Wednesday, 31 May 2023

State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Tim Pallas:

That this bill be now read a second time.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (10:12): I move:

That debate be adjourned.

The government yesterday introduced state taxes that the Victorian public has not seen and committed to giving Victorians one day to consider them. They have not even kept their commitment – the government have not kept their commitment to give Victorians even one day. In fact this bill that has been proposed to the house is so new it is dealt with differently on the notice paper. It is italicised and noted as being so new that it is not dealt with normally on the notice paper. But as I said, the coalition is deeply concerned at the way that the government is managing these bills, both the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2023 and the Victorian Future Fund Bill 2023, that the government is ramming these bills through the Parliament, and we are seeing it now.

I repeat the point: yesterday the government committed to Victorians that they would have one day – not long, but one day – to consider the most punitive taxes this state has ever seen, including a new schools tax, which is based on a hit list of schools. The minister at the table yesterday proved she did not have any idea of the details of what the hit list would involve or the schools that would be on the hit list, and yet we have had less than one day to consider them. It is absolutely outrageous. It is outrageous that we are seeing a parliamentary sitting this week with a set of appropriation bills that were dealt with in a short couple of hours. I mean, the chaos yesterday was something that we have never seen before. The government raised a matter of public importance supposedly talking about its own election commitments, delivering its own collection commitments, and did not even turn up to debate it. We did not need to turn up to debate the point that the government have not kept their commitments; Labor did not even turn up.

It is deeply concerning after being given one day to consider these important punitive measures that are going to hurt so many people in the community – rents are going up because of this bill. Schools are going to be damaged by this bill, absolutely damaged. I mean, the government is so proud of these state tax measures, but the Treasurer did not even refer to the fact that half a billion dollars almost is being ripped out of schools. Can you believe it? He was so proud he did not even refer to it. You are not going to defend it, are you?

Colin Brooks: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I think the member opposite as Manager of Opposition Business well knows, this is a procedural debate on whether this item should be adjourned or not. It is not a substantive debate on the bill itself, and the member should confine his remarks to the actual procedural debate.

Danny O’Brien: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, the whole point of why we are arguing about the adjournment is to explain the details of the bills and why we need more time. You cannot argue an adjournment for a piece of legislation unless you have a reason for the adjournment of that piece of legislation. There is so much in this. That is why the Manager of Opposition Business is attempting to adjourn this bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will rule on the point of order. It is a procedural debate, and we should all be careful not to anticipate debate of the bill. There is a little wriggle room. Please come back to the procedural debate.

James NEWBURY: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I can understand why the government would be embarrassed. We have been talking about their new hit list on schools. We are moving this morning to stop the government ramming through another budget bill. This is a very important budget bill, the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2023. We are moving this morning that Victorians be given the day that was committed to to at least read the bill. The fact that the government is now ramming through bills in under a day – under a day – should concern every Victorian. We know that Victorians have seen the way the government is pushing bills through this house without allowing any scrutiny, any oversight and frankly any integrity. It really goes to what is happening with this government and the chaos that this Parliament is now seeing. We cannot reach a point where governments are committing to introducing punitive, nasty tax measures and not even allowing Victorians time to see them. So the coalition is seeking to adjourn off this bill to allow Victorians the time they were promised yesterday to consider this bill – this punitive, nasty bill that is going to hurt so many hundreds of thousands of Victorians.

Mary-Anne THOMAS (Macedon – Leader of the House, Minister for Health, Minister for Health Infrastructure, Minister for Medical Research) (10:17): Obviously I will be opposing this motion by the member for Brighton to adjourn. What we have seen yesterday and what we are seeing yet again is the opposition, which itself is in an absolute rabble with the –

Tim Richardson interjected.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I agree entirely with the member for Mordialloc. The Leader of the House has strayed so shortly into her speech, and I would ask you to bring her back to the motion. I agree entirely with the member for Mordialloc that the Leader of the House should be speaking to this tight procedural motion. Good point, member for Mordialloc.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As I said earlier, we should all be sticking to the procedural motion. As you yourself mentioned, there are some aspects of wriggle room. I ask the Leader of the House to come back to the procedural motion.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. I think it is important, though, to reflect on the way in which procedural motions have been used this week in this house. This is generally the opportunity, and it has been historically – yesterday should have been the day – for the opposition to shine. It is their opportunity to stand up for 30 minutes and rebut the government’s budget. We saw, despite a whole morning pleading for that 30 minutes, that in fact when given the opportunity the Shadow Treasurer only took 15 minutes.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, again, the Leader of the House is straying entirely from the motion before the house – disappointingly, as it pains me to make the point of order. You did make a ruling and did ask the Leader of the House to come back to the motion. Disappointingly, the Leader of the House did not, and I would ask you to ask her to return back to the motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the Leader of the House to return to the adjournment procedural debate we are on.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. The reason I seek to oppose the adjournment proposed by the member for Brighton is that what we have seen is an inability of the opposition to use the time that is available to them. In fact this is yet another time-wasting thing because simply they do not know what to say. We saw that obviously yesterday with a 15-minute budget-in-reply speech, unprecedented in 162 years.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I am sure this side of the house has deep respect for you in your role. You have now ruled twice that the Leader of the House should return to the question. She is flagrantly defying your ruling. It is disappointing to see that from the government, not showing you the respect you deserve, and I would ask you to ask the Leader of the House for a third time to come back to the motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. I think we are up to five or six points of order by now on both sides, so let us come back to the procedural motion.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. It is important that we get on and debate this important bill that is before the house today. Of course we have been very clear that this budget is a difficult budget, but we have always said that we would deliver on each and every one of our election commitments, and secondly, that we would implement measures in order to pay back our COVID debt. Costs were incurred in order to save jobs, keep businesses going and save lives. Those on the other side can ignore this in its entirety, which is what they seek to do, but this is a very important bill. It is important that it be discussed today. We have our Appropriation (2023–2024) Bill 2023 and Appropriation (Parliament 2023–2024) Bill 2023, our Victorian Future Fund Bill 2023 and our State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2023, all very important matters to be considered in this sitting week. We have wasted an inordinate amount of time on procedural motions when in fact what the people of Victoria want us to do is get on and debate the real issues at hand. Victorians know, because they have experienced it themselves, that this is a government that makes investments for our future. We have created and have this extraordinary infrastructure program, which is about economic growth. It is about creating jobs and opportunities. But as a consequence of the global pandemic we incurred expenses in order, as I said before, to save lives. Those on the other side wanted to let it rip. We wanted to save lives.

Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (10:22): Deputy Speaker, in accordance with your previous rulings I will attempt to stick to the narrow procedural debate, but in doing so, as I said in my point of order a moment ago, it is incumbent on us to argue as to why we do think that there should be an adjournment of this debate and it is incumbent on the government to explain why we need to rush it through –

Mary-Anne Thomas: I’ve done that.

Danny O’BRIEN: No, Leader of the House. The Leader of the House has not said why we need to rush it through in one day. The best the Leader of the House can do is to say, ‘We’re getting on with it. Victorians want us to get on with it.’

Mary-Anne Thomas: Yes, they do.

Danny O’BRIEN: So Victorians want you to throw out all due process? You could actually have a budget without even coming into the Parliament if you wanted. This is the equivalent of the AFL now going to get rid of the first three quarters of all games because they just want people to get on with it. We are not going to go through any of the process. We are just going to play the last quarter of the grand final now. This is the same thing that the government is doing. It is saying, ‘Look, we usually do two weeks for everyone to have their say, but no, we’re going to just throw that out the window because we’re in a rush.’ The Manager of Opposition Business and the member for Kew will say it is because they want to get their taxes through. No, it is not just about that. They just do not want Victorians to know about the new taxes, ‘Let’s rush it through under cover of darkness in one day’ –

James Newbury: Less than.

Danny O’BRIEN: Less than one day, Manager of Opposition Business. We got a bill yesterday that is 85 pages long.

Mary-Anne Thomas: You were all briefed, the people that need to be briefed.

Danny O’BRIEN: There were, what, five opposition members or so at the briefing? Has the minister at the table been briefing the people of Victoria? I just had a quick look through the second-reading speech. To give you an example, on this 85 -page bill the second-reading speech says, ‘the bill will’, ‘the bill amends’, ‘the bill will’, ‘the bill increases’ – 20 times it does that.

Tim Richardson: Sounds like you’ve read it. Sounds like you’ve had a fair crack.

Danny O’BRIEN: We were briefed, absolutely, and we were told what was in the budget last week in terms of the new taxes: a new jobs tax, a new schools tax, a new renters tax and death taxes everywhere. We knew about that, but there is a whole lot of other stuff in this budget. I wonder whether any of those members on the opposite side on the back bench have actually had a look at the bill. There are the taxes and there are the new revenue measures, but there is also a change in this bill to the fire services property levy. I am sure the member for Mordialloc is very aware of the Victorian Court of Appeal case Valuer-General v. AWF Prop Co 2 Pty Ltd [2021]VSCA 274, otherwise known as the AWF decision.

I am sure the member for Mordialloc is right across all the detail of that, because that is in the bill too. That will be part of the 85 pages. I want to know whether the government members are across that. I want to know whether they are aware that the bill also abolishes the Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution Hardship Relief Board. Is the member for Mordialloc aware of that, I wonder? He can perhaps explain to me why he does not need to talk to his community about these sorts of things.

Mary-Anne Thomas interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: I am actually talking exactly about the bill, Minister. I suspect the minister does not realise there are these other parts of the bill.

Colin Brooks: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I renew my earlier point of order that I made when the Manager of Opposition Business was on his feet. The member for Gippsland South just said he is talking to the bill, in plain English, so he needs to come back to the very narrow debate that this procedural motion is about.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member had strayed into anticipating debate, and I call him back to the procedural motion on the adjournment.

Danny O’BRIEN: I am simply highlighting the depth and complexity of this piece of legislation, which I suspect those opposite have not been given. Yes, we got a briefing on the bill, but we were told to keep the bill confidential. It was not until yesterday that the people of Victoria even saw these 85 pages of legislation. Again, I look forward and I really hope that the member for Mordialloc is going to speak next and that he will tell us exactly why all these new taxes need to be rushed through in one day, because still the government members have not said why we need to divert from our standard practice of at least two weeks for the government, for members of the opposition and other members of the house and indeed all the people of Victoria to have their say on this sort of legislation. We know the reality of this. We know that this bill has got in it $1 billion a year in additional payroll tax. We know there is $4.7 billion a year in additional revenue through land tax – the renters tax – and we know this is a government that is embarrassed that it messed up the finances and that is why it wants to rush this legislation through.

Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (10:27): Tune into the member for Gippsland South. I mean, we had a procedural debate – I think we have had six so far this week. We have had complaints that there is not enough time for members of Parliament to contribute on behalf of their communities, and yet we had 3 hours before the lunchbreak that was dedicated to procedural motions and members statements yesterday, so it is a bit disingenuous to say that in the adjournment of this, with all the other wasting of time that has gone on, and we should get on with the forms of the Parliament and allow members to contribute. Hopefully we see some of the 19 members of the coalition in this place start to –

Danny O’Brien interjected.

Tim RICHARDSON: Sorry, you are still in agreement there, member for Gippsland South? I just had you on the hook there. No, the 28 members of the coalition – the nine Nationals and 19 Liberal members.

A member interjected.

Tim RICHARDSON: Oh, 18, is there? I mean, I know they are busy at the moment figuring out what is going to happen out in the east. Maybe the member for Brighton has got an idea of what is going on.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, as much as it pains me to ask you to bring the member back to the question at hand, I would ask you to bring him back to the motion before the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I had a feeling you were going to say that. The member for Mordialloc should come back to the procedural debate.

Tim RICHARDSON: He jumps on the hook himself.

I also make the point that the member for Gippsland South and the member for Brighton made eloquent contributions. They strayed a little bit from the procedural debate, but they made very good points that sounded like they were very well briefed on this bill. I think the member for Gippsland could give the 30-minute lead-off. That is how impressive it was. The talking points were there. Maybe he will take the lead. For someone who says he has not had enough time to consult or engage, it seems like he is really ready to go on that bill.

So I think the procedural adjournment of this is disingenuous. People are across the details. We saw some significant contributions, albeit short in nature, from the Shadow Treasurer in this place. We saw the Shadow Treasurer; the Leader of the Opposition; and the member for Kew, the Shadow Minister for Finance, making contributions down the road to a smaller crowd at the Enterprise room. Normally they get a little bit more of a turnout – maybe 150. It was modest, but –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, the Deputy Speaker previously ruled that the member return back to the question before the house. The member has strayed quite far and wide from the question before the house, disappointingly, and I would ask you to call him back to the question.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have been listening and quite a few members have strayed from the procedural motion before the house, so I remind members that this is a very tight procedural motion.

Tim RICHARDSON: We just cannot get away with it now when you are in the chair, Speaker. So we saw technique and we saw strategy around adjourning off procedural matters, which has been used as a bit of a weapon to waste and frustrate the time of the Parliament rather than getting on with the important reforms that the Andrews Labor government is putting forward to this place. To waste 3 hours on procedural motions yesterday really seems to be a tone that is going to be set and an opportunity to put that forward.

