❓ Mr. Barnett questions the Treasurer about the removal of land tax exemptions for family homes in trusts, highlighting the impact on a pensioner. The Treasurer defends the decision, citing restored legislation and potential tax advantages for those using trusts.
AnsweredQoN 938Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Government’s decision to remove the land tax exemption for family homes where the land is owned by companies and trusts from 1 July 2002. (1) Is the Treasurer aware that one of the many people affected by Labor’s decision includes a 69-year-old pensioner living in a modest Balcatta duplex who will be taxed $540 a year, causing him significant financial hardship simply because he has placed his home - his only asset - in trust for his two young children in order to secure their financial future in the event that he dies before they are financially independent? (2) Will the Treasurer advise whether the existing land tax exemption will continue to be available for families whose homes are owned by a family trust or company for genuine reasons, or will he continue to ignore the consequences of Labor’s grab for tax? The Premier laughs at a 69-year-old pensioner’s situation. Dr Gallop: I’m not laughing at the pensioner; I’m laughing at you. Mr BARNETT: Yes, you did - once again. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) The Gallop Labor Government has restored a situation that existed from 1989 onwards. This provision was in the tax law. It was removed from that law by the coalition in the early 1990s, and it has been restored by this Government. Our view is that the principal place of residence exemption should be available to people who own their home in direct forms of ownership. People who own their home in indirect forms of ownership, through family trusts and corporations, in most cases do so because other commercial and taxation advantages are available to them as a result of those arrangements. Our view is that, generally speaking, people should not be able to have their cake and eat it too. They should not have access to those other taxation and commercial advantages at the same time as they have access to the principal place of residence exemption. A reasonably small number of people are affected by this change. The Office of State Revenue has written to all the people involved, advising them that they are likely to incur a land tax liability. Of course, those people have the opportunity to transfer their home from indirect ownership to direct ownership. In many cases, the stamp duty payable for such a transfer from indirect to direct ownership is a small nominal fee. The Office of State Revenue has given people a warning that the tax will commence on 1 July. People have until the end of this financial year to change their home ownership into a direct form of ownership, if that is what they want to do, and the tax payable on that change of possession will be minimal. The Leader of the Opposition asked me - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: The interjections between the backbench of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition drowned out the Treasurer. Please allow the Treasurer to complete his answer. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I would examine a particular case. Of course, if the taxpayer wishes me to examine a particular case, I will. However, the Commissioner of State Revenue is independent of government direction on this matter, and he is required to implement the law as passed by the Parliament. Nevertheless, if the Leader of the Opposition thinks that an aspect of this case should be examined, either by me from a policy point of view or by the Commissioner of State Revenue from an administrative point of view, he should seek the permission of the taxpayer for those matters to be discussed with either of us, and the case will be examined. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. I cannot even give the call to the member who is seeking it.
(1) Is the Treasurer aware that one of the many people affected by Labor’s decision includes a 69-year-old pensioner living in a modest Balcatta duplex who will be taxed $540 a year, causing him significant financial hardship simply because he has placed his home - his only asset - in trust for his two young children in order to secure their financial future in the event that he dies before they are financially independent? (2) Will the Treasurer advise whether the existing land tax exemption will continue to be available for families whose homes are owned by a family trust or company for genuine reasons, or will he continue to ignore the consequences of Labor’s grab for tax? The Premier laughs at a 69-year-old pensioner’s situation. Dr Gallop: I’m not laughing at the pensioner; I’m laughing at you. Mr BARNETT: Yes, you did - once again. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) The Gallop Labor Government has restored a situation that existed from 1989 onwards. This provision was in the tax law. It was removed from that law by the coalition in the early 1990s, and it has been restored by this Government. Our view is that the principal place of residence exemption should be available to people who own their home in direct forms of ownership. People who own their home in indirect forms of ownership, through family trusts and corporations, in most cases do so because other commercial and taxation advantages are available to them as a result of those arrangements. Our view is that, generally speaking, people should not be able to have their cake and eat it too. They should not have access to those other taxation and commercial advantages at the same time as they have access to the principal place of residence exemption. A reasonably small number of people are affected by this change. The Office of State Revenue has written to all the people involved, advising them that they are likely to incur a land tax liability. Of course, those people have the opportunity to transfer their home from indirect ownership to direct ownership. In many cases, the stamp duty payable for such a transfer from indirect to direct ownership is a small nominal fee. The Office of State Revenue has given people a warning that the tax will commence on 1 July. People have until the end of this financial year to change their home ownership into a direct form of ownership, if that is what they want to do, and the tax payable on that change of possession will be minimal. The Leader of the Opposition asked me - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: The interjections between the backbench of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition drowned out the Treasurer. Please allow the Treasurer to complete his answer. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I would examine a particular case. Of course, if the taxpayer wishes me to examine a particular case, I will. However, the Commissioner of State Revenue is independent of government direction on this matter, and he is required to implement the law as passed by the Parliament. Nevertheless, if the Leader of the Opposition thinks that an aspect of this case should be examined, either by me from a policy point of view or by the Commissioner of State Revenue from an administrative point of view, he should seek the permission of the taxpayer for those matters to be discussed with either of us, and the case will be examined. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. I cannot even give the call to the member who is seeking it.
