QLD Labor overlooked & ignored Legislative Guidelines

The Queensland Legislation Handbook Governing Queensland is issued by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The latest edition (5th) released in 2014.
"The Queensland Legislation Handbook outlines relevant
policies, recommendations, information, and procedures
for the making of law in the form of Acts of Parliament or
subordinate legislation."
There are two chapters I wish to draw attention to in relation to how the legislation was unfairly introduced. These are excerpts of the relevant sections:

FIRSTLY:

"7.2.7 Does the legislation adversely affect rights and liberties, or impose obligations, retrospectively? 
Strong argument is required to justify an adverse affect on rights and liberties, or the imposition of obligations, retrospectively. Whether a statutory provision is in fact retrospective can often be difficult to decide. For example, difficulties occur where the provisions of an Act apply to an event that comprises several components, some of which happened before the Act’s commencement and some after. For subordinate legislation, the Statutory Instruments Act 1992, section 32 provides for the commencement of a statutory instrument prospectively. Only section 34 provides otherwise. Section 34 allows a statutory instrument to expressly provide for beneficial retrospectivity, that is, retrospectivity that does not decrease a person’s rights or impose liabilities on a person other than the State, a State authority or a local government. Subordinate legislation that purports to have an adverse effect can not be made without the authority of an Act. The former Scrutiny of Legislation Committee brought to the attention of Parliament all provisions in Bills that have effect retrospectively.33 While the committee generally opposed retrospective legislation, it conceded that on occasions retrospective legislation that is curative and validating may be justified.34"

SECOND:

"7.2.12 Does the legislation in all other respects have sufficient regard to the rights and liberties of individuals?

The former Scrutiny of Legislation Committee consistently took the approach that the matters specifically listed in the Legislative Standards Act 1992, section 4(3) are not exhaustive of all matters relevant to an individual’s rights and liberties. The former Scrutiny Committee took an expansive approach in identifying rights and liberties. These include traditional common law rights, for example, the right of a landowner to the use and enjoyment of his or her land. They can also encompass, for example, rights that are only incompletely recognised at common law (for example, the right to privacy) and rights (especially human rights) that arise out of Australia’s international treaty obligations.45 The former Scrutiny Committee made comment about legislation in relation to the following broad principles: 
• Abrogation of rights and liberties (in the broadest sense of those words) from any source must be justified, whether the rights and liberties are under the common law, statute law or otherwise. 
• Restrictions on ordinary activities must be justified. 
• Legislative intervention should be proportionate and relevant in relation to any issue dealt with under the legislation. 
• Imposition of liability under legislation should provide for the following: − adequate definition of the basis for the liability, with reasonable defences − imposition of responsibility for the actions of others only with strong justification − an appropriate and fair onus and standard of proof − a single process for the liability, with all forms of double jeopardy being avoided as far as possible − equality under the law for all persons responsible for the events from which the liability arises. 
• Treatment of all persons affected by legislation should be reasonable and fair. 
• There should be a balance within legislation between individual and community interests."

😕 COMMENT:

I argue that the retrospectivity of this legislation (was backdated to 1 July 2016) definitely has decreased the rights and imposed severe financial liabilities onto property owners/land holders in Queensland.

People without forewarning have been unable to factor in decision making to either withdraw from purchasing property in the first place, not making overseas travel/living/moving arrangements that could adversely impact them financially as a result of the Land Tax & Absentee Surcharge (LT&AS).

Rights have been decreased as freedom of movement without financial penalty/duress has been removed unless you restrict travel movements out of Australia. The retrospectivity of this legislation means that the many people who had already made various arrangements and financial commitments, moved offshore etc - have been forced to pay the LT&AS going back to 1 July 2016.

The legislation does not take into account the sufficient regard to the rights and liberties of the individuals at all. The 'reasonable and fair' treatment falls grossly short of that benchmark.

A Queensland spokeswoman responding to the Brisbane Times Article dated 18 July 2018 claims: "it was Queensland’s longstanding position that absentees were subject to higher rates of land tax to account for the fact they were “generally not subject to the range of taxes used to deliver the high-quality services and infrastructure that ultimately contribute to growth in Queensland property values”.

“These rates apply to people who do not ordinarily reside in Australia, including a person for more than six months ending on June 30, however there are also a number of exemptions for people working overseas,” she said."

This excuse for the LT&AS can be easily debunked when one takes into account the myriad of local rates, income tax, GST, services, renovations, insurance, property management, letting & advertising, hiring trades persons, compliance inspection fees, and other hidden costs that all property owners and investors pay already to hold a property. There are all sorts of taxes being paid towards the State of QLD.

The argument is further flawed when one also considers that not only are Queenslanders affected, but other Aussie citizens who reside in other states - That is, when they are back in Australia and not Absent, they are likely spending money and paying taxes in other states and territories anyway - so how does not being absent for Aussies non-resident to QLD make them contribute the so called other range of taxes mentioned by that spokeswoman?

What are these other so-called 'range of taxes' that Absentees are not paying? Please explain. Australian Absentees are NOT Foreign Investors so we DO pay a whole range of taxes. QLD Labor, your argument is a complete lie.

The statement is just misleading and deceptive to those unaware of what contributions are already being made by all Absentee Australian citizens. The Australian Queensland public have been hoodwinked by QLD Labor to accepting this type of justification.

Queensland State Labor has glossed over these considerations to impose the most punitive and severe taxes instead. It is unconstitutional and I am certain that the legislation should and could be challenged and defeated.