We are happy to stand up and have the discussions around whether – if not, maybe – procedural motions should be put forward. It gives an opportunity for us to speak on various things on procedure and debate in here. But we would really love to get into the substance of what these bills mean for our local communities and for every member of Parliament to have that opportunity, because when we have the guillotine of particular debates and they sail up to the Legislative Council, it denies members of Parliament – despite the low second-reading speeches from some members around the Parliament – the opportunity to contribute to their communities. That is why this procedural motion is not the right form to be taking.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, I have had to make this point on a number of occasions in relation to the member embarrassing the Premier for not delivering a second-reading speech, and I would ask you to bring this member back to the question.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Tim RICHARDSON: I think it is a fair thing to talk about the reason this course of action should not be taken, because it denies members of Parliament or crossbenchers an opportunity when they have a particular view on a bill or on a particular government agenda that they are putting forward. We do not see the fourth party in here ever contribute on bills, so it is not really genuine for them in that sort of sense, but we want to see members have that opportunity. We want to see all members afforded that right. We got so tangled in procedural motions yesterday that the member for Brighton had to filibuster his own filibuster and then get another procedural motion up just for a period of time. Then after the lunch break he denied it and said, ‘No, no, don’t let it sail through,’ and there was this awkward silence – a bit like a discussion about who you are going to preselect for Warrandyte – that fell over the place. We did not know where to look, where to turn or what to do. There was that awkward silence like when you do not tell the Leader of the Opposition that you have stepped down – a bit like going straight to the Governor. That is a bit rough. We should not have this procedural motion.

Jess WILSON (Kew) (10:32): I would like to say it is a pleasure to rise to speak on this, but I think it reflects the problem we have at the moment of trying to ram through legislation that is going to have a significant impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of Victorians. Today the government is trying to put forward the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2023 less than 24 hours after it was second read into the house. In fact when we received it yesterday it was still hot – it came off the photocopier still hot. Those that are going to be affected by this bill have not had an opportunity to look at it. Less than one day after it was second read into the Parliament hundreds of thousands of Victorians who will be affected by the rent tax, by the school tax and by the tax on jobs through changes to payroll that will dramatically hurt investment in this state have not had an opportunity to look at this in detail. It affects the ability for those on this side of the house, who actually want to work with Victorians and work with stakeholders, to be able to get across the detail and actually understand the ramifications of this piece of legislation.

The best example of that is this school tax – this hit on what the government says will be 110 unknown schools across Victoria. They were blindsided by the announcement in the budget. There had been no consultation. It will affect up to half of the 230 independent schools in Victoria – independent schools that more than 370,000 Victorian school students go to. They have not had the ability to go through the detail and to understand the ramifications.

The SPEAKER: Order! I invite the member to come back to the procedural motion.

Jess WILSON: The problem today is that this is being rammed through the Parliament with less than 24 hours notice, without the ability for Victorians to get across the detail. Those on the other side will say, ‘Well, you’ve had the opportunity to be briefed.’ Yes, we took that opportunity, as any responsible opposition would do. We got across the detail, but it goes further than just us sitting on this side of the house. There has to be an opportunity for Victorians to look at the detail, because at the end of the day it will be hundreds of thousands of Victorians who are impacted by the state taxation bill. Whether it is through higher rents, whether it is through an increase to school fees or whether it is through a tax on jobs or an inability to employ more Victorians, this piece of legislation will have a direct impact on the lives and livelihoods of Victorians, and it has been less than 24 hours that it has been available to Victorians.

We talk in this place about the need to make sure that we are following convention, and we just heard from the Leader of the House about a new bill that is coming in with 14 days notice. That is what we are asking for, the ability to do what has been done time and time again in this place – to get across the detail, to work with Victorians and to work with stakeholders to actually understand the impact and then come in here and have an informed debate that brings together the views of Victorians right across this state. We are looking at a bill that affects the lives of Victorians with punitive taxes, whether that is a tax on rents or whether this is a tax on schools that is going to affect hundreds of thousands of Victorian school students and hundreds of thousands of hardworking families. This will be rammed through the Parliament and will be guillotined off at the end of today, and there will be no more opportunity to debate this.

Today we have two pieces of legislation before the Parliament that have been given less than 24 hours, the state taxation bill and the Victorian Future Fund Bill 2023. We need to make sure that we are actually understanding the detail. And what is the reason to ram these through in less than 24 hours? None of these are coming into effect tomorrow. None of these need to be debated in full today and guillotined at the end of today. The future fund was announced in last year’s budget, yet here we are today ramming through a piece of legislation, like we did yesterday with the appropriation bills. It is not acceptable that we are in a situation where less than 24 hours after the second reading of a bill it comes into this place without Victorians having the opportunity to look at it.

James Newbury: It’s outrageous.

Jess WILSON: It is simply outrageous, as the member for Brighton is keen to point out. It does not serve our democracy to continuously try to ram through pieces of legislation that will put through punitive taxes on Victorians, will affect the lives of Victorians and will affect the livelihoods of many, many Victorians, their businesses and their ability to choose where they send their kids to school.

Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (10:37): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on just another procedural debate here in this place this week. I have to say I do not think I have laughed so much before 11 am here in this house in the past four years as I have this week. It is wonderful to hear that the member for Kew is so passionate about having debate; it is just going to be a very sad time for her when she turns around and looks at the lack of debate that has happened in this house over the past four years. So very few of her colleagues have stood here in this place to debate any bill that this side of the house has put through.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, again, it is a tight procedural debate, and another member is embarrassing the Premier for not having spoken on a second-reading speech. It is just not right.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Sarah CONNOLLY: Thank you, Speaker. I feel like if there was an award in this house, the member for Brighton would be taking first place for most improved thespian, really. With the constant cheerleader chants that are going on about new taxes, I do have to wonder if in fact these procedural debates are actually about how many times the member for Brighton can get ‘new tax’ into Hansard, whichdoes go to perhaps a new award being put out about being a cheerleader. But if he does look around, he will find there are not many of his squad sitting here in the house listening to his contribution. I do indeed say it is a narrow procedural debate but always a colourful one when the member for Brighton is involved.

It is always ironic standing here listening to those opposite talk about how intensely they feel about consultation and talking with people in their community and key stakeholders when the member for Mordialloc could not have put it more perfectly in pointing out that not only have those opposite failed to consult with constituents in their own electorates, which is why they are sitting on that side of the house and we continue to sit on this side, but they do indeed fail time and time again to go ahead and consult with some of the most important and key stakeholders here in this state, which is why it is so humorous when those opposite this week continue to raise these procedural debates, complaining that they do not have time not only to read a bill but also to consult, when over the past four years they have never bothered to do any of that.

We are going to be getting on and talking about this bill today. There are many contributions that I know people on this side of the house will be making, but I have to ask myself what few contributions those opposite will indeed partake in in debate on the bill here this week and today. With that contribution, I am going to leave it there so we can get on and do the proper work of the house.

Assembly divided on motion:

Ayes (26): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Martin Cameron, Chris Crewther, Gabrielle de Vietri, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Sam Hibbins, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Tim Read, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, Ellen Sandell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Jess Wilson

Noes (49): Juliana Addison, Daniel Andrews, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Will Fowles, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Belinda Wilson

Motion defeated.

Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (10:47): I rise to address the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2023, and in doing so the first thing I would like to do is to proffer to the house a bit of a history lesson from over the past couple of days. The opposition first knew that the government was introducing the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill for its second-reading stage, the stage at which the bill becomes public, just last Thursday, when it appeared on the government business program, as shared with the Manager of Opposition Business. It was at that point that we knew that the government wanted to ram the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill through this place, and it was at that time that we became particularly concerned about that, because of all the budget bills this one is the one with all the nasties.

After we learned via email that the government wanted to second read this bill and debate it immediately, as on the government business program last Thursday, I contacted the Treasurer’s office. I requested a briefing. It is customarily the case for a shadow minister to receive a bill briefing on a piece of legislation that is introduced into this place. I needed to request that briefing, and I am not passing judgement on that. It is just something to note – I needed to ask for that briefing. That briefing was offered at 3 pm on Friday, and I am grateful to the Treasurer’s staff and the departmental staff who offered the opposition that briefing. I am grateful to some of my colleagues who joined in that briefing also.

I must say that on Friday also I was provided via the Treasurer’s office with what were then the latest versions of both the state tax amendment bill and the Victorian Future Fund Bill 2023. I mention that because in a note from the Treasurer’s office which accompanied those bills the following was mentioned:

As these have not yet been second read, they are still Cabinet-in-Confidence, so please don’t share with stakeholders.

Again, I am grateful to the Treasurer’s office and I am grateful to the departmental staff for the briefing that they gave. I am grateful to the Treasurer’s office for providing confidential copies of the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill and the Victorian Future Fund Bill 2023, but it is not without deep concern, through the prism of openness, through the prism of transparency, through the prism of democracy, that we were not able to consult with stakeholders about the impact of two pretty significant bills – yes, we are talking about the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill now – because they were still cabinet in confidence at that point. We were asked by the Treasurer’s office not to share them with stakeholders.

That actually goes to the point of my budget reply yesterday. We do not do this for us, we do this for the 6.8 million Victorians outside this place, and it is those 6.8 million Victorians who are directly affected by decisions that we make in this place. For us to have a copy of that bill, for the government to instruct us not to share it with stakeholders because at that point it was still considered cabinet in confidence, really grates with me because of the punitive measures in this bill, because of the tax on schools, because of the tax on jobs, because of the tax on rent, because of Labor’s debt tax. As I said yesterday, they are all taxes on aspiration, all taxes on a fair go, and that is why we oppose them. I made that point very clear yesterday.

So I just wanted to start by giving a little bit of a history lesson and expressing the concern of the opposition –

James Newbury: Deep concern.

Brad ROWSWELL: deep concern of the opposition, thank you, member for Brighton – that we were not able to share this bill with stakeholders, those people who are directly affected by the punitive measures in this bill. That is unheard of; that is absolutely unheard of. But that is the way they run the place, that is the way that they govern. Their respect for this place is just not there – it is just not there. It is executive government or nothing for the Andrews Labor government.

Roma Britnell: Their way or the highway.

Brad ROWSWELL: Their way or the highway, member for South-West Coast – absolutely. I do want to just briefly mention a couple of the other matters in this bill, and I am sure some of my other colleagues will as well. I am looking forward to the contributions from the member for Gippsland South, the member for Kew, the member for Caulfield and others. I also want to go through some of the responses from stakeholders to the budget and some of the punitive taxation measures in this budget. The Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said that:

… new and increased taxes and levies will hit medium to large businesses and directly impact jobs and investment in the State.

…

Unfortunately, the negative outweighs the positive initiatives for medium and large businesses …

So by one measure you had the Treasurer in this place yesterday crowing about just how supportive VCCI was in response to the major budget announcement. Gee, they were quiet, weren’t they – very quiet – before the budget itself, expectation-managing the circumstances. On budget day itself the government made an announcement about some land tax changes to commercial properties. On budget day itself that announcement was made, and you would think you would have seen some of those matters reflected in the budget itself. No, we did not. The Treasurer just yesterday in question time was crowing about how supportive VCCI was of that particular measure. Yes, they did contribute to that government press release. Yes, they did; they provided a quote. But they have also said:

… new and increased taxes and levies will hit medium to large businesses and directly impact jobs and investment in the State.

…

Unfortunately –

in the words of VCCI –

the negative outweighs the positive initiatives for medium and large businesses …

The Real Estate Institute of Victoria, representing the real estate industry in this state, referred specifically to land tax increases, and they said:

This is a tax on families – not the big end of town. The Government is seeking to recoup the budget debt off short-term solutions that will hurt mum and dad property investors and Victorian renters, while exacerbating the structural housing supply issues facing the state …

…

This announcement will ultimately drive mum and dad investors out of the market as the cost of maintaining a rental property outweighs futureproofing family finances.

They went on:

The biggest impact will be felt by people with smaller holdings as the tax free threshold drops from $300,000 to just $50,000, disproportionately impacting everyday Victorians investing to secure their future.

The Minerals Council of Australia said:

… the additional payroll tax is a tax increase on Victorian mines comes at a bad time for increasing confidence for new investment in Australian mining. This tax increase will be an additional burden on the very businesses that kept the Australian economy from a prolonged recession as the nation battled COVID.

Just on the point made by the Minerals Council of Australia, I would like to make this point. It should not be news to anyone that the state of the economy is absolutely terrible, with the largest debt of any state in the nation, more than Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania combined, and the largest tax level per person of any state in the nation, more than $5600 for every man, woman and child. In this budget we see more taxes and increased taxes, but we still see our net debt increasing to $171 billion.

Only this government, only the Andrews Labor government, could employ over the next four years 4000 less public servants and have that cost the Victorian taxpayer an additional $3 billion. Only the Andrews Labor government could achieve something as absurd as that: 4000 less public servants over the next four years costing Victorians $3 billion more. As the member for Malvern, the former Treasurer of this state, mentioned yesterday, when he delivered his pre-election budget update at the end of 2014, before that election, the public sector wage bill in this state was just $18 billion, and at the end of the forward estimates it is climbing to $38 billion, an increase of $20 billion. The public sector wage bill in this state has doubled –

Roma Britnell: More than doubled.