(2) Will the Treasurer advise whether the existing land tax exemption will continue to be available for families whose homes are owned by a family trust or company for genuine reasons, or will he continue to ignore the consequences of Labor’s grab for tax? The Premier laughs at a 69-year-old pensioner’s situation. Dr Gallop: I’m not laughing at the pensioner; I’m laughing at you. Mr BARNETT: Yes, you did - once again. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) The Gallop Labor Government has restored a situation that existed from 1989 onwards. This provision was in the tax law. It was removed from that law by the coalition in the early 1990s, and it has been restored by this Government. Our view is that the principal place of residence exemption should be available to people who own their home in direct forms of ownership. People who own their home in indirect forms of ownership, through family trusts and corporations, in most cases do so because other commercial and taxation advantages are available to them as a result of those arrangements. Our view is that, generally speaking, people should not be able to have their cake and eat it too. They should not have access to those other taxation and commercial advantages at the same time as they have access to the principal place of residence exemption. A reasonably small number of people are affected by this change. The Office of State Revenue has written to all the people involved, advising them that they are likely to incur a land tax liability. Of course, those people have the opportunity to transfer their home from indirect ownership to direct ownership. In many cases, the stamp duty payable for such a transfer from indirect to direct ownership is a small nominal fee. The Office of State Revenue has given people a warning that the tax will commence on 1 July. People have until the end of this financial year to change their home ownership into a direct form of ownership, if that is what they want to do, and the tax payable on that change of possession will be minimal. The Leader of the Opposition asked me - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: The interjections between the backbench of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition drowned out the Treasurer. Please allow the Treasurer to complete his answer. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I would examine a particular case. Of course, if the taxpayer wishes me to examine a particular case, I will. However, the Commissioner of State Revenue is independent of government direction on this matter, and he is required to implement the law as passed by the Parliament. Nevertheless, if the Leader of the Opposition thinks that an aspect of this case should be examined, either by me from a policy point of view or by the Commissioner of State Revenue from an administrative point of view, he should seek the permission of the taxpayer for those matters to be discussed with either of us, and the case will be examined. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. I cannot even give the call to the member who is seeking it.
