Hansard

Bills

Land Tax Assessment Amendment (Native Title Settlement Exemptions) Bill 2025

Second reading

Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting.

Mr Lachlan Hunter (Central Wheatbelt) (2:56 pm): As I was saying before, once again this government has chosen to outsource a matter of principle to the bureaucracy—in this case, RevenueWA. A tax collection agency has effectively been left to determine questions of exemption and charitable status. It is something that we in the opposition have questioned. As I said at the outset, we are not going to oppose this bill, but it speaks to the deeper issue around the role of this government. We know that it is not a bureaucrat's role to determine government policy; it is their role to advise, and these are not administrative matters. They are fundamental questions of tax policy and they belong here in this Parliament, as I said before, debated in full view of the people of Western Australia. Instead, the Cook Labor government has remained silent, content to hide behind the interpretation of the department. Under the South West settlement, land is exempt from transfer duty, but that act is silent on land tax.

The practical consequence is clear. As time passes and development occurs on land transferred through the settlement, we will see circumstances where two businesses sit side by side in the same precinct. One operates on land acquired through the settlement, exempt from land tax; the other operates on privately held land and pays the full amount. Is that really the government's policy? The opposition in the other place has put forward to amend this legislation and put in a review clause, because we know that land use changes from time to time, particularly in the electorate that I represent, Central Wheatbelt, and the electorates of many members of the National Party. In fact, I think about 90% of the South West Native Title Settlement agreement land actually sits in National Party seats and we know that with the government's renewable energy targets, and its objectives to get to net zero, that a lot of that land, particularly through the South West Interconnected System power network, will actually be utilised within the South West Native Title Settlement areas. As I said, those two competitors in the same market are treated entirely differently; one business pays and the other one does not. That is not equity and it is not fairness. Every exemption carved out, every dollar taken out of the system, shifts the burden onto someone else—families, small businesses and farmers—and we know that, particularly in our state, productive land is finite, and every carve-out leaves others carrying more of the load. I will say this: if land that is exempt today is used in the future for commercial profit-making purposes, that exemption must be reassessed. This is something that we asked about time and again during the briefings on this bill: if the land use changes, will the government then reassess and make that land accessible for tax, like it is for everyone else?

No-one in this place disputes the importance of the settlement. In fact, outside the Parliament the Grylls–Barnett Liberal–National government implemented this history-changing settlement; it is an arrangement that our side of the chamber absolutely implemented. No-one disputes the need for certainty in how land is transferred, but a business making a profit in the marketplace should not enjoy a permanent tax holiday simply because of how its land was first acquired. That is not fair to other taxpayers. It is not good tax policy and, in the long run, it will not be sustainable.

This bill also raises another question. Will this exemption extend to other native title groups, such as the Yamatji people in the Mid West? I know that the member for Mid-West, Shane Love, cannot be here today because of illness, but he wanted us to place on the public record whether or not the exemption will extend to the Yamatji people. I know the member for Geraldton also represents those good people. Will this exemption apply? This bill specifically only talks about people in the South West. We again asked that question of the government and the department and the answer was that the government really had not considered it. We will put this question to the minister on the record: does this apply to other native title groups, like the Yamatji people? I think they deserve an answer. If it does not apply, can the minister tell us why not? Is the Cook government prepared to stand in this house and explain why one group receives an exemption whilst another does not? Are we creating a two-tier system of native title settlements in our state? Given that the carriage of a bill through a Parliament is a very time-consuming process, will we have to come back again and debate another bill because the government forgot that the north of the state exists? These are questions of equity and consistency, and they deserve answers in this house, not silence from the government bench.

Right now, because the South West settlement is still in its early stages, few will stop to question the consequences of this bill, but as more land is transferred and more commercial developments expand, the scope of exempt land will grow. The Njaki-Njaki people, in the eastern part of my electorate, have some questions around the Indigenous land use agreements and about who the traditional owners in those parts of the world actually are. I put on the record my appreciation of Mick Hayden and the work that he does out in Merredin. We know that the disparity will grow because there are more and more mining interests and renewable energy and green energy projects coming that will affect our part of the world. Deputy Speaker, you are the member for Kalgoorlie, and in our part of the world we have the South West Interconnected System line on the Great Eastern Highway corridor. A lot of the renewable energy companies are very, very interested in that because of the infrastructure there. It is not good enough for the government to say that this is technical or that RevenueWA has already taken a view. These are matters of fairness and tax equity and they must be debated openly and settled by policy, not by bureaucracy.