Brad ROWSWELL: more than doubled – over the last nine years. Again I make the point, which is an absolutely absurd proposition: 4000 less public servants costing Victorians $3 billion more. Only the Andrews Labor government could achieve that. The ANZ Banking Group has said that:

This decision places large Victorian employers at a competitive disadvantage to their Sydney and Brisbane-based counterparts. It is at odds –

says ANZ –

with the work we are all trying to do to get Melbourne back on its feet …

The Australian Industry Group, Ai Group, which is the national association of employers, says:

The Victorian State Budget has delivered stinging costs on Victorian businesses which will impact thousands in the State …

…

It may not be helpful when companies compare Victoria with other states or countries for their investments.

The Australian Retailers Association says the budget contains some positives for small business, and I do want to come back to that. I can think of one positive for small business, which I am happy to acknowledge and we are happy to concede, and one measure in this bill that is actually good for our environment as well. I am happy to come back and give the government credit for that. But the Australian Retailers Association says the budget:

… contains some positives for small business, but the wider economic implications are concerning …

While we understand the Government’s desire to repay debts accrued during the protracted pandemic lockdowns –

the longest lockdowns in the world –

we’re very concerned about the ramifications of payroll tax hikes on businesses. In effect, payroll tax is a tax on jobs.

The cost of doing business is at crisis point for many retailers – from the costs of goods and services to supply chain costs, higher wages, higher rents and costs associated with retail crime.

These new and increased taxes are likely to manifest in job losses –

I will say that again: from the Australian Retailers Association, ‘These new and increased taxes are likely to manifest in job losses’ –

and increased prices for customers which further contributes to the cost of living crisis.

It is just not good news. I wish there was good news, but it is just not good news.

Independent Schools Victoria – ISV – says on the schools tax that the government will seek to refer to the schools tax as ‘the removal of the payroll tax exemption on high fee paying independent schools’. That is a lot of words and is particularly confusing. Let us be real about this: it is a tax on schools. It is a tax on kids. It is a tax on families who are just trying to do their best to give their kids the best start in life. Educational choice is important. Not only do we oppose this particular tax, but we will repeal it in government, and I am very proud of that decision that we have come to. Independent Schools Victoria has said:

The budget decision is likely to affect up to half of the 230 Independent schools in Victoria when it is applied from 2024.

…

This news is a shock to Independent schools and will be greeted with dismay by the parents who send their children to them …

It was made without consultation and is based on an arbitrary definition of a “high-fee” school.

It is likely to have a damaging impact on the operations of many Independent schools, with the potential to disrupt the education of their students.

And there you have it from Independent Schools Victoria. By one measure we should not be surprised that these decisions were made without consultation with those who are affected. I mean, why would you consult with a group of people that you are about to, frankly, screw over?

Richard Riordan: It makes you feel unwell, this budget, doesn’t it?

Brad ROWSWELL: It does, actually, member for Polwarth, yes. As I said yesterday, the opposition is here. The opposition is standing up for 6.8 million Victorians. That is why we are here. We are here to stand up for those 6.8 million Victorians, not for ourselves – we are not here for ourselves, we are here for others. And when this Labor government come in and make their poor economic circumstance the problem of those 6.8 million Victorians, well, we are going to stand up, we are going to fight, because that is what is expected of us as an opposition – to hold this Labor government accountable. For the poor economic decisions that they have made –

A member interjected.

Brad ROWSWELL: I have still got 13 minutes to go, but you will get your turn. Do not worry. For the poor economic decisions that they have made, Victorians should not pay the price. I mean, there are families right around this state every single day of the week making decisions based on their income – making decisions to fix the heater before it gets darned cold over winter, meet their next mortgage repayment or perhaps, as an absolute luxury, take their kids away for a couple of nights during the school holidays. These are real decisions being made around kitchen tables at the moment. In small businesses, as I mentioned yesterday, costs are going up left, right and centre. Highett Charcoal Chicken – I will give them a plug again: the price of chooks is going up, the price of spuds is going up, the price of oil is going up. It is not pretty; it is not pretty out there. And in each of those circumstances, whether you are a family or whether you are a business, you make decisions based on your circumstance. You cut your cloth to fit. But no, no, no, no, no, that is not what the Andrews Labor government does. They keep on taxing more and spending more, and Victorians pay. Every day ending in ‘Y’ Victorians pay the price of the Andrews Labor government.

So I am very proud that we have actually come to a position that we will oppose in this state taxation bill Labor’s school tax, Labor’s rent tax, Labor’s jobs tax and Labor’s debt tax – all taxes on aspiration, all taxes on a fair go – because we are for Victorians. That is why we are here. But we will not only oppose these taxes. When in government we will repeal Labor’s school tax and we will legislate a state debt cap. That is our commitment to the Victorian people. I do at this point move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill until the government:

(1) provides a viable fiscal strategy for Victoria that will not:

(a) increase unemployment;

(b) increase the tax burden on families and businesses;

(c) put downward pressure on real wage growth; and

(d) put downward pressure on investment and jobs growth;

(2) provides a fiscal strategy to repay $140 billion in state debt;

(3) appropriately accounts for $76 billion in recurrent and capital contingency funding that should be drawn down in lieu of new taxes and tax increases; and

(4) alleviates cost of living pressures for Victorian families’.

I am grateful to the attendants for making that reasoned amendment available to members in the chamber at the moment. Why am I moving this reasoned amendment on behalf of the opposition? Because in this budget we see that unemployment actually increases. In this budget we see that the tax burden on families increases. We see that real wage growth declines in this budget. And on point 2, ‘to repay $140 billion in state debt’, over the next 10 years the government has a plan, so they say, to pay $31.5 billion, which they attribute to COVID spending, but let us just do the maths on this one. If you have got a net debt of $171 billion in the outward years and you have got a plan to pay off $31 billion, you have still got $140 billion worth of debt that you do not have a plan to pay off, and that means daily interest repayments, today –

Steve McGhie: You should have come to breakfast. You would have found out the real figures.

Brad ROWSWELL: I was at breakfast, member for Melton. I was listening up the back to the Secretary of the Department of Treasury and Finance, and I was deeply concerned that he appeared to be taking his talking points from the Premier’s private office as opposed to what should have been –

Members interjecting.

Brad ROWSWELL: Yes. So there is no plan to pay off $140 billion worth of debt, and that means that our daily interest repayments in this state, which are $10 million a day, each and every day, from 1 July this year will be $15 million a day, each and every day. And at the end of the four-year forward estimates they will be $22 million a day, each and every day.

Let me take this opportunity to acknowledge that we have some young people from a school group in the gallery today. And let me address these comments through you to them to explain to them what this actually means. So when your government spend more than they are getting that means that you pay and that means that they borrow money that they cannot afford to borrow. When you borrow money, you have got to pay interest on that money, and when they pay interest on that money, in four years time our state, the state of Victoria, will be paying $22 million a day in interest repayments just to service the debt.

Michaela Settle: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, it is not appropriate to speak to the gallery. I appreciate that he said through the chair, but he was without question acknowledging the gallery.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Jackson Taylor): I am happy to rule on the point of order. I uphold the point of order. The member will direct his comments through the Chair.

Brad ROWSWELL: I will continue to direct my comments through the Chair and explain that $22 million a day in interest repayments alone – I mean, you may as well go to an ATM, take out 22 million bucks each and every day, truck it to the front steps of this place and set it alight. In my community, do you know what $22 million would pay for? Twenty-two million dollars – and that is per day – would pay for stages 2 and 3 of the redevelopment of Sandringham Secondary College. You know, it is a great school in my community, a magnificent school in my community – absolutely fabulous educational leadership. There are great students there, great teachers, great teaching and great learning, but what they do not have are the buildings to match, the facilities to match. I know that $22 million would be transformational in my community.

Twenty-two million dollars a day would even, I suggest, make a real difference in the member for Eureka’s community as well. It would make a real difference in the member for Melton’s community. It would make a real difference in the member for Albert Park’s community. It would make a real difference in the member for Carrum’s community. It would make a real difference in the member for Gippsland South’s community, in Mildura and right around this state, but we cannot do that.

This is the missed opportunity piece: when you are paying a daily interest repayment of $22 million, it means that you cannot do the things that matter. It means that you cannot employ the frontline workers that you need to service this state, to help those most vulnerable. It means that you cannot –

Michaela Settle interjected.

Brad ROWSWELL: I am tempted to take up the interjection, but I will not. Look, needless to say not only are we intending to move a reasoned amendment, which I have done during the course of this contribution, but also I indicate that the opposition will be opposing the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2023.

I do note, as I flagged previously, that there are two bits in the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2023 that, look, are okay, and I will go through them. The government is lifting the payroll tax threshold from $700,000 to $900,000. It would be great if it was lifted further, because it is disproportionate with New South Wales, which is arguably our greatest state competitor. In New South Wales their payroll tax threshold is $1.2 million. To the government’s credit, we are heading in the right direction, but there is still $300,000 between where they are lifting the payroll tax threshold to and where New South Wales is, and we would like to see that increased. The second thing that we like is the removal of land tax on those properties that are classified ‘Trust for Nature’. We think that that would encourage more people to plant trees and that would have a net benefit to our environment. Removing those land tax charges on Trust for Nature properties we think is also a good thing.

But when we weigh up the perhaps two positives in this bill against the many, many negatives that will impact on families at a time when they can least afford it, we have no other choice. We feel we have no other choice but to not just move the reasoned amendment, as I have done, but also oppose this bill. I will conclude where I began, and that is by outlining our purpose here, because our purpose is not ourselves. Our purpose is for people outside of this building – those Victorians who put their faith and trust in us to do work on their behalf in this Parliament. That is why they sent us here. That is why my community sent me here. That is why every other member in this chamber, whether they are on the government benches or the opposition benches, has been sent here, and we must keep that in mind.

When I look at the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2023, I think about those that it impacts the most. I think about those people, whether they be in the gallery today or whether they be some of those most vulnerable people who are looking for nothing more than a roof over their head and the stability that a roof over your head provides. With the measures in this bill their rent is going to go up, and a rent tax is not a good thing for Victorians, especially at this time. I think about the families that will be affected. I think about those businesses that will not grow. I think about those people who will lose their jobs as a result of measures in this bill.

It is not a good bill. It is the wrong bill for this time. What we should be doing is proposing a very strong plan for growth, to engage the private sector so that we can grow as a state, so we can grow as a community, so we can create the opportunities that will benefit every Victorian – create the jobs and create the future that those in the gallery deserve.

Josh BULL (Sunbury) (11:17): I am pleased to rise this morning to contribute to debate on the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2023. What a rather extraordinary contribution we have heard from the previous member – all the answers, all the luxury of looking back and pretending the global pandemic did not really exist, that a one-in-100-year pandemic was just a small speed hump. This government, the Andrews Labor government, took decisive action to save lives, to protect our healthcare workforce and to protect jobs – and yes, indeed, it did cost the state a lot of money.

Acting Speaker Taylor, as you know and as Victorians know, last week we handed down the state budget. It was a budget that delivers on every commitment we made at the last election, a budget that builds better hospitals and backs our incredible health workforce with thousands more nurses and paramedics. It is a budget to build new schools, to expand free TAFE, to train thousands of workers so that the SEC can provide cheaper and cleaner energy, and of course, as is the subject of this piece of legislation that is before the house this morning, to reform taxes to help Victorians beat the rising cost of living and importantly to responsibly address our COVID debt within 10 years, by 2033. We know and understand that the COVID-19 pandemic sent shock waves through economies, both big and small, right across the globe. When COVID hit, this government took, as I have mentioned, decisive action, clear action. On the advice of the RBA, we borrowed billions of dollars to prevent that long-term economic scarring that would have put generations of people out of work. This government has a responsible plan to repay the more than $31 billion to pay for those tools that we used in this state to confront a one-in-100-year emergency and do so many of those things that were required to save lives, to protect healthcare workers and of course to protect jobs.

It is easy for those from the opposition to come into this place over the journey of this bill – and other pieces of legislation that come through the house – to look back and make broad, sweeping assertions about decisions that were made at a time when we knew lives were at stake and jobs were at stake. Our healthcare workforce was under siege every single day through this global pandemic. We know that, unfortunately, those opposite took the opportunity to undermine the health advice that was provided, and now they want to come into this place and make assertions about the way that this bill will responsibly pay back that debt that has been incurred through COVID.

As I mentioned, when the pandemic hit, decisive and determined action was taken to save lives, to protect jobs and to get us through the one-in-100-year event. We knew of course the cost of doing this and the cost of debt borrowings would be significant, but this government is about people. We are about making sure that Victorians, particularly through the pandemic but each and every day, are protected. We prioritised Victorian lives and our healthcare system, and we are now on the other side. We know that COVID is not going away. We know that COVID is here to stay, but thanks to vaccines and a stronger public health system we have seen the worst of it, and it is now time to responsibly pay the debt back in a responsible, fair and appropriate way. We know that the value of the COVID debt is estimated to be, as I mentioned earlier, around $31.5 billion in expenditure incurred and revenue forgone by the state, net of the Commonwealth government co-contributions, for activities primarily delivered between 2019–20 and 2022–23.