Mr BARNETT: Yes, you did - once again. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) The Gallop Labor Government has restored a situation that existed from 1989 onwards. This provision was in the tax law. It was removed from that law by the coalition in the early 1990s, and it has been restored by this Government. Our view is that the principal place of residence exemption should be available to people who own their home in direct forms of ownership. People who own their home in indirect forms of ownership, through family trusts and corporations, in most cases do so because other commercial and taxation advantages are available to them as a result of those arrangements. Our view is that, generally speaking, people should not be able to have their cake and eat it too. They should not have access to those other taxation and commercial advantages at the same time as they have access to the principal place of residence exemption. A reasonably small number of people are affected by this change. The Office of State Revenue has written to all the people involved, advising them that they are likely to incur a land tax liability. Of course, those people have the opportunity to transfer their home from indirect ownership to direct ownership. In many cases, the stamp duty payable for such a transfer from indirect to direct ownership is a small nominal fee. The Office of State Revenue has given people a warning that the tax will commence on 1 July. People have until the end of this financial year to change their home ownership into a direct form of ownership, if that is what they want to do, and the tax payable on that change of possession will be minimal. The Leader of the Opposition asked me - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: The interjections between the backbench of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition drowned out the Treasurer. Please allow the Treasurer to complete his answer. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I would examine a particular case. Of course, if the taxpayer wishes me to examine a particular case, I will. However, the Commissioner of State Revenue is independent of government direction on this matter, and he is required to implement the law as passed by the Parliament. Nevertheless, if the Leader of the Opposition thinks that an aspect of this case should be examined, either by me from a policy point of view or by the Commissioner of State Revenue from an administrative point of view, he should seek the permission of the taxpayer for those matters to be discussed with either of us, and the case will be examined. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. I cannot even give the call to the member who is seeking it.
The SPEAKER: Members! Mr RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) The Gallop Labor Government has restored a situation that existed from 1989 onwards. This provision was in the tax law. It was removed from that law by the coalition in the early 1990s, and it has been restored by this Government. Our view is that the principal place of residence exemption should be available to people who own their home in direct forms of ownership. People who own their home in indirect forms of ownership, through family trusts and corporations, in most cases do so because other commercial and taxation advantages are available to them as a result of those arrangements. Our view is that, generally speaking, people should not be able to have their cake and eat it too. They should not have access to those other taxation and commercial advantages at the same time as they have access to the principal place of residence exemption. A reasonably small number of people are affected by this change. The Office of State Revenue has written to all the people involved, advising them that they are likely to incur a land tax liability. Of course, those people have the opportunity to transfer their home from indirect ownership to direct ownership. In many cases, the stamp duty payable for such a transfer from indirect to direct ownership is a small nominal fee. The Office of State Revenue has given people a warning that the tax will commence on 1 July. People have until the end of this financial year to change their home ownership into a direct form of ownership, if that is what they want to do, and the tax payable on that change of possession will be minimal. The Leader of the Opposition asked me - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: The interjections between the backbench of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition drowned out the Treasurer. Please allow the Treasurer to complete his answer. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I would examine a particular case. Of course, if the taxpayer wishes me to examine a particular case, I will. However, the Commissioner of State Revenue is independent of government direction on this matter, and he is required to implement the law as passed by the Parliament. Nevertheless, if the Leader of the Opposition thinks that an aspect of this case should be examined, either by me from a policy point of view or by the Commissioner of State Revenue from an administrative point of view, he should seek the permission of the taxpayer for those matters to be discussed with either of us, and the case will be examined. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. I cannot even give the call to the member who is seeking it.
Mr RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) The Gallop Labor Government has restored a situation that existed from 1989 onwards. This provision was in the tax law. It was removed from that law by the coalition in the early 1990s, and it has been restored by this Government. Our view is that the principal place of residence exemption should be available to people who own their home in direct forms of ownership. People who own their home in indirect forms of ownership, through family trusts and corporations, in most cases do so because other commercial and taxation advantages are available to them as a result of those arrangements. Our view is that, generally speaking, people should not be able to have their cake and eat it too. They should not have access to those other taxation and commercial advantages at the same time as they have access to the principal place of residence exemption. A reasonably small number of people are affected by this change. The Office of State Revenue has written to all the people involved, advising them that they are likely to incur a land tax liability. Of course, those people have the opportunity to transfer their home from indirect ownership to direct ownership. In many cases, the stamp duty payable for such a transfer from indirect to direct ownership is a small nominal fee. The Office of State Revenue has given people a warning that the tax will commence on 1 July. People have until the end of this financial year to change their home ownership into a direct form of ownership, if that is what they want to do, and the tax payable on that change of possession will be minimal. The Leader of the Opposition asked me - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: The interjections between the backbench of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition drowned out the Treasurer. Please allow the Treasurer to complete his answer. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I would examine a particular case. Of course, if the taxpayer wishes me to examine a particular case, I will. However, the Commissioner of State Revenue is independent of government direction on this matter, and he is required to implement the law as passed by the Parliament. Nevertheless, if the Leader of the Opposition thinks that an aspect of this case should be examined, either by me from a policy point of view or by the Commissioner of State Revenue from an administrative point of view, he should seek the permission of the taxpayer for those matters to be discussed with either of us, and the case will be examined. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. I cannot even give the call to the member who is seeking it.