As I said at the outset, the opposition, through our shadow Minister for Energy in the other place, put on the record a get-out-of-jail-free clause, if you like, for the government: every five years, let us do a review to see whether the land being transferred by this agreement still fits the pub test. We know that some of these companies are creating big businesses, particularly in the eastern part of the Wheatbelt, and are owned by very, very wealthy union-backed superannuation funds. We know that they are backed by those super funds. In fact, in the world that we live in today, we know that big businesses, particularly mining companies, are looking for Aboriginal-owned corporations to collaborate and do business with. Is this a tax loophole for multinational corporates or a tax loophole for union-backed superannuation funds that want business exemptions that will be very costly to the taxpayers of Western Australia?

Let me be clear as I wrap up: the opposition respects this native title settlement. In fact, as I said, we on this side of the Parliament created it. We respect the rights of Aboriginal people. It is a little-known fact that the Nationals WA actually represents a majority of Indigenous people in our electorates in the state of Western Australia. But fairness in the tax system cannot be an afterthought, and this bill reflects the government's current position. It leaves unanswered questions that will become more pressing in the years ahead. It leaves taxpayers exposed to inequity and fails to answer basic questions about who is included, who is not and what happens when land is developed for profit. At some point, a future government will have to confront these questions honestly, and we know that the Cook Labor government has chosen not to do that. The opposition places on the record our concern that equity and fairness in the land tax system must not be forgotten, and we call for the government to finally front up with a clear policy, rather than outsourcing responsibility to the bureaucracy, and to come back and fix the wrongs of the past.

Mr Peter Rundle (Roe) (3:06 pm): I would like to make a few very brief comments on the Land Tax Assessment Amendment (Native Title Settlement Exemptions) Bill 2025, and back up what the member for Central Wheatbelt has been talking about, because this bill highlights a serious policy question: should RevenueWA, a tax collection agency, be the body that decides questions of charitable exemption without any debate in this Parliament? That is concerning to me. I have always had a bit of a bugbear in relation to the charitable exemption scenario because in the past I have seen certain bodies with some sort of connection to religion or the like that have this charitable exemption status, but then they create a business and they compete against other local businesses, right alongside them. That is an unfair playing field. That is something that I have never been happy about. From my perspective, it is important that we have this discussion, and I look forward to what the minister will have to say on this issue. This is not necessarily about the first transfer, but the second and the third transfers, and what the future purpose of that land might be.

The South West native title settlement, as the member for Central Wheatbelt pointed out, originated during the Barnett government. Quite a few of the groups involved in that are in my electorate of Roe, which I obviously understand, but we are now seeing the practical reality that this bill is silent about, which is the issue of land tax further down the track. For argument's sake, when development occurs down the track and it is transferred on freehold land, we will see two businesses side by side and one of them will potentially be disadvantaged. I want to refer to an article in The West Australian today from Emma Garlett about what has gone wrong with the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council. It lost millions in a deal that was supposed to address homelessness and housing instability in the Noongar community. She talks about the deal, which the Ombudsman has now investigated. The former Attorney General spoke about it. He also referred it to the Western Australian Charitable Trusts Commission. We have the report. The Ombudsman, Bevan Warner, demonstrates his concerns:

In keeping with modern approaches to social impact investing, it is conceivable that a social return on investment to an Aboriginal community, could be achieved through an investment that results in an economic loss to the trust. And to this end, a trustee would not necessarily be in breach of its duties by distributing trust funds for such a project. However, such a project would require the minimum … the usual level of due diligence to be exercised by the trustees.

The concern is that the trustees purchased land but, basically, the deal did not work out as well as it should have. We have seen the fallout. It was meant to be a lifestyle village and used for a variety of other purposes. The wheels came off and, all of a sudden, the use of the land might change. As Emma Garrett points out:

The WA Ombudsman has agreed, and Equity Trustees has been given until mid September to provide submissions as to appropriate compensation.

