South Australia’s housing market is on the brink of a seismic shift—or so the Liberals claim. If elected in March, they vow to phase out stamp duty entirely by 2041, a move that’s already sparking fierce debate. But here’s where it gets controversial: Premier Peter Malinauskas has slammed the proposal as “one of the most reckless, dangerous policy announcements” he’s ever seen. So, what’s the real story behind this bold promise?
Opposition leader Vincent Tarzia is championing this long-term plan, starting with immediate relief for first-home buyers. Under his proposal, those purchasing existing homes valued up to $1 million would be exempt from stamp duty—a pledge he first made in June. But that’s just the beginning. After five years, the Liberals aim to adjust stamp duty brackets, with the ultimate goal of abolishing the tax entirely within 15 years. Tarzia argues that stamp duty is an “extremely inefficient tax” that stifles young buyers and discourages older homeowners from downsizing. “These changes will be gradual,” he assures, “but in the long term, this is only good news.”
Tarzia paints this as a visionary move, positioning South Australia as one of the most competitive jurisdictions in the country. “My vision,” he says, “is for a government that delivers the highest value to taxpayers anywhere in the world, while staying in the background.” Sounds ambitious, right? But here’s the part most people miss: the policy’s costings remain unclear, and critics are raising serious concerns.
Stamp duty currently generates $1.6 billion in revenue annually, and Tarzia insists no new taxes will replace it. “We’re not cutting frontline services,” he claims, arguing that growing the economy will offset the loss. But Premier Malinauskas isn’t buying it. He warns that abolishing stamp duty could cost the state up to $2.3 billion annually—equivalent to funding the entire South Australian police force twice over. “This policy doesn’t build a single new home for first-time buyers,” he argues. “It’s a reckless gamble that could do intergenerational damage.”
And this is where it gets even more contentious. Under Labor’s current policy, first-home buyers of new houses are already exempt from stamp duty. Malinauskas argues that the Liberals’ plan would flood the market with competition, stripping first-time buyers of their advantage. “The housing crisis is caused by a lack of supply,” he says. “We need more homes, not less.” He even draws parallels to Liz Truss’s disastrous 2022 mini-budget, calling Tarzia’s plan a “magic pudding” that relies on unfunded tax cuts.
Tarzia counters that the $2.3 billion figure includes other fees and charges, insisting the stamp duty loss is capped at $1.6 billion. “With good financial management,” he says, “this money can be recouped.” But is that enough to convince voters—or even economists?
Here’s the burning question: Is this a bold step toward a more competitive housing market, or a reckless gamble with the state’s finances? Let’s not forget, the Liberals’ plan could reshape South Australia’s economy for decades. But at what cost? And who stands to gain—or lose—the most? Share your thoughts below. Are you for or against this policy? And what do you think is the real solution to the housing crisis? The debate is just heating up, and your voice matters.