(1)-(2) The Gallop Labor Government has restored a situation that existed from 1989 onwards. This provision was in the tax law. It was removed from that law by the coalition in the early 1990s, and it has been restored by this Government. Our view is that the principal place of residence exemption should be available to people who own their home in direct forms of ownership. People who own their home in indirect forms of ownership, through family trusts and corporations, in most cases do so because other commercial and taxation advantages are available to them as a result of those arrangements. Our view is that, generally speaking, people should not be able to have their cake and eat it too. They should not have access to those other taxation and commercial advantages at the same time as they have access to the principal place of residence exemption. A reasonably small number of people are affected by this change. The Office of State Revenue has written to all the people involved, advising them that they are likely to incur a land tax liability. Of course, those people have the opportunity to transfer their home from indirect ownership to direct ownership. In many cases, the stamp duty payable for such a transfer from indirect to direct ownership is a small nominal fee. The Office of State Revenue has given people a warning that the tax will commence on 1 July. People have until the end of this financial year to change their home ownership into a direct form of ownership, if that is what they want to do, and the tax payable on that change of possession will be minimal. The Leader of the Opposition asked me - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: The interjections between the backbench of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition drowned out the Treasurer. Please allow the Treasurer to complete his answer. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I would examine a particular case. Of course, if the taxpayer wishes me to examine a particular case, I will. However, the Commissioner of State Revenue is independent of government direction on this matter, and he is required to implement the law as passed by the Parliament. Nevertheless, if the Leader of the Opposition thinks that an aspect of this case should be examined, either by me from a policy point of view or by the Commissioner of State Revenue from an administrative point of view, he should seek the permission of the taxpayer for those matters to be discussed with either of us, and the case will be examined. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. I cannot even give the call to the member who is seeking it.
The SPEAKER: The interjections between the backbench of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition drowned out the Treasurer. Please allow the Treasurer to complete his answer. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I would examine a particular case. Of course, if the taxpayer wishes me to examine a particular case, I will. However, the Commissioner of State Revenue is independent of government direction on this matter, and he is required to implement the law as passed by the Parliament. Nevertheless, if the Leader of the Opposition thinks that an aspect of this case should be examined, either by me from a policy point of view or by the Commissioner of State Revenue from an administrative point of view, he should seek the permission of the taxpayer for those matters to be discussed with either of us, and the case will be examined. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. I cannot even give the call to the member who is seeking it.
Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I would examine a particular case. Of course, if the taxpayer wishes me to examine a particular case, I will. However, the Commissioner of State Revenue is independent of government direction on this matter, and he is required to implement the law as passed by the Parliament. Nevertheless, if the Leader of the Opposition thinks that an aspect of this case should be examined, either by me from a policy point of view or by the Commissioner of State Revenue from an administrative point of view, he should seek the permission of the taxpayer for those matters to be discussed with either of us, and the case will be examined. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. I cannot even give the call to the member who is seeking it.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. I cannot even give the call to the member who is seeking it.
The SPEAKER: Members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. I cannot even give the call to the member who is seeking it.
