordinating its activities statewide.

Madam President, their rationale for the reform agenda is - and I will read from that: 'Land tax revenue over the past decade has increased by 344 per cent. The only other State tax which has a similar increase is stamp duty, increasing over the same period by 167 per cent. Other taxes have kept in line with CPI'.

That is a group that has been set up with representatives from all those organisations I have identified that have issues and concerns in relation to land tax right now and into the future. As I said, I was not there for the rest of that briefing and I will allow other members - obviously if they wish to - to refer to that document moving forward.

I did mention - and it was raised by the honourable Leader - the comment in the Mercury today. It was a comment he is referring to that I suspect from Mr Tom Muller of TasCOSS. He makes a number of statements in relation to land tax and his support for it moving forward but I think, with the greatest of fairness to Mr Muller, he is missing the point.

I think he is missing the point of this: he has misunderstood the debate and what it is about. The debate is not about forgoing taxes, it is not anything to do with that at all, it is a matter of having an equitable system in place in identifying land tax, a suitable amount of land tax to be paid by owners and developers and all those people who have second and third properties and are developing them in this State.

Mr Hall - Who are we referring to here?

Mr DEAN - TasCOSS - the comment made by Mr Muller. It is referred to in the paper today and I think we all would have received an e-mail from Mr Muller in which he is fairly critical of the position that those people have who are opposed to anything further happening in land tax.

I spoke with the coalition group in relation to this, as well, to find out what their position was on it and I just refer to a couple of statements that were made. This is a very important one: - 'This is not a debate about what services will need to be cut due to massive falls in State Government revenue. This is a debate about bringing under control a beast that is growing out of control and is having a significant dampening effect on the Tasmanian economy'. That is what this is all about and I think that is a very good comment.

I think Mr Muller, with the greatest of respect to him, is really missing the point of this debate and what is happening right now. What people are saying - and I have referred to this - is that those who have now received these accounts with the massive increases cannot cope with that. It is impacting to the detriment of their businesses and their properties.

At least three constituents have come to me to say that they will be selling their properties, that they cannot continue to go down this track with the soaring costs that are occurring, not only in land tax but also in their rates, in their water and sewerage, and in all of their other costs. Many people are saying that it is now becoming prohibitive and that they cannot get a suitable and reasonable return on those investments, so they are much better off selling their properties and putting the money away into an account, fixed term deposit, or whatever it might be, because that is a much better investment for them.

Mr Hall - Through you, Madam President - it also may be that property values will flatten or actually diminish. This factor may precipitate that as well as the first home buyer's grant going and interest rates going up, so property values may diminish, that is what I am saying.

Mr DEAN - Meaning that land tax, if that is the case, should drop.

Mr Hall - Yes, that is right.

Mr DEAN - It should drop. Will it drop if that happens? I doubt it. I am a pessimist and I doubt very much that that would occur. I think, as I said, Mr Muller has got it wrong. I do not think that Mr Muller has really understood exactly what the position is in relation to land tax and its impost on people.

We are not saying that services should be cut, of course not, but we are saying that there are other ways of doing it. There is one way they can do it and the Government challenged me - and I have made this statement previously in this Chamber, Madam President, and I make it again here today - that they did make this statement many years ago that they would never increase taxes. To me that was a very silly statement to make and I think you should never say never. Who knows? The people out there may well have been accepting of a half a per cent increase in taxation or something else to bring in some of the funding that comes from land tax to make it more equitable - where everybody pays, not just a selected few.

I have a media release from the Launceston Chamber of Commerce, Madam President. This would have been sent out to all members of the Chamber. It is dated Friday 13 November 2009 and I will read this fairly short document into Hansard: 'Launceston Chamber of Commerce supports land tax coalition's call for reform' and that is the group I have just referred to. I quote:

'Following the recent formation of the Land Tax Coalition, the Launceston Chamber of Commerce at its most recent Board meeting on 11th November resolved to support reform to the state land tax system and has called for all three political parties to commit to reform of the current system.

Executive Officer Lou Clark said, "Our concern is where this tax is going over the next 5 to 10 years."'

That is the important issue. I think that is really worrying and concerning a lot of people, Madam President. That is not only the steep increases but what is it going to lead to? What are the repercussions going to be?

I quote further:

'The Chamber Board certainly supports a review of the tax and believes that any system needs to be consistent and fairer. Currently this tax acts as a disincentive to investment and job creation. However any review and reform must be done with a long term strategic view in mind. This tax kicks in at a very low threshold in Tasmania so it means nearly every business in Tasmania incurs this tax and the only way for business to recoup, particularly small business is to pass it on to consumers. This adds to the cost of doing business and jeopardises jobs in the state. Imagine what opportunities might be out there if the disincentive to investment and job creation that this tax creates was removed.