Of course, Equity Trustees has said that it disagrees and the whole project seems to have fallen by the wayside. Let us say, for argument's sake, that there was a land tax exemption when the land purchased, as there would be under this particular legislation, my concern is what will happen at the next phase? What will happen when the land is sold on to perhaps another developer? Will they get the El Caballo golf course and all the buildings, with a land tax exemption coming through? That is really the question here, and it was brought up by the member for Central Wheatbelt. There is a scenario here in which development could take place and the land could be transferred to another party—as the member pointed out, that could be a superfund with union members in there amongst its management, or it could be any other commercial entity—and that land tax exemption might flow through to it.

I am looking for some answers on this from the minister. Has the Cook Labor government thought about this in a little bit more depth? As I said, the example of the El Caballo fiasco, as I suppose I would call it, is really disappointing. It is a perfect example of an asset that, in the end, may be sold on to another developer and may get that land tax exemption. I think this is a case of the Cook Labor government not thinking too clearly about the issue and leaving too many questions unanswered. We certainly want to place on the record our concern that fairness and equity in the land tax system must not be forgotten. I think that is an important element that we need to think about. It cannot be forgotten. This government needs to think a little bit more about what happens further down the track. The bureaucrats involved in this particular legislation need to think about it a little bit more. It is about inequity and division and the future use of land.

Mr David Michael (Balcatta—Minister for Mines and Petroleum) (3:14 pm) in reply: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Can I thank members for their contributions and the opposition for its support for the Land Tax Assessment Amendment (Native Title Settlement Exemptions) Bill 2025.

As we just heard, the bill will amend the Land Tax Assessment Act 2002 to exempt land transferred under the South West Native Title Settlement from land tax from the 2025–26 assessment year. The exemption can also be extended to land transferred under similar settlements as they arise, and I will get to that in a second. As the shadow Treasurer noted, under the south-west and similar native title settlements, it is expected that tens of thousands of parcels of Crown land will be transferred. Assessing this land for a charitable exemption would impose a significant administrative burden on both the native title claimants and RevenueWA. Further, under current arrangements, the government cannot provide any up-front certainty to native title groups about whether any land transferred will be exempt. These amendments will reduce the administrative burden and provide certainty to native title claimants, which, as the shadow Treasurer said, is recognition that it is important.

The proposed exemption is consistent with similar tax concessions offered by other jurisdictions, such as the Commonwealth income and capital gains exemption for native title benefits and the recent New South Wales exemption for land transferred to registered native title body corporates. As the shadow Treasurer also noted in her contribution, the bill contains a regulation-making power to allow future native title settlement agreements to be prescribed for the purposes of the exemption.

I also thank the member for Central Wheatbelt for his support for the bill. I might go through a couple of the issues he raised. Firstly, several members have approached me in the last week or so and asked whether a review clause could be put into this legislation. Obviously, the purpose of this legislation is to provide certainty for native title settlement groups or future groups, so having a review is not something that is supported; the purpose of the bill is to provide certainty. I understand the reason members would seek a review, but in this instance it is something I do not think we are able to support.

In terms of other issues, I think the member for Central Wheatbelt talked about commercial activity that might occur in his electorate. The new exemption would be consistent with how charitable land tax exemptions apply generally when land is exempt because the income from the charity's commercial activities is used exclusively to further its charitable purpose. This is distinct from commercial activities by non-charitable entities whose profits are ultimately distributed to private owners or shareholders. The different tax treatment of charities and non-charitable entities across the state and federal tax schemes reflect the importance of maximising the financial capacity of charities to carry out their important work. I might just go on a little bit further on that one.

Obviously, land held under a native title settlement agreement that is used for commercial purposes will be entitled to the new exemption. This is consistent with the fact that a charitable exemption from land tax would generally apply to land used for those commercial business activities when that income, as I said before, is used to further the landowner's charitable purpose. This principle applies to any charity carrying out commercial activities, not just Aboriginal body corporates. The exemption proposed by the bill intends to remove the administrative overheads of a determination of a charitable exemption. Land is exempted in Western Australia when it is owned by a charitable institution and used for a charitable purpose for which the institution was established. In 2010, the High Court held that a body that carries on commercial business activities may be charitable if those commercial activities are carried out in a furtherance of a charitable purpose. That is from Commissioner of Taxation v Word Investments Ltd. If a charitable institution has an ancillary object or purpose directed to raising income, this becomes a charitable purpose if the object or purpose is incidental to another charitable purpose. The charitable exemption requirements are met if the institution then uses land to generate income to further its main charitable purpose.