(1) Is the Treasurer aware that one of the many people affected by Labor’s decision includes a 69-year-old pensioner living in a modest Balcatta duplex who will be taxed $540 a year, causing him significant financial hardship simply because he has placed his home - his only asset - in trust for his two young children in order to secure their financial future in the event that he dies before they are financially independent? (2) Will the Treasurer advise whether the existing land tax exemption will continue to be available for families whose homes are owned by a family trust or company for genuine reasons, or will he continue to ignore the consequences of Labor’s grab for tax? The Premier laughs at a 69-year-old pensioner’s situation. Dr Gallop: I’m not laughing at the pensioner; I’m laughing at you. Mr BARNETT: Yes, you did - once again. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) The Gallop Labor Government has restored a situation that existed from 1989 onwards. This provision was in the tax law. It was removed from that law by the coalition in the early 1990s, and it has been restored by this Government. Our view is that the principal place of residence exemption should be available to people who own their home in direct forms of ownership. People who own their home in indirect forms of ownership, through family trusts and corporations, in most cases do so because other commercial and taxation advantages are available to them as a result of those arrangements. Our view is that, generally speaking, people should not be able to have their cake and eat it too. They should not have access to those other taxation and commercial advantages at the same time as they have access to the principal place of residence exemption. A reasonably small number of people are affected by this change. The Office of State Revenue has written to all the people involved, advising them that they are likely to incur a land tax liability. Of course, those people have the opportunity to transfer their home from indirect ownership to direct ownership. In many cases, the stamp duty payable for such a transfer from indirect to direct ownership is a small nominal fee. The Office of State Revenue has given people a warning that the tax will commence on 1 July. People have until the end of this financial year to change their home ownership into a direct form of ownership, if that is what they want to do, and the tax payable on that change of possession will be minimal. The Leader of the Opposition asked me - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: The interjections between the backbench of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition drowned out the Treasurer. Please allow the Treasurer to complete his answer. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I would examine a particular case. Of course, if the taxpayer wishes me to examine a particular case, I will. However, the Commissioner of State Revenue is independent of government direction on this matter, and he is required to implement the law as passed by the Parliament. Nevertheless, if the Leader of the Opposition thinks that an aspect of this case should be examined, either by me from a policy point of view or by the Commissioner of State Revenue from an administrative point of view, he should seek the permission of the taxpayer for those matters to be discussed with either of us, and the case will be examined. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. I cannot even give the call to the member who is seeking it.
(2) Will the Treasurer advise whether the existing land tax exemption will continue to be available for families whose homes are owned by a family trust or company for genuine reasons, or will he continue to ignore the consequences of Labor’s grab for tax? The Premier laughs at a 69-year-old pensioner’s situation. Dr Gallop: I’m not laughing at the pensioner; I’m laughing at you. Mr BARNETT: Yes, you did - once again. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) The Gallop Labor Government has restored a situation that existed from 1989 onwards. This provision was in the tax law. It was removed from that law by the coalition in the early 1990s, and it has been restored by this Government. Our view is that the principal place of residence exemption should be available to people who own their home in direct forms of ownership. People who own their home in indirect forms of ownership, through family trusts and corporations, in most cases do so because other commercial and taxation advantages are available to them as a result of those arrangements. Our view is that, generally speaking, people should not be able to have their cake and eat it too. They should not have access to those other taxation and commercial advantages at the same time as they have access to the principal place of residence exemption. A reasonably small number of people are affected by this change. The Office of State Revenue has written to all the people involved, advising them that they are likely to incur a land tax liability. Of course, those people have the opportunity to transfer their home from indirect ownership to direct ownership. In many cases, the stamp duty payable for such a transfer from indirect to direct ownership is a small nominal fee. The Office of State Revenue has given people a warning that the tax will commence on 1 July. People have until the end of this financial year to change their home ownership into a direct form of ownership, if that is what they want to do, and the tax payable on that change of possession will be minimal. The Leader of the Opposition asked me - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: The interjections between the backbench of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition drowned out the Treasurer. Please allow the Treasurer to complete his answer. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I would examine a particular case. Of course, if the taxpayer wishes me to examine a particular case, I will. However, the Commissioner of State Revenue is independent of government direction on this matter, and he is required to implement the law as passed by the Parliament. Nevertheless, if the Leader of the Opposition thinks that an aspect of this case should be examined, either by me from a policy point of view or by the Commissioner of State Revenue from an administrative point of view, he should seek the permission of the taxpayer for those matters to be discussed with either of us, and the case will be examined. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. I cannot even give the call to the member who is seeking it.