Ms Clark said "This is an issue that is affecting our membership and the Launceston Chamber of Commerce will be supporting the coalition's efforts in seeking a review and general reform for this tax. With an election approaching all three political parties should be seeking the views of business on this issue. Certainly the groundswell of support for a review of the system from business and the community makes it very apparent that this tax cannot continue in its current state." '

It is signed off by Louise Clark, who is the executive officer of the Chamber of Commerce Launceston.

Madam President, I am not going to say any more. I wanted to open it up. I wanted to refer to it here today because of the importance of this issue and I will now be interested to see whether or not any other members have any concerns about the way land tax is being imposed on property owners in this State, and whether or not they believe it is a reasonable system moving forward as well.

Mr Hall - Through you, Madam President, before the honourable member sits down - the Business Tax and Regulation Reference Group talked about a broadening of the tax base and about it going onto the principal family residence and onto other properties, such as rural properties. Do you support that intention?

Mr DEAN - No, I do not. There was also a suggestion - it is in my documentation here - that there should be an imposition on the number of persons living on a property. It should be done on the number of persons who live on or in a property. I would have concerns with that as well moving forward.

I think there are ways that it can be done and the Government just needs to be a little more innovative in the way that they handle and do some of these things. I do not think that they can depend on who they believe to be the wealthy people of this State continuing to provide the income because it is not just the wealthy people.

Ms Forrest - They get slugged too.

Mr DEAN - They are getting slugged but the fact is that is it is impacting on just the ordinary citizen out there who is struggling in many instances. I have heard a number of elderly people say that they are going to get rid of their shack because they can no longer afford to keep it. That to me is really a bad situation that we are confronted with. I do not think that the land tax was ever meant to do that. As I said, the underlying principle was to stop people buying up valuable properties and not doing anything with them. It seems to have gone way past that and I just wonder how much the Government have looked at this and how much they have studied this because we have Western Australia with a very strong statement of where they are going on land tax.

Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - Madam President, first of all I thank the members for their contribution in relation to this matter. It is clear just from those contributions how much angst there is in this Chamber in relation to this situation that we are now confronted with in relation to land tax.

I listened to the honourable Treasurer and the comments made and the situation in Western Australia. The fact is that Western Australia has targeted this.

Mr Aird - But they have this other tax based on land - $80 million.

Mr DEAN - They have made a decision in relation to the land tax windfall, as to what they are going to do there. Running that State would be far different to running this State. We are a much smaller State. They would need more funding, so obviously they would need more ways of getting their necessary funding and so on.

The fact is, there is a huge amount of angst out there and the Premier has accepted that. I think there was a comment in today's Examiner, one of the papers, where the Premier accepts the fact that there is a lot of - and he uses the word - 'anger' in the community at the present time. That has been demonstrated, he said, in the EMRS poll just recently conducted. Things have to happen. Things have to be done. In this same release, in fact, the Treasurer does make the comment that he is prepared to consider land tax in the short term and the medium term. I congratulate him on that because I think that the Treasurer does realise that there are real issues in relation to land tax moving forward. We do need to get it right. As I said, to use the words of another member, 'the drums are beating', and if we just sit back and do nothing about it, then it can only worsen over the short term. That is what people are asking for.

The 2010 Coalition which I referred to earlier are out there now. They have even a strong membership within the short term that they have been running. They have a reform agenda. They are prepared to work and talk with the Government on this moving forward.

Mr Aird - They are taking their time coming to see me, I can tell you.

Mr DEAN - Well, I think that the Government would be foolish not to listen to them.

Mr Aird -No, up until today when I met them, they have never approached me, they have never sought a meeting with me.

Mr DEAN - Is that right?

Mrs Rattray-Wagner - I bet they have now.

Mr Aird - They have now. And I can inform you I have agreed to meet them.

Mr Parkinson - News travels.

Mr DEAN - They have now and that is good, and let us hope that we can work through this. Let us hope that we can get a result on it that provides some relief for these people who are doing it tough and that the Government is able to work through a model that is more equitable - and that is what we are asking for. We are asking for a cap on land tax because the Government budgeted a certain amount of money. We still have not been told, so we will have to ask -

Mr Aird - No, I have said that it's pretty well on budget; it might be marginally above the estimate now in terms of revenue.

Mr DEAN - The $90 million, it is marginally above?

Mr Aird - Yes.

Mr DEAN - At least we now know that it is not under budget, and it could be slightly above budget.

I do thank members for their contribution and I would urge them to give support to this motion, because it is an issue that is hurting people out there. People are bleeding and we do need support. I would urge members to support the motion, Madam President.

Motion agreed to