Housing
David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (12:27): (713) My question is for the minister representing the Treasurer. I was recently contacted by a member of the public who alerted me to a case where the first home owner grant had been applied for by a person but they were later found by the State Revenue Office not to have complied with the residence requirement as they were renting out the house. They were investigated, action was taken through VCAT and the $10,000 was recovered, along with a $1000 fine. However, it would appear that the costs of enforcement of the residence requirement would have far outweighed the funds recovered. Is there any analysis of whether enforcement of this requirement stacks up financially?
Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:28): I was diligently writing all that down and then I just got to the end and went, ‘I’m going to pass that on to the Treasurer for his response.’
David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (12:28): I thank the Attorney for passing that on to the Treasurer. My supplementary is: considering that a person can only claim the first home owner grant once and the point of it is to help someone buy a home, does it really matter if they are claiming it for themselves to live in or someone else to live in as a landlord? Removing the requirement to live in a first home purchase may also encourage more rental stock onto the market. Would the Treasurer consider removing the requirement to live in a house to claim the first home owner grant?
Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:28): I thank Mr Limbrick for his supplementary question, which takes the form of a suggestion, and I am sure that the Treasurer will be happy to respond, including with all of the initiatives that have a similar objective to the one that you have just promoted.