Is this being framed as a bad thing? I thought land tax was the arrow to pierce excessive landholders where it hurts. If the tax is too high, you give up the land rather than horde it like Smaug.

What a land tax needs is a preventative measure to stop landholders passing on the bill to the people they lord over. Then land tax good! Maybe it needs a threshold; some land ok, too much land BAD!

Or is this the ABC just being the shadow of their former self? Anyone got any details of the minutiae of this one?

ABC really buried the lede on this one:

"Using the latest ABS data on overall tax, Victoria remains the second-lowest revenue state in the nation."

High levels of infrastructure spending = eventually, high levels of tax. A "big build" is not a "free build".

And infrastructure spending is almost certainly needed, so that isn't much of a point to argue on either. What the opposition should be asking is whether the right infrastructure is being built, as that will ultimately determine whether we get an improved standard of living out of it rather than just a big tax bill.