This government – and I have spoken of it at length, as I know other members have in the house – has a strong and broad and positive and bold agenda to deliver infrastructure, huge reforms to early childhood and free TAFE. All of those investments that we make, whether it be the Metro Tunnel, the West Gate Tunnel, the North East Link, getting on and removing 110 dangerous and congested level crossings by 2030 or a massive Suburban Rail Loop – I could go on: a massive agenda, a transformative agenda – are going to set this state up for decades and decades to come. We should not make the mistake, and this government will not make the mistake, of conflating those two figures in terms of our significant once-in-a-generation investment in infrastructure and getting on and doing the things that a growing state needs and of course huge social services reforms, and COVID debt, which in many ways, as has been mentioned by the Premier, by the Treasurer and by others, is like a credit card debt. It is a debt that was incurred very quickly, a significant debt, but importantly we have got a plan within this piece of legislation and the budget more broadly to get on and to pay it back.

We know that our strong action to protect the health and the livelihoods of Victorians helped shield our state from the very worst of the one-in-100-year event, and it is now time to get on and make sure we are doing the responsible thing in paying that back. Just like with a mortgage, the increase in the cost of borrowing for the state is having real impacts on our financial capacity. We know that we are making sure, through the measures that are contained in this legislation, that there is a sound, there is a responsible and there is an appropriate way to repay that debt.

The bill implements the following through the 2023–24 budget measures, and I will whip through this quite quickly because I am conscious of time: increasing the deduction threshold from $500,000 to $1.5 million for transfers of land to the trustee of a special disability trust where it is to be used as a principal place of residence for a principal beneficiary of the trust, introducing a new duty exemption for a transfer of a home from an immediate family member for no consideration to a qualifying person with a disability where it is to be used as that for the qualifying person, reforming the pensioner duty concession and exemption provisions and abolishing duty on business insurance by reducing the applicable duty rate by 1 per cent per annum over a 10-year period. There are a whole range of other measures – many, many measures – but as I said, I am conscious of time and we are heading towards the 2-minute mark.

Broadly, we know that due to a one-in-100-year event in a very short period of time we as a state took decisive action, responsible action, to save lives and protect jobs and that we of course made those decisions to get on and take the necessary action that was required to ensure that we could navigate our way through the pandemic. It has been incredibly framed by those opposite, but having been members of this place during that one-in-100-year event, we know that following health advice, that working with our healthcare workforce, that protecting lives, that saving lives and of course that providing key business support every step of the way were things that this government took incredibly seriously. Through the process of the budget last week we are making sure that responsibly, as I mentioned, and practically, in an appropriate way, we are repaying those debts.

The Andrews Labor government is a government that is about doing what matters. This government did what mattered most in our darkest, our toughest and our hardest hours, days, months and years. We saved lives, we protected our healthcare workforce and importantly, critically, we protected jobs. It is now time to have a plan to pay this debt back, and that is what this bill does. We know that this piece of legislation is fair. We know that this piece of legislation is just. It is time to get on and make these repayments so that we square away the debt that was incurred through COVID. It is important to reflect on the fact that it was always about saving lives and protecting jobs, and that is why I commend the bill to the house.

Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (11:27): I am pleased to rise to speak on the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2023 and to follow the member for Sunbury, who has done a manful job of trying to spin the unspinnable by talking about fairness in a piece of legislation that will actually tax renters and make rents less affordable, tax mums and dads, tax schools, tax jobs. That is what this piece of legislation is really all about.

I particularly want to focus a little on the economic illiteracy that is at play in this particular piece of legislation. Before I do that, though, I want to acknowledge that debt is a fact of life for governments and households. If you want to do things, you often – not always but often – need to actually borrow money to go ahead and do them. Obviously at a state or a federal government level, if you are running surplus budgets, then you can have additional cash to put into infrastructure investments in particular. That is not happening now. We know that this government has sent debt through the roof. What is not acceptable in my mind is to waste taxpayers money and to shackle future generations to massive amounts of debt repayments and interest repayments when so much of that money has gone on wasteful spending. We know the infrastructure Big Build has become well and truly the big bill – $30 billion of cost overruns on those projects that we know about, and probably more to come. So that is the debt that we are concerned about: unproductive debt that has been wasted and will be a yoke around the neck of Victorians for many years into the future.

I do want to take up some of the measures in the budget and the Treasurer’s justification for them. The Treasurer yesterday told us in question time that:

At the risk of taking the Shadow Treasurer through market economics 101, I will make the basic point that the price of rental accommodation … is a consequence of the issue of supply and demand.

He went on to say that we have got:

… the metropolitan Melbourne market running at about 1.2 per cent vacancy, clearly we are in a position where it is a landlords market.

I have perhaps the slight advantage over the Treasurer in that despite the fact he has got the entire Department of Treasury and Finance behind him, I have actually done an economics degree. I have done economics 101 – and 201 and many others. I know from maths, and most people who have got half an idea about economics understand, that if you add a tax to a product that is already in high demand, all that is going to happen –

Jess Wilson: It’s going to go up.

Danny O’BRIEN: thank you, member for Kew – is the people paying that tax are going to pass it on to the final customer. And who is the final customer – the renter. So in the midst of a rental crisis, of a housing affordability crisis, of people struggling to be able to buy their own property, of people struggling to be able to find rent and literally to be able to find rental properties at all and of people coming to our electorate offices all the time seeking help with public housing as well, what does the government do – it places a new tax on renters. That is just unbelievable.

They are doing that because we are going to see debt interest payments heading for $22 million a day, as the Shadow Treasurer indicated. That will see by the end of the forward estimates total debt at 24.5 per cent of gross state product. Bear in mind in 2018 it was 6 per cent, and the government a couple of days out from the 2018 election said ‘We’re going to double it to 12 per cent of GSP’, and here we are now heading for 24.5 per cent. So state debt as a percentage of the product that we produce in this state will have quadrupled in about 10 years. That is the issue that we are facing here. It is a massive, massive increase, and the member for Sunbury is running the government’s line that this is just COVID; it just happened because we had to deal with a once-in-100-year pandemic. Well, everyone knows that, but does anyone remember: did COVID only happen here in Victoria?

A member: Yes, apparently.

Danny O’BRIEN: It only happened here in Victoria. Right. I thought by definition ‘pandemic’ actually means it happened across the world. So a pandemic happened across the world, yet we are heading for $171 billion in debt. If it was just COVID that had caused this debt, we would not have a debt that is larger than New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania put together. The Age belled the cat on it very well last week by highlighting that of 17 similar-sized states across the world, no-one has a debt higher than Victoria. So please do not try and tell me ‘This is just a COVID debt; this was about keeping you safe.’ The government messed up COVID, because if it was about keeping us safe, why did we have the most deaths, the most cases, the longest lockdowns in the world and now the worst fiscal position? Because the government messed it up. That is what we are facing in this piece of legislation. We are facing the bill for the government’s economic mismanagement.

It is easy to stand there and say it was about saving lives and everything. I remember being an observer as we were going into various lockdowns and the government saying – this is towards the 2021 lockdowns, when everyone else was starting to get it under control – ‘We’re going into lockdown for five days, but there’ll be a $10 billion’ –

Members interjecting.

Danny O’BRIEN: Do you want to talk about New South Wales again? Do you want me to remind you that the debt that you have given Victorians is larger than New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania put together? So do not try and compare yourself to New South Wales. You had more deaths; you had more cases. It is a very inconvenient fact that the members of the government seem to forget. We had the government saying, ‘But it’s okay, businesses. I know we’re going to shut you down for another 10 days. Here’s $10 billion to compensate.’ And now we are saying that somehow we have just got to pay all of that back – it was not our fault.

I was thinking at the time, and I had businesses come to me at the time saying, ‘Thank God we’ve got this money coming forward, but oh my God, who’s going to pay it back?’ Well, here it is. Now we are paying the debt for that. Remember it is $171 billion of debt that we are talking about, and you are only saying that COVID was $31 billion. So please remember to talk about the other $140 billion. I hope you will get to that at some point, because the government has messed this up. As I said, it is 24.5 per cent of GSP, our debt now – higher than the Cain–Kirner government, and we know how well that ended.

So we get what we have here today, which is a piece of legislation that is introducing a rent tax at a time when we have already got a rental and housing affordability crisis. It is a government that is introducing a new schools tax and obviously playing a little bit of culture war and class warfare as well. We have a jobs tax. I will go to some of the comments that have been made by some – and I am sure those opposite will not like to hear these. The Australian Industry Group said:

The Victorian State Budget has delivered stinging costs on Victorian businesses …

…

It may not be helpful when companies compare Victoria with other states or countries for their investments.

Jess Wilson interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: What do those investments bring, member for Kew? They bring jobs. The Australian Retailers Association said:

The cost of doing business is at crisis point for many retailers …

These new and increased taxes are likely to manifest in job losses and increased prices for customers which further contributes to the cost of living crisis.

That is the Australian Retailers Association. I wonder what the shoppies are saying about that. Are the shoppies getting up and saying, ‘We’re worried about our workers’ jobs?’ You have got the Community Housing Industry Association – again coming to my point about housing and renters – saying:

A 10-year plan to repay the debt from Victoria’s pandemic response is central to this budget, however, the same consideration and long-term thinking is not applied to our state’s housing crisis …

Moody’s – which is obviously the subject really of the next piece of legislation, the Victorian Future Fund Bill 2023, which we are doing to keep the ratings agencies happy – said, and I quote:

… we do not expect Victoria’s debt burden to stabilise before the end of fiscal 2028, maintaining negative pressure on the state’s rating.

That probably gets to the heart of this budget. It is a budget with a COVID debt repayment plan that does not actually repay any debt – we still see our debt increasing from $165 billion to $171 billion. And who is paying for that? Victorians are paying for it. Victorians and regional Victorians will pay for this mismanagement that the government has seen over a long period of time, and I remind those opposite again that the government’s debt budget had gone into deficit before COVID even reached these shores. It is a symptom of the mismanagement that this government has had, the waste in infrastructure projects, the mismanagement of COVID, and now it is Victorians who are getting the bill because Labor has sent this state broke.

Nathan LAMBERT (Preston) (11:37): I rise to also contribute to the debate on the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2023, which of course implements important aspects of this Labor government’s 2023–24 state budget. I would like to begin, like the member for Sunbury, by just addressing the context by which that state budget and indeed this bill have arrived to us. We still are very much living in an era that is influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic. We have gotten through the most difficult period when the pandemic was new, but we are very much still dealing with the aftershocks in our economy and indeed in the management of the state government’s finances.

But if we do think back to that period of 2020, I think it is worth recapping, as the member for Sunbury did, the very significant obviously health impacts on our society but also the economic impacts. We had a very sharp contraction in that June quarter in particular of 8.2 per cent. We saw almost a quarter of a million Victorians lose their jobs during that period in 2020. And we saw similar effects around the globe – huge disruptions to trade, huge disruptions to shipping. And as well as that very sharp contraction in confidence and activity in the private sector we had very abrupt demands placed on the public sector. I do remember them well. I was working in the public service at the time. I remember that the then secretary of the department I was in, Simon Phemister, put a single executive onto the COVID-19 pandemic in early February, and I remember some of us thinking, ‘Oh, I wonder what that’s about’. Within a matter of 10 weeks, I think, roughly 50 per cent of the senior executive service level people in the department were working on COVID-related things – because we had to. Almost every industry, every stakeholder group, was calling us and saying what do we do as the first-order and then second-order effects of this pandemic rolled out across the state.

I do not think we should forget how tumultuous that period was: the changes to our migration flows, the RBA slashing rates to 0.1 per cent and the very decisive action taken by this Labor government – very decisive and very necessary action, as the member for Sunbury has already outlined. We had some very large expenditures on things that we needed to spend money on to address the pandemic: testing centres and intensive care beds and eventually vaccines and so forth. And of course we had some very large transfers to businesses and households. Effectively the government said ‘We will shoulder the majority of the costs that the pandemic is imposing on you’ for the majority of businesses and households. That was the right thing to do. It still is the right thing to do. And as we have noted, there is now $30 billion worth of liabilities on the government’s books that reflect those decisions – and decisions that we on this side of the house absolutely stand by.

The member for Gippsland South did sort of ask us to get to the infrastructure program as well, and I will if I can. We did at the time already have a nation-leading infrastructure program in place, and I remember reading I think it might have been Larry Summers writing that at that point you had very low interest rates, you had spare capacity in the economy, you had an urgent need for infrastructure around the globe and it was a time for governments to invest in infrastructure. Luckily here in Victoria we did not have to look far for good infrastructure projects to invest in because we had a whole bunch of them underway – of course the Level Crossing Removal Project, the Metro Tunnel and everything we were doing in health and education at the time. We had a decision: do we step that infrastructure program up or do we wind it back? We decided, and it was the right decision, to support confidence and support activity by stepping our infrastructure program up.

Sam Groth interjected.

Nathan LAMBERT: And by stepping them up at this time, to take the interjection from the member for Nepean, I am very specifically talking about late 2020. Of course we even added, as the member for Nepean might remember, the Big Build to the infrastructure build, a fantastic program. So that was the plan back then and it is the plan that we have stuck to, because it was still the plan in 2021 and it was still the plan in 2022. I think it is important to remember that –

Sam Groth interjected.

Nathan LAMBERT: Exactly, and I will come to that, member for Nepean. For the last three budgets that we have brought down, the pandemic was not over. Some people have short memories, but if you think back even 12 months ago, we still had 10,000 cases a day. I got COVID about 12 months ago. I remember it quite well. We were all still unsure about omicron. We had our pandemic repair plan just beginning to roll out in hospitals. But it is only really this budget that allows us to begin to cautiously draw a line under that period.