Australian courts have consistently held that the advancement or assistance of Aboriginal persons, including by way of creating economic opportunities, is a charitable purpose. Managing native title compensation has been found to be a charitable purpose as it provides direct managerial assistance and economic opportunities for Aboriginal people. The Noongar Boodjar Trust is a not-for-profit entity, which is in clause 2 of the deed, and its purpose is to economically and culturally empower the Noongar people and as such is clearly a charitable entity. The trust deed for the South West Native Title Settlement limits the commercial activities that can be undertaken on the land to those that directly support the advancement of Aboriginal people or culture, or are required to fund the operations of the Aboriginal corporations. This use will also be clearly charitable because the commercial activities will be carried out in furtherance of the charitable purpose.

I think both members asked some questions about other native title settlements. Subject to the passage of this bill by the Parliament, I will look to approve the drafting of regulations to prescribe the Yamatji Nation Indigenous Land Use Agreement and the Tjiwarl Palyakuwa Indigenous Land Use Agreement as settlement ILUAs. The regulations can apply retrospectively from 1 July 2025 for the 2025–26 assessment year. Hopefully that answers that question for members.

There was also commentary regarding how the department and RevenueWA manage the charitable exemptions. It is not particularly relevant to this bill, but those charitable exemptions exist in other taxation legislation, including, I think, payroll tax, land tax and duties legislation. I have not had time to go through Hansard, but I suspect that the provision in those acts that gives RevenueWA and the commissioner the power to determine charitable exemptions obviously has been through this house many times. I would hazard a guess, without going through Hansard, that it was probably supported by all three of our parties from time to time. That power is already there and has been given to the commissioner by this Parliament several times in several pieces of legislation.

I again thank opposition members for their support of the bill. I understand that we will go into consideration in detail. The proposed amendments in the bill will advance reconciliation and empower Indigenous people culturally and economically in our great state. This is a sensible and practical measure, and I very much commend it to the house.

Question put and passed.

Bill read a second time.

Leave denied to proceed forthwith to third reading.

Consideration in detail

Clause 1: Short title

Mr Lachlan Hunter: Just on the consultation that the government did on this bill, did it speak just to native title groups in the South West native title area or did it speak with other native title groups around the state?

Mr David Michael: This was obviously an issue raised by the particular group that we have been discussing for the South West. There was no actual consultation with groups outside that, but obviously within government there was consultation with other departments that regularly have communication with native title groups.

Mr Lachlan Hunter: I have a question regarding the minister's concluding remarks to the second reading debate and the two native title groups that he referred to. Has the department informed those native title groups of the government's intention to include them in the regulations?

Mr David Michael: Obviously, we intend to do that, but we first have to wait for the bill to pass to make sure that we respect the Parliament.

Clause put and passed.

Clause 2: Commencement

Ms Sandra Brewer: I note that the land tax year matches the financial year. Assessment notices are generally sent in October. How will the passing of this bill affect the issuing of assessment notices?

Mr David Michael: If the legislation is passed in time, obviously the notices will not be sent for the titles or the bits of land that currently would be in the system. If it has not passed by then, the department will put an administrative block on sending it until we have resolved the bill through the Parliament.

Clause put and passed.

Clause 3 put and passedClause 4: Part 3 Division 3A inserted

Ms Sandra Brewer: Clause 4 is very long. I will also need to refer to the explanatory memorandum, so I ask members to bear with me while I explain where I am up to. I refer to proposed section 30AA of proposed division 3A and the definition of "settlement ILUA" on page 3 of the bill. The definition states that "settlement ILUA" is as defined in section 3 of the act. The explanatory memorandum has a note that states:

The regulation-making power allows future Native Title settlements to be prescribed for the purposes of the land tax exemption if it is appropriate to do so.

That is at the top of page 5 of the explanatory memorandum. Could the minister please explain the definition of "if it is appropriate to do so"?

