Queensland Law Society Media Release

---

Queensland land tax changes: a money-grabbing injustice

Proposed State Government changes to land tax laws contain unjust retrospectivity provisions and impose significant costs on business, Queensland Law Society President Peter Eardley said today.

He said the Valuation of Land and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010, due to be debated in State Parliament this week, is ill-conceived and contains disturbing clauses which infringe on the rights and liberties of individuals.

“Our key concerns are around provisions that make the changes retrospective, amend the objections and appeal process, and change the definition of unimproved value,” Mr Eardley said.

Key to the proposed amendments is the nonsensical decision to turn the term ‘unimproved land’ on its head to mean ‘improved land’.

“Sixty years of settled principle are overturned by this ridiculous definitional change,” Mr Eardley said.

“This change has been proposed simply because Government wants to mandate consideration of improvements, such as lease value, goodwill and any work done to add value to a property, in determining the value of the property and therefore the land tax applicable.

“This is clearly a money-grabbing exercise,” he said.

“Under the new Bill, if a farmer installs an irrigation system on his property, it might be determined that they have improved their land value and they will therefore be expected to pay more in land tax.

“These changes will affect mum and dad investors, farms, shopping centres, CBD locations and more – virtually anyone who pays land tax.”

Mr Eardley also commented on the retrospectivity implications in relation to legal cases in progress under the existing legislation.

“Individuals currently involved in litigation will have wasted monies in legal fees, and significant time, as the Act they are appealing would be obsolete,” he said. “Due process must be followed and appeals should be determined on the law of the day, not on the whim of government.

“Furthermore, the amendments to the objections and appeals process, to include further onerous obligations of the property owner, also will see Government largely determining the outcome, not the Land Court.”

Mr Eardley described the proposed appeals process as significantly reducing the rights of landholders who wished to appeal against their valuations.

“While the 45-day appeal deadline remains, the new requirements in terms of the detail and quantity of information needed for an appeal may render the process virtually unworkable,” he said.

“If a bureaucrat determines that the objection is not ‘properly made’, the subsequent 14-day period allowed for modification or amendment will be woefully inadequate in most instances. And if people don’t get it right then, they will have lost all of their rights to appeal.

“Property owners will not only be hit with increased land tax, but also with the additional resource demands of working within the amended appeals process.”

Mr Eardley joins Queensland property groups led by the Property Council of Australia objecting to the proposed changes. He said that the Society had written to the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy pointing out its concerns with the Bill and had also made submissions to the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee.

“A government which changes the playing field to win the game will never earn the confidence or respect of the players,” he said.

“This Bill has been tabled without any consultation with the affected stakeholders.

“It is a very poor process that the only stakeholder consulted was the Local Government Association of Queensland, and it is unsurprising that this body would be in support of this legislation.

“The principles of open government have been ignored and citizens are entitled to ask why.”