Mr BARNETT: Yes, you did - once again. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) The Gallop Labor Government has restored a situation that existed from 1989 onwards. This provision was in the tax law. It was removed from that law by the coalition in the early 1990s, and it has been restored by this Government. Our view is that the principal place of residence exemption should be available to people who own their home in direct forms of ownership. People who own their home in indirect forms of ownership, through family trusts and corporations, in most cases do so because other commercial and taxation advantages are available to them as a result of those arrangements. Our view is that, generally speaking, people should not be able to have their cake and eat it too. They should not have access to those other taxation and commercial advantages at the same time as they have access to the principal place of residence exemption. A reasonably small number of people are affected by this change. The Office of State Revenue has written to all the people involved, advising them that they are likely to incur a land tax liability. Of course, those people have the opportunity to transfer their home from indirect ownership to direct ownership. In many cases, the stamp duty payable for such a transfer from indirect to direct ownership is a small nominal fee. The Office of State Revenue has given people a warning that the tax will commence on 1 July. People have until the end of this financial year to change their home ownership into a direct form of ownership, if that is what they want to do, and the tax payable on that change of possession will be minimal. The Leader of the Opposition asked me - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: The interjections between the backbench of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition drowned out the Treasurer. Please allow the Treasurer to complete his answer. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I would examine a particular case. Of course, if the taxpayer wishes me to examine a particular case, I will. However, the Commissioner of State Revenue is independent of government direction on this matter, and he is required to implement the law as passed by the Parliament. Nevertheless, if the Leader of the Opposition thinks that an aspect of this case should be examined, either by me from a policy point of view or by the Commissioner of State Revenue from an administrative point of view, he should seek the permission of the taxpayer for those matters to be discussed with either of us, and the case will be examined. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. I cannot even give the call to the member who is seeking it.
The SPEAKER: Members! Mr RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) The Gallop Labor Government has restored a situation that existed from 1989 onwards. This provision was in the tax law. It was removed from that law by the coalition in the early 1990s, and it has been restored by this Government. Our view is that the principal place of residence exemption should be available to people who own their home in direct forms of ownership. People who own their home in indirect forms of ownership, through family trusts and corporations, in most cases do so because other commercial and taxation advantages are available to them as a result of those arrangements. Our view is that, generally speaking, people should not be able to have their cake and eat it too. They should not have access to those other taxation and commercial advantages at the same time as they have access to the principal place of residence exemption. A reasonably small number of people are affected by this change. The Office of State Revenue has written to all the people involved, advising them that they are likely to incur a land tax liability. Of course, those people have the opportunity to transfer their home from indirect ownership to direct ownership. In many cases, the stamp duty payable for such a transfer from indirect to direct ownership is a small nominal fee. The Office of State Revenue has given people a warning that the tax will commence on 1 July. People have until the end of this financial year to change their home ownership into a direct form of ownership, if that is what they want to do, and the tax payable on that change of possession will be minimal. The Leader of the Opposition asked me - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: The interjections between the backbench of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition drowned out the Treasurer. Please allow the Treasurer to complete his answer. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I would examine a particular case. Of course, if the taxpayer wishes me to examine a particular case, I will. However, the Commissioner of State Revenue is independent of government direction on this matter, and he is required to implement the law as passed by the Parliament. Nevertheless, if the Leader of the Opposition thinks that an aspect of this case should be examined, either by me from a policy point of view or by the Commissioner of State Revenue from an administrative point of view, he should seek the permission of the taxpayer for those matters to be discussed with either of us, and the case will be examined. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. I cannot even give the call to the member who is seeking it.