Mr David Michael: The regulation-making power gives government the flexibility to consider other native title settlement agreements on a case-by-case basis to determine whether it is appropriate for the exemption to apply. This is important if future native title agreements are structured differently from the four that have already been executed or there are concerns about how the settlement land might be used. If an agreement is not prescribed for the purposes of the exemption, the owner can apply for charitable exemptions for that land.

Ms Sandra Brewer: If that is within the regulations, I presume that is just a ministerial decision.

Mr David Michael: That is correct, and it would be approved by the Governor.

Ms Sandra Brewer: I have a further question, which relates to subclause (b) of the same proposed section. It states:

an ILUA prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition;

Is it also a new ILUA, so another that comes along in the future?

Mr David Michael: Yes.

Ms Sandra Brewer: I am just moving down the page, Chair. I hope that is okay. It is all part of the same proposed section.

The Acting Speaker: Yes. Just for Hansard, if you can say what line it is and on what page.

Ms Sandra Brewer: Okay. That makes sense. I refer to "settlement land" and line 11, paragraph (b), which states:

land that a settlement landholder is, under the ILUA —

The explanatory memorandum states:

Paragraph (b) largely mirrors section 8(1) of the LTA Act.

Can the parliamentary secretary explain the differences? If paragraph (b) largely mirrors section 8(1), what parts might be different?

Mr David Michael: I need to get a copy of that part of the land administration act. If the member would like to move on, we might be able to grab a print-out of it as it relates to that particular clause.

Ms Sandra Brewer: I have a further question on paragraph (b)(i), line 13, which states:

entitled to under a lease or licence from the Crown;

Can the minister provide a sense of the proportion of land that is leased versus a land access licence?

Mr David Michael: I do not have those numbers but given that it relates to some other agencies, I will endeavour to get that information to the member before it hits the upper house.

Ms Sandra Brewer: Paragraph (b)(ii), line 15, states:

entitled to use for business, commercial, professional or trade purposes under an agreement … with the Crown …

Subleases are quite common. For example, a building owner with an office on the main street might lease it to the local accountant, which in no way is related to the ILUA. Given that sublease tenants generally pay all outgoings of their landlord, what will be the impact on a sublease tenant of this land tax arrangement?

Mr David Michael: Obviously, if there is no land tax to be paid on the lot, on the property—any commercial arrangement that might occur in a normal commercial arrangement that does not involve a not for profit or a charitable exemption under this bill—there would be no need for a commercial arrangement to pass land tax on because it would incur no land tax.

Ms Sandra Brewer: In relation to the same point, halfway down page 6 of the explanatory memorandum, there is mention of a management order, stating:

If a management order does not entitle the settlement landholder to use the land for business, commercial, professional or trade purposes …

Who is responsible for a management order? Can the minister provide more clarity on what a management order is and when it would be in place?

Mr David Michael: Management orders under the Land Administration Act 1997 do not create an interest in the land. As such, managers of land the subject of a management order are generally not the owners for land tax purposes because they are not entitled to the land for any estate of freehold in possession. Land subject to a management order is generally exempt crown land under section 31 of the Land Tax Assessment Act. However, some management orders may allow the manager to use crown land for business, commercial, professional or trade purposes. In these circumstances, the manager is deemed to be the owner of the land and might be liable for land tax. Paragraph (b) of the definition of the settlement land exempts these management orders that are liable for land tax.

Ms Sandra Brewer: Proposed paragraph (c) on line 21 of the bill states:

land that was purchased … was specifically authorised by the ILUA;

Are there any parameters for authorisation?

Mr David Michael: Before I answer that question, I will answer the previous question. Basically, the difference between the Land Tax Assessment Act 2002 and the Land Administration Act 1997 is that the words "local government" have been taken out because local governments will not be in an ILUA. Other than that, they are almost identical, if not identical.

The meaning of "specifically authorised" is quite broad and is intended to encompass a class of land or building use. For instance, if a future settlement granted $50 million for the purchase of homes for the native title claimants to live in, that would be a specific authorisation. In other words, the agreement does not have to specify an exact lot of land that the settlement landholder must purchase. In contrast, a native title settlement may include an unconditional grant of money. If that money was used to purchase land, that purchase would not be specifically authorised.