Sam Groth interjected.

Nathan LAMBERT: To pick up, if I can, on the interjections of the member for Nepean, this is a budget now that begins a cautious change in direction. It is the right time to do so, but it is a cautious change and it is a measured change, and that is for good reason. We are not standing up here pretending that everything is perfect and rosy in the economy. There are still real constraints out there. There are still adjustments related to COVID moving their way through the economy. There are very real pressures on Victorians and their families, and there are of course sharply increased interest rates, which nobody really anticipated. Financial markets did not anticipate them, but they are certainly present.

Sam Groth interjected.

Nathan LAMBERT: Well, in fairness to the interjections that are coming through, let me just say you could have made a lot of money if you knew that interest rates were going to jump up to what they are now. You could have shorted bonds. I am not sure if anyone on the opposition side did, but I will say it again: I do not think that those changes were necessarily anticipated by anyone, including those in financial markets.

So you can see in this budget a very measured and sensible response to that set of circumstances. You can see it in the budget-to-budget profile of infrastructure spending, which has come down; ditto for net debt, which has come down; and of course you can see it in the taxation aggregates, which do step up, and step up for very good reasons that the Treasurer has set out and the member for Sunbury has set out. Indeed that brings us to the reason for this bill. There are some very positive reforms in there, which I might not get time to get to –

Sam Groth interjected.

Nathan LAMBERT: Well, the member for Sandringham actually padded out the end of his speech by flagging a couple. I am sure the member for Nepean and others will get to them. But no, I do want to talk about the impetus for the bill and the important part of the debate, which is the COVID debt repayment plan. There are some payroll surcharges there, which are set out in the bill, and there are the new land tax changes at the new thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000. It is important to say that nobody gets into public life to increase the thresholds on land tax or payroll tax. None of us did that, but we are doing it because we have to. We are doing it because of the circumstances that I have just set out.

I have listened very carefully to the debate. I did listen to the Shadow Treasurer’s speech. It did not take too long to listen to. I am not sure he quite got to 30 minutes; in fact he was padding things out a little earlier. But I did listen to it, and it reminded me slightly of a quote that I think Matthew Taylor in Tony Blair’s office once said to me. We were talking about opinion polling, and he said, ‘Polling is a wonderful thing. It tells you exactly what the public want. They want Swedish-style services and US-style taxes.’ There is a certain bit of truth to that, and there was a little bit of that I thought in the Shadow Treasurer’s speech, in which he basically said, ‘Well, we’re going to have fantastic, better services and we’re going to have lower taxes as well.’ There was very little in the way of actual engagement with the context that I and the member for Sunbury have been through as to how we got here, and there was very little detail full stop.

Earlier this morning we even had the Shadow Treasurer reading out stakeholder reactions to get his way through the final bit of his 30 minutes. The only thing specific that he said, and I will give this for the benefit of the member for Kew, was:

We say to millions of Victorian families: under the Liberal–Nationals you will be literally thousands of dollars better off every single year.

That is a big claim. I look forward to the sort of implied $5 billion worth of tax cuts that I reckon are in delivering thousands of dollars of cuts for millions of Victorian families, and I really do think there is an imperative on the Shadow Treasurer to explain how he is going to address revenue. Should he ever become the Treasurer or indeed should the member for Nepean or member for Kew become the Treasurer, they will have to explain what they are going to do on the revenue front. It is very clear that they are not planning to increase borrowing, and the only thing they have really spoken about in any detail is project blowouts and so forth. I do not really want to accept the premise of that, but even on a basic accounting thing –

Sam Groth interjected.

Nathan LAMBERT: Well, member for Nepean, if you lower your revenue by $5 billion, you are going to have a structural deficit that you will have to deal with in ways that are not related to your balance sheet.

Anyway, this is a good, measured bill, given our economic context, and genuinely, listening to the debate, I do not think the opposition really disagree with the vast majority of it. We have a disagreement on non-government schools that others have already picked up on, but there are a lot of good reforms in this bill. I said the member for Sunbury mentioned some and the member for Sandringham acknowledged some. I would like to just wrap up by thanking the Treasurer, his team and the department for all the work they put into it. It is a detailed bill, it is an important bill, it is a measured bill. It is a very Labor bill, I feel.

A member: That is so true. You couldn’t speak a truer word.

Nathan LAMBERT: It is a good Labor bill that does good things, and I commend it to the house.

Jess WILSON (Kew) (11:47): I would like to thank the member for Preston for a very engaging contribution to the house. I stand pleased to speak on the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2023 today and to support the member for Sandringham’s, the Shadow Treasurer’s, reasoned amendment he put to this place earlier this morning.

As we have seen and as we have spoken about at length over the last couple of days, this is a piece of legislation that has come into the Parliament without the due process that you would hope a piece of taxation legislation would have around it. It was second read yesterday, and less than a day later we are debating it and it is to be guillotined later today. So Victorians will not have had an opportunity to look at the detail and to understand the ramifications of a range of new punitive taxes on them, on their jobs, on their schools, on their rents and on their livelihoods.

We have seen from those opposite a budget handed down last week that is sending Victoria in the wrong direction. Despite claims from those opposite that we now have a budget that is looking at paying down debt, over the next three years we are going to see $7.5 billion come in in revenue, yet there is $8.9 billion in new spending. That is despite the fact that in the piece of legislation we are talking about today we are seeing a range of new punitive taxes: a tax on rents, a tax on schools, a tax on property, a tax on enterprise and a tax on jobs. These are all taxes on aspiration, on choice and on enterprise. We see a budget that sees us go deeper into deficits and debt climbing, reaching $171 billion in just a few years: a 47 per cent increase despite the fact we are seeing this range of new taxes come into place and revenue measures come into place.

To start with the tax on renters and the flow-on consequences for those in the rental market, we are in the midst of a rental crisis, a housing affordability crisis. I know the member for Mildura takes this very seriously. We have seen in her electorate, in Robinvale and Mildura, the impact of the housing affordability crisis. There is no relief for housing affordability in this budget, but there is a new tax on renters at a time when we have a rental crisis. Changing the threshold from $300,000 down to $50,000 on low-value and medium-value properties is something that is going to hit people, with Victorians that work incredibly hard to save for property, maybe for their retirement or to put their nest egg into the stable property market, taxed and punished for that sense of aspiration and that sense of working hard.

We have over 860,000 investment property owners in Victoria, and 380,000 of those have not been subject to this tax before. But because this government has chosen to lower the threshold at a time when we do not have enough supply in the rental market and when we have a demand-and-supply problem, as the member for Gippsland South rightly pointed out, this government has decided to put a tax on property owners and for that tax to be passed through to renters because they cannot keep up with this cost-of-living crisis. When we look at those people who have an additional property, 52 per cent only own one additional property, and that 52 per cent have an average income of less than $100,000. So while those opposite like to talk about this hitting those wealthy landlords, we are talking about mum-and-dad investors, a nurse or a tradie or a firey, who have saved hard to put their retirement, their super in a sense, into property –

Jade Benham: So they can be self-funded retirees.

Jess WILSON: So they can be self-funded retirees, as the member for Mildura points out. If you look at what CPA Australia has said about the Labor government’s tax, this is really going to be an attack on middle-class Australians who are investing for their future:

Many landlords will be unable to afford this additional cost.

And that is certainly the case. We are already hearing from real estate agents about property owners coming to them asking for appraisals because they cannot take another hit. That will have a flow-on consequence for the rental market. We will see fewer properties available to the rental market. We will see less supply, which will only serve to hike up rents.

Then of course, as I have spoken about previously, we have a tax on schools in this budget, a tax on education, overthrowing what have been decades of exemptions around taxing education in this country and in this state.

Jade Benham: The Education State.

Jess WILSON: Indeed, this government likes to point to us being the Education State, but in this budget we have a tax on independent schools that will flow through directly to school fees or put teachers at risk at these schools. At the same time we have a state government education system that is the most expensive of any in the country – over $100,000 to send your child to a government school in Victoria, the highest of any state or territory in this country. But this independent schools tax is clearly designed to divide people. It is clearly designed to make it harder for parents to choose where they send their children to school, to a school that reflects their faith and their values, and put through division in our society and pit people against one another. We do not know who these 110 schools will be. There is no guidance from the Minister for Education. The minister yesterday failed to answer basic questions about the application of the tax and which schools will be included in the tax. This is going to cost 110 schools around $1 million a year, which will flow through directly into school fees, and we are looking at increases of around $1000 per child per year to send your kids to a school of your choice. This of course will disproportionately affect the schools in the electorate of Kew. We have many wonderful independent schools and many families locally that work incredibly hard. Some parents work purely to put their entire salary into sending their kids to these independent schools, taking pressure off the state system, and they are being punished and taxed by this budget.

Not only do we have a tax on rents and a tax on schools, but of course we have a tax on jobs, with a hike in payroll tax to pay for the debt that is climbing from those opposite. Those opposite like to point to the fact that it is only COVID debt, so it does not really count. Well, it does count. We have to pay it back, and as the member for Gippsland South made the point, debt in itself is not the problem. We all take out a mortgage. We all understand that you have to be able to fund decisions you want to make, whether that is around property or whatever it may be – investing in infrastructure. But when debt gets out of control – and in just a few years time we will be paying $22 million a day to service that debt – that is when we are in a situation in this state where we are going down the track of not being able to fund essential services.

What we see in this budget is a tax on jobs, a tax on the ability to attract investment to Victoria. Just today we have seen one of Australia’s largest employers and one of Victoria’s largest employers, Wesfarmers, come out, calling out the Victorian budget and saying:

The other challenge to call out is what we’ve seen in Victoria. We’re at a time where we’re trying to increase wages and improve productivity [and] the Victorian government has just taken essentially a billion dollars that could have otherwise been spent on increasing wages …

That is the impact of a tax on business in this state. Businesses in this state have been hit over the last few years. They have been hit with closures because of COVID, and now they are being told they have to pay the bill for this government’s incompetence. We know the COVID debt from those opposite is only a fraction of the debt in this state. It is only a quarter of the debt in this state. They like to point to just COVID debt, but we have got $171 billion worth of debt in the next few years.

The Treasurer likes to point to some of the industry groups that have, here and there, said a few comments about the budget, and yesterday he quoted from the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Just pointing to the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry now, they said:

… new and increased taxes and levies will hit medium to large businesses and directly impact jobs and investment in the State.

…

Unfortunately, the negative outweighs the positive initiatives for medium and large businesses …

Those opposite like to pit small and medium and big business against each other, but business is an ecosystem. Big businesses rely on small businesses like small businesses rely on big businesses. These businesses need to work together. We need big businesses investing in this state to create jobs and to create supply chains for small businesses. An increase in the rate of payroll tax will only impact jobs. This is a budget that hits Victorians. This is a budget that does not put the state on the right track, and it is a budget that is the consequence of this state going broke.

Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (11:57): ‘The more debt and deficit is the price of saving livelihoods’: who said those immortal words in 2020? It was none other than the political idol of the member for Kew and the doubles tennis buddy champion of the member for Nepean, Josh Frydenberg. Those words acknowledged that we needed to go into debt to save Victorians and indeed save the livelihoods of people around our nation. We have had such a straw-person argument and really cheap budget reply speeches that I thought they would be a little better from the member for Sandringham and the member for Kew. You cannot front up with the same lines that were re-run last time. You cannot front up with the ‘debt and deficit’ that was run, get a 56-seat result – get pummelled – have your primary drop to historically low levels and then re-run the same arguments and say that we are off a cliff and this is happening and that is happening.

Well, what did your political idol take us to? What did the federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers have to turn the screws on federal? The federal net debt to GDP is 34 per cent, rising to 40 per cent over the forward estimates – 34 per cent gross domestic product rising to 40 per cent. The state net debt to gross state product is 19 per cent, rising to 24.6 per cent. So are they reflecting on the legacy of their political idols? I do not know where the member for Sandringham lines up with the former Treasurer, but the member for Kew and the member for Nepean, where do they stand on trashing Josh Frydenberg’s legacy and the debt that was presided over federally? Because when you line up those arguments and narratives, they are a deep reflection on where the national cabinet, and the leadership of premiers and chief ministers and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, took our states and our nation in the protection of jobs and livelihoods and in literally saving lives, as Josh Frydenberg said.

That is an important reflection when we then also look at former Premier of New South Wales Premier Perrottet’s comments. What did the Premier say at the time about infrastructure spends?

With a building boom in new infrastructure on Australia’s east coast pitting states against each other, Premier Dominic Perrottet said it was “OK” if costs increased from estimates at the start of projects.

He went on to say:

We are talking increases and that’s not unique to NSW – it’s happening right across the eastern seaboard … We have a duty to make sure we get our projects built that are value for taxpayers, but ultimately, we’ve got to keep going.

So when you have those kinds of comments, when you have a national approach, the cheap argument that you front up with, talking about debt and deficit, and not having an alternative is such a cheap approach to politics. It is why they are in that political ruin, because Victorians see through it. They see through the simplistic arguments.

What would the opposition have done differently? We took on that debt to protect Victorians. Are they saying they would not have acted? Are they saying they would not have protected businesses and livelihoods? Are they saying they would not have protected jobs during that time? Victoria is the engine room of the nation’s economy. We created half the jobs of the nation leading into the pandemic, and we have the recipe and all the ingredients to surge further again as the best state in the nation, as the engine room of the nation’s economy and the most livable, culturally diverse and attractive city and state for investment. That is the recipe that we have got.

