Thursday, 20 March 2025

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (12:21): (865) My question is again to the Treasurer. Treasurer, the government’s changes to the land tax threshold, as you admitted in response to a question earlier this week, have scooped up tens of thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands of new taxpayers in the form of legitimate home businesses occupying a modest share of their land. These include small consultancy firms operated from home and hairdressers and nail salons operated from home. They include women with children who have chosen to conduct their business from home using a room or two. It also includes part-time mechanics who may service one or two cars, trades men and women who use a shed or a room as a home office and accountants and bookkeepers who work from home. I ask, Treasurer: can you tell the house how many new microbusinesses will pay the tax scooped up by the lower threshold and how much additional land tax will be collected from this hitherto untaxed group of home occupations?

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Regional Development) (12:22): I thank Mr Davis for his question. It builds on the question that Mr Limbrick asked me this week, and therefore my answer remains the same. There is no change to the settings, which have been in place since 2013, so for more than 10 years. As you have identified, I answered the question in relation to, yes, the thresholds have changed. Taxpayers who are running a substantial business from home, which has always been the case, could be subject to partial land tax. As you have indicated, doctors surgeries that are operated out of homes and your old-style corner milk bars with apartments up the top and the like – it all comes down to whether you are operating a substantial business. It is not a land tax over your entire property; you still can claim the PPR exemption. It is in relation to partial land tax that would be calculated based on –

David Davis: On a point of order, President, the Treasurer said this was the same question as Mr Limbrick’s question. It was not the same question. It was: how many businesses will be scooped up and how much will be collected? That was the question.

The PRESIDENT: The minister was relevant to the question. I will also point out previous rulings, which I have externalised in this house in recent times, about the expectation about the degree of detail that a minister will have at any given time.

David Davis interjected.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, we are anticipating that only a very small proportion of people will be impacted by this change.

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (12:24): That is not what I am hearing from the industry and the sector that deal with these tax cases. They think there will be many of these. Let me ask therefore: will the Treasurer confirm that in line with previous tax cases a $30,000 threshold is being applied to these home microbusinesses and that the State Revenue Office is using all techniques, including AI and online research, to hound and chase these small home microbusinesses?

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Regional Development) (12:25): It is certainly not the advice that I am receiving from people that are talking to me about land tax. Mr Davis, if you have got examples of people that feel as though they have been harassed or treated inappropriately by the SRO, I would welcome –

Members interjecting.

Jaclyn SYMES: Many MPs write to me about land tax. I speak to the SRO about this, and I respond to all of your correspondence. Nothing in the order of what you have just articulated has been brought to my attention from any member of Parliament or any member of the public. If you do have any of that type of information, then let me know. But of course it is appropriate for the SRO to receive information from a range of sources, including the ATO et cetera, to verify the information that they have got so that they can get it right.