Mr RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) The Gallop Labor Government has restored a situation that existed from 1989 onwards. This provision was in the tax law. It was removed from that law by the coalition in the early 1990s, and it has been restored by this Government. Our view is that the principal place of residence exemption should be available to people who own their home in direct forms of ownership. People who own their home in indirect forms of ownership, through family trusts and corporations, in most cases do so because other commercial and taxation advantages are available to them as a result of those arrangements. Our view is that, generally speaking, people should not be able to have their cake and eat it too. They should not have access to those other taxation and commercial advantages at the same time as they have access to the principal place of residence exemption. A reasonably small number of people are affected by this change. The Office of State Revenue has written to all the people involved, advising them that they are likely to incur a land tax liability. Of course, those people have the opportunity to transfer their home from indirect ownership to direct ownership. In many cases, the stamp duty payable for such a transfer from indirect to direct ownership is a small nominal fee. The Office of State Revenue has given people a warning that the tax will commence on 1 July. People have until the end of this financial year to change their home ownership into a direct form of ownership, if that is what they want to do, and the tax payable on that change of possession will be minimal. The Leader of the Opposition asked me - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: The interjections between the backbench of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition drowned out the Treasurer. Please allow the Treasurer to complete his answer. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I would examine a particular case. Of course, if the taxpayer wishes me to examine a particular case, I will. However, the Commissioner of State Revenue is independent of government direction on this matter, and he is required to implement the law as passed by the Parliament. Nevertheless, if the Leader of the Opposition thinks that an aspect of this case should be examined, either by me from a policy point of view or by the Commissioner of State Revenue from an administrative point of view, he should seek the permission of the taxpayer for those matters to be discussed with either of us, and the case will be examined. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. I cannot even give the call to the member who is seeking it.
(1)-(2) The Gallop Labor Government has restored a situation that existed from 1989 onwards. This provision was in the tax law. It was removed from that law by the coalition in the early 1990s, and it has been restored by this Government. Our view is that the principal place of residence exemption should be available to people who own their home in direct forms of ownership. People who own their home in indirect forms of ownership, through family trusts and corporations, in most cases do so because other commercial and taxation advantages are available to them as a result of those arrangements. Our view is that, generally speaking, people should not be able to have their cake and eat it too. They should not have access to those other taxation and commercial advantages at the same time as they have access to the principal place of residence exemption. A reasonably small number of people are affected by this change. The Office of State Revenue has written to all the people involved, advising them that they are likely to incur a land tax liability. Of course, those people have the opportunity to transfer their home from indirect ownership to direct ownership. In many cases, the stamp duty payable for such a transfer from indirect to direct ownership is a small nominal fee. The Office of State Revenue has given people a warning that the tax will commence on 1 July. People have until the end of this financial year to change their home ownership into a direct form of ownership, if that is what they want to do, and the tax payable on that change of possession will be minimal. The Leader of the Opposition asked me - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: The interjections between the backbench of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition drowned out the Treasurer. Please allow the Treasurer to complete his answer. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I would examine a particular case. Of course, if the taxpayer wishes me to examine a particular case, I will. However, the Commissioner of State Revenue is independent of government direction on this matter, and he is required to implement the law as passed by the Parliament. Nevertheless, if the Leader of the Opposition thinks that an aspect of this case should be examined, either by me from a policy point of view or by the Commissioner of State Revenue from an administrative point of view, he should seek the permission of the taxpayer for those matters to be discussed with either of us, and the case will be examined. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. I cannot even give the call to the member who is seeking it.
The SPEAKER: The interjections between the backbench of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition drowned out the Treasurer. Please allow the Treasurer to complete his answer. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I would examine a particular case. Of course, if the taxpayer wishes me to examine a particular case, I will. However, the Commissioner of State Revenue is independent of government direction on this matter, and he is required to implement the law as passed by the Parliament. Nevertheless, if the Leader of the Opposition thinks that an aspect of this case should be examined, either by me from a policy point of view or by the Commissioner of State Revenue from an administrative point of view, he should seek the permission of the taxpayer for those matters to be discussed with either of us, and the case will be examined. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. I cannot even give the call to the member who is seeking it.
Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I would examine a particular case. Of course, if the taxpayer wishes me to examine a particular case, I will. However, the Commissioner of State Revenue is independent of government direction on this matter, and he is required to implement the law as passed by the Parliament. Nevertheless, if the Leader of the Opposition thinks that an aspect of this case should be examined, either by me from a policy point of view or by the Commissioner of State Revenue from an administrative point of view, he should seek the permission of the taxpayer for those matters to be discussed with either of us, and the case will be examined. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. I cannot even give the call to the member who is seeking it.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. I cannot even give the call to the member who is seeking it.
The SPEAKER: Members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. I cannot even give the call to the member who is seeking it.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.