You talk down our economy and simplistically pick out lines in Treasury speeches, not getting to your 30 minutes but giving a 16- to 20-minute summation of key lines that does not offer an alternative to Victorians. I mean, seriously, the member for Malvern at least has the depth to come in and say what he would actually do differently. What do the member for Kew and the member for Sandringham say? They say, ‘Oh, we shouldn’t look at revenue. We shouldn’t consider increasing revenue.’

When the member for Sandringham had his chance, his moment in the sun – his opposition leader prospect – he was on Channel 7 having a long-form chat. You know, he is good at a grab, he is good for a 30-second piece, but for 4 minutes and 30 seconds, no good. I think it was Mike Bowers– no, it was not Mike Bowers, that is Talking Pictures. It was the chap who got hit by a skateboard, the Channel 7 journo who is now the anchor on afternoons, who asked the member for Sandringham in that moment, ‘Well, what would you do differently?’ He said, ‘Uh, we wouldn’t have cost blowouts. Uh, we would run it better.’ I think he forgets. He might have been with some of the Institute of Public Affairs legends and going through different things about how government should be small and getting away from things, but he forgets that they did not deliver one infrastructure project. They do not have any credibility in building our state. Not one new school build was open when we came to government – not anything. You cannot fancifully say, ‘Oh, we would do it better.’ Victorians see through that argument. They want alternatives.

If you are not going to have a revenue stream, if you are not going to have a $31.5 billion COVID debt recovery scheme, then what would you cut? We know that they go after the most vulnerable in our community. When given the chance, they come after working Victorians and those that cannot afford to make ends meet, because in the small government view those people are irrelevant. Free Fruit Friday, literally feeding kids who could not feed themselves, was a budget line item. It was not even a couple of mill, and bang – they went after the most vulnerable kids in our community when they cut health and education services.

We hear ‘No, we are not going to raise that revenue’, but during the state campaign they made$28 billion of funding commitments. They were going to privatise poo. That was one thing that they were going to do. That was the depth of their policy in that time. Sewage was in the revenue scheme. That was the idea that was put forward. The coalition took forward – drastically outspending Andrews Labor government election commitments – $28 billion of commitments, and Victorians saw through it. They knew it was an absolutely fanciful effort.

So maybe when they are down at the enterprise club with 150 legends and offering up free tables, they can be honest with people, show a bit of depth and a bit of policy nous and say, ‘What would you do differently?’ If you are forgoing those revenue streams, what revenue would you increase? Or are you saying, ‘Nothing. No new taxes, no nothing, no revenue at all’? That is a $31.5 billion hole in the state’s economy, and we know what that means. That means cuts, that means closures, that means absolutely going after people that rely on the services of government.

We know that the member has had these wonderful moments. His first speech was very grand. There was a great crew, a huge turn-up in the chamber. It was a really good speech, delivered well, but he then said, ‘Governments should get out of the way. We should have small government.’ When his first question offered up in the place was saying, ‘Oh, we need government intervention in the port of Davis. When market failure hits, we need government intervention.’ I could not believe it. I thought, ‘Have we won Kew?’ I thought goodness me –

Brad Rowswell: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I would love the member for Mordialloc to give us a precise reference in the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2023 as to –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your point of order is, member for Sandringham? Your point of order is on –

Brad Rowswell: Is relevance, quite clearly.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Relevance, thank you. It has been a very wideranging debate, and I encourage the member to continue on the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2023.

Tim RICHARDSON: You can see why they call him the poor version of Mordi, can’t you? We get mixed up from time to time. He just did not have it. He had the point of order. I mean, the member for Brighton could have had a crack. Maybe you need to fix it up with the member for Brighton, who keeps filibustering you. This is an important bill around the revenue and the emergency measures – which are temporary – that we are putting in place to make sure that we can pay down debt, and that is important. When we contrast that, 19 per cent of state domestic product has gone up to 24.6 per cent, and then what Jim Chalmers as federal Treasurer has had to preside over is 34 per cent to 40 per cent of gross domestic product.

You cannot come in with your cheap lines on debt and deficit and then not tell Victorians what you would do differently. This bill owns that. You cannot come in and say ‘Oh, the interest bill per day’ and use that as a reference but then not also say what you would have done to avoid that impact. That means you would not have funded the billions of COVID tests that we had to put in place. It means you would not have put all that investment into our health services and supported our nurses, our paramedics and those that are on the front line supporting our communities. You are in direct contrast to the federal coalition strategy at the time through national cabinet.

You know what – Victorians are smarter than that. If you want to raise the standards in debate, if you want to be taken seriously as an opposition party, talk about alternatives and talk about the journey and the investment that needs to be made. We owe it to ourselves and our community to do just that. That is what Victorians expect, and that is why at this election they resoundingly re-elected an Andrews Labor government with a positive and optimistic plan, with a recipe like no other, for creating jobs and investment across our nation. We have the greatest recipe for success for tourism, our cultural events, our sporting communities and every beautiful part of our state across Victoria. We do not talk down our economy; we do not talk down Victorians like those opposite have done for years. We pump up the aspiration of our communities, and that is why so many people have had jobs created. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are here today because of the investments that the Andrews Labor government have made.

The member for Sandringham can say, ‘We need less spending, we need to increase revenue – with no plan – and then create new jobs.’ But do you know what – I will give you a how-to-vote card for the Andrews Labor government, because we have delivered each and every time for Victorians. It is why we have been endorsed resoundingly, and it is why these measures are so important as we pay down the COVID debt and make sure we have a sustainable future for our communities.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member, I encourage members to not use the word ‘you’ as it reflects on the Chair.

David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (12:07): Well, I will give one word that would actually repair this budget, that would ensure that we actually get Victoria back on track, and it is very, very simple: it is ‘confidence’. That is what Victoria needs. That is what Victoria will actually benefit from and that Victorians will benefit from, because if you have confidence, people will invest in this state and not leave it. We saw during COVID the record amount of people that actually left the state, the record amount of businesses that left the state, and I would have thought that this particular budget, with an opportunity to look at taxation and ours being the highest taxing state in the nation, would reverse that to become more affordable, to become one with the least amount of taxation and to turn things around. It would give that confidence that many small businesses need and that many young people starting a family need and that would create the entrepreneurial opportunity that Victorians desperately are striving for.

Unfortunately, as per the DNA of the Andrews Labor government, it is actually doing quite the opposite. It is about attacking people for having a go, it is about attacking people that are actually working hard. Rather than putting people up and saying good on you and giving them a bit of a pat on the back for working hard and having a little bit of a go at achieving, it is actually targeting them and saying, ‘You know what – we’re going to tax you.’ And this taxation bill does it. It does it with a schools tax, a rent tax and a job tax. There is a schools tax for the first time in Victoria’s history, which actually sees schools quarantined off like humanitarian foundations. They are quarantined off to say, ‘We’re not going to target schools –

Brad Rowswell: A hundred-year principle in this state.

David SOUTHWICK: It is a hundred-year principle that we were not going to change. We were going to ensure that we would practise what is on our licence plate, and that is being the Education State. Well, how can you be the Education State when you are taxing schools? This government makes the assumption that anyone that does not go to a government school is rich, has plenty of money – let us just have a crack at them. I am going to continue saying this until my lips bleed, because I can tell any of the Labor members that would like to come on down to visit my electorate and talk to many of the schools that literally for many kids who go to those schools it is not a choice; it is actually what they have to do. For many from a faith and religious background, many of those schools have up to 85 per cent of those kids subsidised to go. Many of those schools run all kinds of different activities just to be able to ensure those kids can actually get a Jewish education. We are still unsure about this taxation and whether the fundraising activities to provide those kids the opportunity in a subsidised way – whether payroll tax, effectively $1000 per child – would apply to them. This is going to be really difficult for many of those schools because what are their choices? In some instances in the public system there is a choice. But in their instance, the choice is very, very limited.

So I will be advocating very strongly for many of those schools that are struggling, many of the Catholic schools that are struggling and many of the other independent schools that have kids whose families are really going without so many other things just because they have a choice in their education. So it is a poor tax. It is a tax that is very short-sighted, and it is not giving people choice. What it ultimately does is impact the public system, because when you take kids out of a private school and put them in a public system that is already overburdened, what you end up doing is impacting that in terms of being able to afford to do that.

We are already seeing the actual costs: the highest costs in terms of our public school education of any state. That will further impact them; there is no question. I have got many of my schools, primary schools in my electorate, that are already at capacity. They already have a limit in terms of what they can take within the jurisdiction of where the school is, the boundary of where the school is. They will not be able to take more kids, so it is very much a short-sighted tax.

On the rent tax, we know housing affordability is absolutely at breaking point. We have so many people that are missing out on housing. The idea about being able to grow housing is to build more and encourage people to actually invest in more housing to ensure we put more into the market. That is the easiest way to do things – not in a short-sighted manner. Many people that I have spoken to that have got, effectively, their second home as an investment are simply just saying, ‘You know what, when it hits the threshold and when it does not make sense anymore to keep it, what we do is off we go, we off-load it.’ Many of those properties end up in a whole range of different situations that do not end up in the affordable manner which they need to be. We need more stock. We need more investment. We need more people encouraged to actually make the sacrifices. People think: ‘A second home – well, those people are just absolutely cruising. They’re driving their Ferraris, and everything is really good.’ I know most people that have actually invested in a second property are going without just to ensure that they can get by and that one day that will be their retirement plan. That is their choice, and it is absolutely fair enough. They are paying their tax. But when you are lowering it down to a threshold, as we are at the moment – and do not rely on just me saying that; listen to the Real Estate Institute of Victoria, which says the land tax increase:

… is a tax on families – not the big end of town. The Government is seeking to recoup the budget debt off short-term solutions that will hurt mum and dad property investors and Victorian renters, while …

there are structural supply issues facing the state. Particularly when you are dropping the threshold from $300,000 to $50,000 – these are not big, wealthy homes and investment properties in Toorak and Portsea. These are small units that effectively are now hitting that threshold. The CPA also said landlords:

… were absorbing the rent decreases, they were helping out their tenants and with the recent interest rate rises, those mortgage repayments are really biting …

It’s not a tax about the one per cent. This is really going to attack middle-class Australians who are investing for their future.

They said:

Many landlords will be unable to afford this additional cost.

That is on top of the other rate hikes, the costs and interest rates that we are all going through at the moment. It is a perfect storm in terms of interest rate hikes along with these land tax hikes that the government are now proposing.

Then we have a jobs tax. You only have to look at what Rob Scott, the CEO of Wesfarmers, has to say about this. One of the biggest employers across the state, Wesfarmers has more than 30,000 employees, including at retail brands like Bunnings, Kmart, Target, Officeworks and Priceline. He said:

… the proposed state payroll tax hikes represent a “dangerous strategy” …

He said:

What’s happened as a result of increasing payroll tax is that it’s just made it harder for Victorian businesses to pull wages up, because Victorian businesses are now having to allocate a billion dollars … to the Victorian Government.

Instead of actually trying to help workers, we are just trying to help the government. That would be okay if we were paying down debt, but we are increasing debt at the same time. It just does not make sense. You are actually bringing in more taxation and you are increasing debt, and that simply shows you have got a government that cannot manage money. It is in the government’s DNA – it is in Labor’s DNA – that they cannot manage money, and they have proved it again. If taxes go up, debt goes up and everyone is left wondering how you could do that. It would be like managing a household budget and maxing your credit card and saying, ‘That’s all right, I’ll just get another one. And I’ll get another one.’ Before you know it you have got a dozen credit cards and you are absolutely at a point where you have got to sell everything. That is where we are at the moment because Victoria is broke. Victoria is broke because the Andrews Labor government has sent Victoria that way. They have no care in the world. They do not manage the budget like it is their own, they manage it like there is simply no care in the world. It is dangerous. It is very, very dangerous. It does not set Victoria up for the future.

We have often talked about this really wonderful state. We all love Victoria – we all do. I am sure even those members of government that live in their electorates want to do their best, but unfortunately we are not seeing it in this budget. We simply are not seeing it in this budget. It is not going to send the signals that are going to turn things around for Victoria. If I was New South Wales at the moment, I would be rolling out the red carpet to businesses. The likes of Rob Scott from Wesfarmers and others will be going straight over to New South Wales because the Andrews Labor government has sent Victoria broke. It is all very well to talk the talk, but the Andrews Labor government need to walk the talk, and this budget fails to deliver. We are the highest taxing state in the nation. The government can scream and shout all they like, but they know they have failed. They have failed Victorians, they have failed their electorates, and unfortunately we are all going to pay the price through more taxation, more pain and no future for hardworking Victorians that have sacrificed so much but are being penalised just because they want to have a go and work hard.

Darren CHEESEMAN (South Barwon) (12:17): It is my pleasure today to rise on the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2023, and I do so in recognition, really, of the context. The state taxation bill is presented every year at the same time that the budget bills are indeed presented, and the context for those things – and the reason why they are obviously presented on the same day – is that, as with all good parliamentary process, you need to ensure that the taxation bills that are put in place are put in place to help support the delivery of the budget and, importantly, the aspirations of the government of the day. Context is of course incredibly important in these debates, and nuance indeed is fundamental to this.