Ms Sandra Brewer: With regard to the section relating to a "settlement landholder", proposed paragraph (a) on line 29 states:

a person authorised …

Is there a register of persons authorised?

Mr David Michael: No. It would be specific to each Indigenous land use agreement.

Ms Sandra Brewer: To clarify, does the minister mean that within each Indigenous land use agreement, a register of persons authorised would be kept?

Mr David Michael: There is obviously no requirement to keep a register. The persons authorised would be defined in each ILUA.

Ms Sandra Brewer: Speaking more generally about persons authorised and the owner of the land, in the context of land tax, it is an aggregation of all properties. Let us say an individual owns a piece of land that is part of an ILUA, and they also own a holiday home, a business elsewhere and an industrial investment. Will aggregation for land tax be affected by this landholding?

Mr David Michael: If an authorised person had lots of other property outside the settlement, that would obviously be assessed normally for land tax. If they had a property held under trust, which the bill obviously contemplates, that would not be.

Ms Sandra Brewer: I move to proposed section 30AB(2),which states:

Regulations prescribing a person for the purposes of the definition of settlement landholder can only be made on the recommendation of the Minister.

I guess I have a range of questions. How will the regulations be created? Who will be consulted with? When will the regulations be made? Could the minister give a sense of the parameters around the regulations?

Mr David Michael: I might not answer all those questions because the member asked a few in a row. To the first question, in terms of adding an ILUA to the regulations, the minister will get advice from the department on whether the ILUA meets the criteria we have been talking about in our speeches and some of the consideration in detail today. The minister would then follow the normal process to get the regulations signed off by Executive Council and the Governor. That is the first bit of it. I might cover the next bit if the member wants that.

Ms Sandra Brewer: I guess I am trying to get a sense of the parameters for prescribing a person in the regulations. Will the regulations literally provide that a register of persons who are settlement landholders be maintained?

Mr David Michael: Some settlement groups may undertake restructures that result in settlement land being held by persons who were not originally contemplated by the settlement ILUA. The regulation-making power provides the flexibility to ensure the exemption is not lost because of these restructures if it is appropriate to exempt settlement land owned by these persons. A person can only be prescribed as a settlement landholder on the recommendation of the minister. The minister can only recommend a person be prescribed as a settlement landholder if they have a sufficient connection to a settlement ILUA. Once signed, the regulations will be on the legislation website and publicly available.

Ms Sandra Brewer: I thank the minister for that clear explanation. I wonder about the accountability of that system. Proposed section 30AB(3) states:

… if the Minister is satisfied that there is a sufficient connection between the person and the ILUA.

Is there any right of appeal or objection for people who may not support the minister's decision?

Mr David Michael: Given it is the Governor's decision based on ministerial advice, there is no right of appeal.

Mr Lachlan Hunter: I refer to proposed section 30AC, "Exemption for settlement land". The minister mentioned before the way in which some of the ILUAs hold their land. Is there a requirement under this new arrangement for them to have their land held in a very similar way to each other, whether that be via a trust or other arrangements?

Mr David Michael: Obviously, the core argument is that it has to be authorised under the agreement. There is no need to hold it in any particular way, noting that in earlier ILUAs, it could be slightly different. We cannot predict what future ways they might be able to hold land if other things change.

Mr Lachlan Hunter: I know we have discussed commercial arrangements previously. I know the member for Roe was quite interested to understand it when it is transferred a number of times throughout its history. Let us just paint a picture. If there was a plot of land out in Merredin owned by the Ballardong Aboriginal Corporation, which was approached to put a massive windfarm on it and there was a lease arrangement between that wind renewable energy company and the landowner—in effect, it was to pay a lease to be on the property—would it still be exempt if it was earning, say, $3 million or $4 million a year?

Mr David Michael: I reiterate that land held under a native title settlement agreement that is leased to a third party will be entitled to the new exemption regardless of the length of the lease. This is consistent with the fact that a charitable exemption from land tax will generally apply to land owned by a charity that is leased to a third party if the charity has an ancillary purpose to raise income to further its main charitable purpose. This principle applies to any charity generating rental income to apply to its charitable purpose, not just Indigenous charities. The exemption proposed by the bill intends to remove the administrative overheads that we have talked about before.