We were given the great gift of government in 2014. The Andrews Labor government, in being given that great responsibility to govern the state of Victoria, went about healing the challenges and the difficulties inflicted on the state of Victoria by the Liberal Party when they were given that great gift of government. What we went about doing was delivering the productivity-enabling infrastructure that our growing state needed. We had a great plan to remove the level crossings that were dangerous and congested throughout Melbourne, and we went about putting in place the infrastructure that our state needed. We went about doing that in the context that we wanted to create a better state, a stronger state and a state that provides for every single working family across Victoria, to make sure that we had the infrastructure that our state quite rightly deserves. Through that process we went about building a long-term productivity-enabling plan that delivered for the state of Victoria. As we all know, the Victorian economy was very much and continues to be the engine room of the Australian economy. That is because the plan that we put in place was driving jobs, driving investment and making our state very much a better place to be. In a very determined way we went about rebuilding the TAFE sector in this state to make sure that we had the skills pipeline in place to enable us to deliver the productivity-enabling infrastructure that our state quite rightly deserved, and the people of Victoria indeed endorsed us on that journey on a number of occasions.

As I say, context is important. A one-in-100-year pandemic came along, and the Andrews Labor government, as did governments across the globe, had to step in. We had to step in to protect the health and safety of Victorians, we had to step in to protect small business and we had to step in to protect the jobs of Victorians in this state. What we had to do as a consequence of those things was spend money that otherwise we would not have had to spend. Context is important in that. Whilst we were doing that – whilst we were making those investments in protecting Victorians, protecting small business and protecting jobs – we saw the coalition doing everything that they could to undermine the budget context of this state, denying the Andrews Labor government where they could the opportunity to do that in as efficient a way as possible. Nevertheless, we did it. We achieved it, and that was a terrific thing.

When you look at our budget context and the measures that we put in place, and indeed the hard work of the Treasurer and the cabinet, we had the financial resources and capacity to do what needed to be done to protect our economy. On the other hand, if you look at the federal government and the decisions that they made, not necessarily just in the context of the pandemic but over the years beforehand, they did not build the budget context that they needed to have built to enable them to step in to the extent that they needed to step in to protect our economy. As a consequence, during the pandemic they did not have the financial capacity to step in and match Victoria’s efforts, let alone the efforts of other states and territories around this country. That is the reality. Context is important.

In the context of the budget and budget day, we of course quite rightly have needed to bring some additional revenue measures to the table to pay down not the debt associated with productivity-enabling infrastructure – the jobs-generating debt that this state does need that is healthy – but more importantly the short-term debt that is needed to protect the health and safety of Victorians and to protect jobs and to protect small business. These measures that we have brought to the table in this budget, these revenue streams –

A member: Taxes.

Darren CHEESEMAN: whatever word you would like to use – are important for us to pay down the debt associated with protecting Victorians and protecting small business because of the pandemic. If you look at our priorities and the tax measures, the revenue arrangements that we have put in place, and if you look at where we have levied for those priorities, it is on those that have enjoyed the opportunity and the prosperity of Victoria’s building boom and property boom over the last couple of decades.

Our priorities are clear. Our priorities are about protecting Victorians, putting in place the revenue streams that are required to rebuild the budget as a consequence of a one-in-100-year pandemic. Our priorities are right. This does not mean these steps are easy, because they are not. But it is important that we take these measures, that we effectively rebuild our budget so that the next time there is a global economic shock, no matter what that looks like, no matter what causes it, we have got the financial capacity, the firepower, to respond to those challenges. And that is what we are doing now.

In my lifetime in politics and as an adult I have seen a number of economic shocks. I have seen the consequences of governments making sound decisions well before those economic shocks so that they have the capacity to respond to those economic shocks. That is what this budget does, and that is why it is important that we embrace these revenue measures. I commend this bill to the Parliament.

Annabelle CLEELAND (Euroa) (12:26): I rise today to speak on the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2023, a bill that I believe will further contribute to Victoria’s cost-of-living crisis. I stand in fierce opposition to this bill, a bill that enacts the payroll and land tax changes outlined in the brutal state budget handed down last week. Someone needs to stand up for the 6.8 million Victorians who are set to be worse off under this budget, and that is what the opposition is doing.

Since Labor was elected nine years ago Victoria’s tax rate is set to double, as nearly 50 new taxes have been introduced. This bill is littered with taxes on aspiration and taxes on a fair go. Labor’s school tax, Labor’s rent tax, Labor’s job tax and Labor’s debt tax are all taxes on hardworking Victorians at a time when we can least afford it. We believe in giving Victorians every opportunity to get ahead, not taxing them for the pleasure. Where is the Australia that is the land of opportunity, one that we promote to new citizens when they take their oath of citizenship, or the land of the fair go, where hard work will be rewarded and rewards come to those who give it a go? Where is the state that for years has been home to the world’s most livable city? What a joke that is when our residents cannot afford to live, work or play here under the Andrews Labor government. This government is asking hardworking Victorians to foot the bill for its financial incompetence, and we have had enough. This is a budget that punishes Victorians for trying to get ahead, and ultimately despite all this, net debt is still forecast to grow to a staggering $171.4 billion within four years.

Life is going to get harder for regional Victorians under Labor, with this budget slashing funding in key areas, including regional roads, health and agriculture. Victoria’s regional roads will stay in a state of disrepair, with maintenance funding slashed by 45 per cent since 2020 and from $702 million to just $441 million in the last year alone. There have been 134 deaths on Victorian roads in 2023, which is 38 per cent more than at this time last year. That is 134 Victorian families who are grieving. Instead of having a heart and pledging to fix the state of the roads, this government is ripping hundreds of millions of dollars from road maintenance. Politicians in this government seem to have lost touch with reality. But please know this budget will have devastating consequences on the lives of regional Victorians.

Key regional economic drivers like agriculture have suffered in this budget, with funding down 34 per cent on last year, from $687.3 million to $454.8 million. Cuts to regional development continue, with spending halved, from $211 million to $106 million in this year’s budget. These cuts are not new. Since 2020 it has been slashed by 80 per cent. This is on top of the sustainable native timber industry being shut down ahead of schedule – a death warrant for communities in the state’s east.

Victorian farmers and farm businesses continue to weather uncertain international markets and will now face cuts to trade and global development. $60.3 million or almost 60 per cent has now been cut from this since 2020. What will be left of our state when all our primary industries are shut down, people are jobless, industries are outsourced and communities are decimated, becoming once-prosperous ghost towns?

I have talked about our regional roads and the risks to the lives of those who are on them daily, but what of our health system, which is supposed to care for these people? Victorians are being punished for Labor’s financial incompetence. As state budget figures confirm, the Andrews government will cut $1 billion from the health budget, and this comes against the backdrop of an ageing population and post-COVID recovery. Cuts to health care continue under this government, with a $2 billion cut to health in last year’s budget and further cuts this year, meaning health expenditure will fall from $28 billion to $27 billion in 2023–24. Community health will also suffer this financial year, with $100 million cut from vital community health programs that actively work to prevent further stress on our hospitals. Elective surgery waitlists remain long and ambulance response times continue to fail to hit targets. Thanks to Labor’s financial mismanagement of the health system, patients are not getting the health services they deserve or the services that they critically need.

What about the next generation? If you are a family hoping to send your children to an independent school, it will cost you an extra $1000 per year every single year for the next decade. If you are hoping to invest in the property market, you will pay an extra $1000 a year for the privilege, and you will go on paying an extra $1000 every year for the next 10 years. If you are a business wanting to grow and employ more people, you will be slogged with higher payroll tax. If you are looking to buy a new home and land package, you will be paying more because developers will now be paying more in land tax. And if Victorians are hoping for a pay increase this year, I also have bad news. This budget increases payroll tax when the government’s own Department of Treasury and Finance has demonstrated that lower payroll taxes result in higher wages for employees.

For tens of thousands of families across the state, this budget will cost them $30,000 over the next decade. We oppose these costs on Victorians and we oppose taxes on aspiration and taxes on a fair go. This brutal budget has simply come at a time when Victorians can least afford it. Living costs are rising and new higher taxes are not the way to solve this. There are growing financial pressures and increasing difficulties for people to meet their everyday expenses, maintain a decent standard of living and save for the future. Several factors contribute to the cost-of-living crisis, including housing affordability, rising utility costs, healthcare expenses and stagnant wage growth. None of these factors will be resolved through these taxes.

Victoria, particularly in regional areas, has experienced a surge in property prices and rental costs over the years. The demand for housing coupled with limited supply has driven up prices, making it increasingly difficult for individuals and families to afford suitable accommodation. I, like many others, have serious concerns over the introduction of the new land tax. This land tax will only increase the growing strain on people trying to get by. What is more, it will do nothing to address rental affordability for those looking for a house, because the pressure will go up the chain. The new annual charge is expected to apply to about 380,000 home owners, who would previously not have paid the tax.

In towns across the Euroa electorate, the lack of supply of housing has already seen rental prices soar. Data earlier this year showed the Strathbogie shire, which sits in my electorate, saw the largest percentage increase in the median rental price across the entire state. The median price of houses in the area rose 19.1 per cent to $420 a week, up from just $353 in December 2021. Neighbouring council areas Alpine, Campaspe and Indigo also saw significant rises, with rent increasing by over 13 per cent in each shire. Ten council areas in the state posted double-digit rent rises. In the township of Euroa there are few homes available for rent, and costs have increased significantly. The extra strain on property owners and landlords will see this burden grow even more. On top of the impact on the prices that the housing crisis has had, right across the state we have waitlists for housing that are completely out of control. There are hundreds of people urgently waiting for housing in towns right across the Euroa electorate, including Seymour, Benalla and the Broadford district.

Homelessness is already a concern in my electorate. From 2012 to 2019 nearly 1200 people in the Mitchell, Strathbogie and Benalla LGAs required support from specialist homelessness services. These taxes will only amplify this issue, and the housing crisis is in dire need of being solved. I am regularly contacted by people who are in desperate need of housing, and they are continually being told there is simply no supply to house them. Recently I had my colleague the member for Kew Jess Wilson visit my electorate to meet with key stakeholders across the housing industry, including real estate agents, builders, developers and contractors, to discuss the hurdles facing increasing housing supply. We heard that prospective regional home owners were being hit with a double whammy of increased prices and exponentially rising interest rates. Of course there is nothing in the budget to increase supply or to even address investors coming back to the market. It begs the question as to who was consulted on these taxes when the Real Estate Institute of Victoria calls them a ‘horror move’. More taxes on everyday Victorians is not the answer. I want people to be able to grow up, raise their family and own a home in their own community without having to save for decades and be burdened by taxes. These taxes are going to make it much more difficult for young people, for vulnerable people – for everyday people – who are simply asking for a roof over their head. Victorians already have enough on their plates. Every day constituents come into my office saying they are concerned about the rising energy prices, describing the impact on their livelihoods that these rises are having. Multiple people visited my electorate office last week asking for directions to clothing bins and food banks. Many hardworking Australians are now finding it unmanageable. At a time when things are tough the taxes in this bill do nothing but promote stagnant wage growth. Victorian families are struggling to maintain their standard of living, despite working hard and earning a regular income. Businesses and job creation will be stifled through these taxes, not just big businesses as this government suggests. You cannot tax your way to prosperity. Instead it piles on the burden when we can least afford it.

Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (12:36): It is an absolute pleasure to rise this afternoon and speak on the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2023. As per usual all we hear from the opposition is questions, with no alternative about what they would do, and that is really, really disappointing. For some on the other side, I saw a guy with a tattoo a long time ago that said ‘Better to appear stupid than open your mouth and remove all doubt’. I would say that some people on the opposite side of the chamber could get that tattoo.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, for fear of letting the member prove his point about himself, I would, on relevance, ask you to bring the member back to the bill, which is the state taxation bill. I understand the government is embarrassed about these new taxes, but I would ask you to bring the member back to the bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Points of order are not an opportunity to continue debate. This has been a wideranging debate, and the member is to continue.

Paul EDBROOKE: What an embarrassing non-point of order. We have had some very difficult circumstances globally – we have – and governments across the globe have been asked, in the format of being elected to govern their communities, to make hard decisions, and this government has actually done that. We heard today the member for Caulfield basically talking down Victoria, inviting businesses to leave Victoria. We heard the member for Euroa assuming that –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, it is out of order to cast aspersions about members in this place other than by substantive motion. The member has been here for long enough to know that. I would ask you to bring the member back to the question.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the point of order, I did not hear the member refer to an individual. I would ask the member to continue on debate without making imputations.

Paul EDBROOKE: Oh, jeez. If I was Mr Smith, I would have quit too, to be honest. Melbourne is Australia’s fastest growing city. Victoria is still the economic engine room of Australia. We know that. But it is hard decisions like the ones made in this taxation bill that need to be made. Let us just go back to November last year. We had a state opposition that unlike any other opposition in the country just grovelled and was negative about the challenge that this government faced. Every decision that was made on the health perspective was wrong – this, that and the other. They were pretty much in their bubble and they continued to talk Victorians down, but Victorians made a concerted effort to get out to the polls and make sure that they had their voices heard. They did so, and in this chamber, fantastically, we are one member up on the government side because of that. That is because this government made those hard decisions. It was General Petraeus from the United States Army who was in an interview about the first invasion of Iraq, I believe it was – I think these are words for everyone to live by – and they are that ‘People will forgive you if you make the wrong decision, but people will not forgive you if you do not make a decision at all.’ We were in a crisis. We were on a journey that we had not seen before – a one-in-100-year event – and the Treasurer, members of cabinet and members on this side of the house knew that decisions would have to be made which were not going to be popular. We had to make sure that we had our priorities right to protect life, to protect business, to protect jobs and to protect families, and that is what we did. I will not apologise for that, and no-one on this side of the house will.