Mr Lachlan Hunter: I think that is of deep concern to many people in our part of the world.

Has the government done any analysis of how much it could potentially cost the state government to exempt land tax in the South West Native Title Settlement? I understand that not all the land has been transferred yet, so it is a bit of a hypothetical question around future land use, but with the current land that has been transferred to these groups, how much will this cost the government of Western Australia in potential loss of income?

Mr David Michael: The exemption is estimated to have an immaterial impact on the budget. The land that will be eligible for the exemption is expected to be exempted as charitable, in any event, under that High Court ruling that I mentioned in my second reading reply speech. In addition, the land that will be transferred under currently agreed native title settlements is almost entirely crown land and therefore not currently subject to land tax. However, it is important to note that the exemption stops if the land is sold and it must continue to be held under the Indigenous land use agreement.

Mr Lachlan Hunter: I do not know whether the member for Roe might have some questions after me as well, but we are wrapping it up.

What about an organisation earning $25 million a year from a piece of land, going well beyond propping up the organisation to ensure that it remains financially viable and making a significant amount of money, compared with the farmer or the people next door who have to pay land tax? Could the government or the minister of the day intervene in a situation like that and say, "Come on; this has become a bit of a joke now; we need to actually create a fair and equitable system"?

Mr David Michael: It is important to note that the ILUA was through their trust deeds limit—the activities that can be undertaken on settlement land as part of that legal instrument, I suppose. What we are talking about here is in terms of the Noongar Boodja Trust. It limits the activities that can be undertaken on settlement land to those that directly support the advancement of Aboriginal people or culture, or are required to fund the operations of the regional corporations. All those uses are clearly charitable under many definitions, including the High Court's. It is also important to note the hypothetical that the member gives us about getting a charitable exemption if it were a charity that owned the land. This can already happen. It has been able to happen for some time since 2010.

Mr Peter Rundle: Further to what I spoke about in the second reading debate, the minister spoke about crown land. I hear what is being said about when it gets transferred, but the example that I gave was the El Caballo Resort, which is basically developed land. If that is then transferred on or sold on to a property developer or whatever you like, does that property developer get an exemption?

Mr David Michael: The exemption would cease.

Clause put and passed.

Clause 5 put and passedTitle put and passed

Leave granted to proceed forthwith to third reading.

Third reading

Mr David Michael (Balcatta—Minister for Finance) (3:57 pm): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Noting the time, I do not know whether the shadow Treasurer might want to have a minute speech as well, just to help out the afternoon. I thank the opposition for the support of the bill. I hope that some of the questions that we were able to answer gives members opposite some comfort. I think the last question from the member for Roe was obviously a concern of his. Again, there were things I did not know before about the High Court decision and what a charitable exemption this was. This is a very sensible bill to ensure that we do not unnecessarily burden the South West or any other future native title owner after a settlement—especially RevenueWA as well, with some of the red tape that happens at the agency level for what we know would be exempted regardless. It is exempted for good reason, because we know that those charitable purposes that we talk of, such as the advancement of Aboriginal people in their culture and helping them to run those organisations, is something that can happen now with that charitable exemption. It gives certainty to those organisations so that they are able to do that very noble cause into the future.

Ms Sandra Brewer (Cottesloe) (3:59 pm): I rise to commend the government on the passage of the Land Tax Assessment Amendment (Native Title Settlement Exemptions) Bill 2025 and express our appreciation for the government's engagement in providing a briefing, a detailed explanatory memorandum and responding positively to all the questions from this side with patience and thoroughness in the responses. I would like to thank the advisers for their participation. Our support for this bill was based on the fact that it will reduce administrative burdens for government, which hopefully will reduce the operating costs of government in the long run for those who contribute to taxes in this state. We also recognise that removing that land tax liability and creating some permanence around that arrangement really does speak to the aspirations of what the Barnett government attempted to do by putting in place Indigenous land use agreements to give—

The Deputy Speaker: Sorry, do you want to wrap up so that we can get rid—

Ms Sandra Brewer: Yes—to give Indigenous people some control over their destiny. We commend the bill.

Question put and passed.

Bill read a third time and transmitted to the Council.

(Quorum formed.)