What those opposite are missing is the fact that they did not show an alternative – and today they are still not showing an alternative. All we hear are questions: ‘We need to solve this problem. We need to solve X problem. We need to solve Y problem.’ What we are not hearing from most of those opposite is an alternative to this bill, how they would do things. If we are not going to receive $8.4 billion from a certain tax, then where is that going to come from to make sure that we are in the black in the 10-year plan? Where is it going to come from? This is the answer to the questions that I am not hearing today. The answer is: in this bill.

I think it was a previous speaker that said that we take joy in these taxes. No-one takes joy in these decisions. No-one took joy in some of the decisions we had to make during a one-in-100-year crisis to save lives, save those jobs and save families. Some of those decisions were very tough. For me and I can say, I think, most people on this side of the house, the amount of contact, the amount of phone calls and the amount of emails we had during that period were very tough too. But still I make no apologies for making sure that people who made a lot of coin, let us be honest, throughout the COVID crisis and others that can help repay that debt do so to make sure all of Victoria is in a position where, if a crisis like this happened again, we could battle it.

We heard the member for Caulfield talking down Victoria, and we have heard quite a few people do that. I do take umbrage –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, you ruled earlier on my point of order that it was out of order to cast aspersions about a member other than by a substantive motion. You ruled on that point of order. Again I would say that the member has just done that, and I would ask you to reinforce the order that you made earlier.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! If you recall my words at the time, I asked the member to continue without them. I did not rule on your point of order. It is out of order for imputations on a member; it is within order to comment on debate and what members have said.

Paul EDBROOKE: Come on, Brighton, you can do better than this. I expect better from you. You are still playing politics. Even in opposition during COVID they were paralysed, and they are paralysed now. They do not want to make decisions. They do not want to make unpopular decisions. They are just sitting there picking and choosing bits of tax legislation that they think they can score political points with.

Economists and our community support our plan for the future. We have heard that since the budget dropped last week. Victorians understand that governments need to govern. Victorians also understand that oppositions need to do what oppositions do. We could have handed a million-dollar cheque to every Victorian last week, and they still would find something wrong with it. There would still be something wrong, as there always is.

Yes, we are asking that those that can and others that made good in COVID contribute over a 10-year period for the support and the good of all Victorians. I for one do not apologise for that, and I commend this bill to the house.

Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (12:44): This is a horrible, pernicious bill, because contrary to the claims made by the members of the Labor government, this does not target those who have got the capacity to pay. This does not target those who have done really well out of the pandemic. I do not think there are too many kids attending mid-fee independent schools who did really well out of the pandemic. In fact in my experience kids have been damaged badly by two years of lockdown and two years of being kept out of school by this authoritarian government during the pandemic. Believe me, we have not seen the end of the mental health devastation caused by this government’s action, particularly to younger generations.

Mathew Hilakari interjected.

Michael O’BRIEN: You try getting a child psychologist appointment today, member for Point Cook, and you will struggle because of what your government did. And now these victims of Labor’s lockdowns are going to be punished yet again. How many kids are actually going to be taken out of school because their parents cannot afford the – oh, he rolls his eyes. That is the absolute disregard that Labor MPs have for the pain they are inflicting on Victorian families and Victorian schoolkids. Maybe you should be in this place for more than 5 minutes before you start telling us how to do –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Through the Chair, member for Malvern.

Michael O’BRIEN: It is absolutely appalling, because I have seen kids who have been damaged by what this government has done. I have seen them. I have spoken to them. I have spoken to their parents, in tears not knowing what they can do. This budget bill makes it harder. This budget bill will lead to kids being taken out of their schools. There is no doubt about that. This is going to cost about $1000 a year extra in school fees – $1000 a year. Where is that money supposed to come from? We know there is a cost-of-living crisis. We know the budget says unemployment is going to go up, not down. We know the budget says that wages are going to fall rather than rise. So where is the extra $1000 a year going to come from? Perhaps little socialist Ken over there thinks that there is just a magic money tree parents can pay school fees from. That is not the real world.

I deal in the real world with parents who struggle and work two jobs or more to send their kids to a school that reflects their values, and yes, sometimes reflects their faith. There is nothing wrong with that is there? I thought we lived in a pluralistic society where parents can send their kids to a school that reflects their values and reflects their faith – or no faith. But apparently this government is now targeting people who want to send their kids to a school that reflects their values and their faith. It is saying, ‘We’re separating you. We’re targeting you. We’re going to make you pay for our financial mistakes.’ Because that is what this state taxation bill does. It says in fact in relation to my electorate, where there is not a government secondary school – thank you very much, you have been in power for what, 26 out of the last 30 years but there is not a single government secondary school in my electorate –

Chris Couzens: You could have done it when you were in power.

Michael O’BRIEN: We built the ones in Stonnington and Prahran, thank you very much, member for Geelong, not that you have ever been there.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Through the Chair.

Ros Spence: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, and you have actually covered off on my point of order, the member has a couple of times now referred to ‘you’, and I would ask that you do bring the member back to referring to –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do remind all members to refrain. There is context, but the member to continue through the Chair.

Michael O’BRIEN: I thank the minister at the table, the Minister for Prevention of Family Violence, for wasting more of my time. Perhaps that is a good thing to do rather than just thinking up new ways to impose new taxes on Victorian families, which is all this government’s front bench and back bench seem to do.

So there is no government secondary school in my electorate, but I can tell you that every single secondary school that is in my electorate – non-government, independent – is going to be hit by this. Every single one of them, and it is the kids –

A member interjected.

Michael O’BRIEN: He is smiling, he is laughing. Socialist Ken can chuckle his head off over there, but frankly this is disgraceful behaviour.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Minister, I think I can pre-empt –

Ros Spence: I think you probably can. On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member is now defying your ruling. I ask you to –

Michael O’BRIEN: I did not say ‘you’ at all.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would encourage the member to use correct titles.

Michael O’BRIEN: Well, if it is disorderly to respond to interjections, it is also disorderly to make them.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order would be appreciated.

Michael O’BRIEN: This is an appalling bill because it targets kids. It targets parents who are working their guts out to try and give their kids an opportunity. I was brought up in a single-parent household. My mum had her family a world away in Ireland. She worked her guts out to send me and my brother to the local Catholic school. It was not an expensive one, but it would have been hit by this. There is no way my mum could have found an extra thousand bucks or 2000 bucks for her two boys to go to the local Catholic school. What does the government say to people like my mum? ‘Bad luck, find a third job’ – is that their argument? Find a third job to give your kids that opportunity? Yes, I am passionate about this, because I can see that this sort of bill would really have affected people like me and people like my mum. Opportunities that we have had because of investment and education are going to be denied to other kids and other families, and that is wrong. For a government that wants us to be the Education State, they should not be doing this, but that is what this bill does. The government has got this seriously wrong, and that is why I am very proud to stand with the Shadow Treasurer, the Shadow Minister for Finance and the Leader of the Opposition to say that a Liberal–Nationals government will repeal this pernicious schools tax, because it is terrible. It will hurt lives, it will hurt families and it will hurt kids, and no government worth its salt should be doing that.

In relation to the other measures in this bill, this government seems to think that increasing taxes is what constitutes tax reform. Can I say, as a former Treasurer, there are lots of ways you can reform taxes. You can cut payroll taxes, like we did when we were in office. You can cut WorkCover premiums twice instead of bumping them up by 42 per cent, which this government is doing. You could have reformed the fire services levy, which is what we did, and we made sure it was much fairer. It was a reform recommended by the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission and something governments had dodged for 50 years, and it was our government that actually did that and delivered tax cuts in the process. That is tax reform.

Just raising taxes, targeting people who you think do not vote for you much, is not tax reform; that is gutless, that is. It is gutless. The old immigrant couple who have worked their whole lives to have a little holiday shack – apparently they are now the top end of town and they deserve to be taxed. Anything with a site value of $50,000 now cops a $500 tax every single year. This is often going to be hitting pensioners who really cannot find a spare $500, particularly given the government’s Essential Services Commission has just approved a 25 per cent increase in electricity default offers starting from 1 July. So at the same time electricity prices are going up 25 per cent, this government is saying, ‘We’re going to increase your taxes as well on your little holiday shack.’ Or maybe they have actually invested – they did not have superannuation in the 1960s and 70s or really in the 80s. A lot of people who worked very hard in low-paying jobs but wanted to look after themselves in their retirement might have bought an investment flat, and all of a sudden those properties are now going to be taxed with a huge new land tax, both an increased fixed charge and also an increased variable charge for places with site values over $300,000.

The government that came to office initially in 2014 promising no new taxes – we know what an untruth that has been. Member for Sandringham, is it about 50 we are up to now – 50 new and increased taxes?

Brad Rowswell: Almost 50.

Michael O’BRIEN: Almost 50. Well, I am sure they will be raising the bat to the pavilion very, very shortly, because this government cannot help themselves but to increase taxes. At the end of the day this is a government that believe they know how to spend Victorians’ money better than the Victorians who earned it. They genuinely believe that they are smarter than the Victorians who work hard and earn the money and that they have a right to take that money and spend it on things that they think are more important.

This is not about the pandemic. This does not even reduce debt; debt still increases. This is actually about paying for the Labor Party’s 2022 election promises, because when you look at the amount of money that the Labor Party promised in 2022, it is pretty much equivalent to the amount of extra taxes the government is imposing here. In fact the government told Victorians, ‘You can have all this new stuff, and it won’t cost you anything.’ The fact is it was untrue. This is a budget which is going to divide Victorians, it is a budget which is going to target Victorians –

Juliana Addison interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wendouree!

Michael O’BRIEN: and the worst thing about it is that there are going to be kids who will be thrown out of their schools because of what this government has done.

Chris COUZENS (Geelong) (12:54): I am pleased to rise to contribute on the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2023. Can I first begin by noting National Reconciliation Week and the sharing of culture and connection to country of First Peoples. I mention that because of the vital work that First Peoples undertook during the COVID pandemic right across this state but also in my electorate of Geelong – organisations like the Wathaurong Aboriginal Co-operative, Wadawurrung Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation and the Barwon Health Aboriginal health unit. This was about keeping our community safe, and additional funding was provided to those organisations to ensure that First Nations people were getting the support and care that they needed during that pandemic.

We also had our healthcare professionals, disability workers, childcare workers, teachers and other workers in supermarkets and on the front line putting their own safety at risk during the pandemic. I know we on this side of the house are very grateful for their commitment to and passion for their community and the work they did during the pandemic, which was extremely challenging for everyone. That vital financial support that was required to keep our community safe during the pandemic and the costs associated with that are what we are now dealing with today. I think it is important to explain to the Parliament and the Victorian people the reason why the COVID debt levy is needed. I think most people can remember very clearly what we all experienced during that pandemic and the fact that the pandemic hit Victoria really hard and we had to borrow billions of dollars to prevent economic scarring that would leave generations of people out of work. So this was about providing safe and secure environments for people, ensuring that they were getting the COVID treatment that they needed and making sure our hospital system was able to cope with the demands. There were so many measures that were required to be put in place to keep Victorians safe, and that is exactly what this government did. There is no doubt of that.

In fact when I talk to my community, of course nobody likes having to pay extra for anything, but they understand what we have just experienced. They are not interested in listening to the harping and carping of those opposite. That really did not do them any favours during the election, did it? That is why we are back on this side of the house, and they are sitting over there still lost in whatever universe they are in, because people are not listening to them. They are not listening to them. People in my community and right across this state are saying, ‘We actually understand why these measures were put in place and we appreciate those measures,’ which is why we won the 2022 election and in fact picked up an extra seat, in Ripon. So people do appreciate the work that this government has done.

The member for Frankston made a comment about good leadership and how important that is. Well, yes, it is, and my community certainly appreciated the strong leadership of this government in making decisions that not everyone was happy with but that actually kept us safe and made sure that those most vulnerable in our community were getting the treatment that they needed. We directly invested almost $40.1 billion to keep the community safe, people in jobs and businesses afloat and to support households. There was so much that was put into those areas to ensure businesses were still able to continue once the pandemic was over. In fact some businesses in my community said it was the best financial time for them. I mean, obviously the pandemic was not great, but they actually made more income because of what was put in place by this government and by the federal government, because they needed that support to continue.

We provided rent relief, additional mental health services and direct financial support to people, and we moved quickly to prepare our healthcare system, which we know was having enormous pressure put on it because of the demands through people having COVID and needing to be hospitalised. They were horrific scenes that we were seeing, where people really needed that support. We were making the decisions to make sure that they got the health care that they needed.

Our teachers stepped up. We hear from the other side all the criticism about schools being locked down. Well, our teachers deserve every praise for actually stepping up and doing what they needed to do for homeschooling to continue and then when they were back in the schoolroom actually making sure that students were safe and that teachers were safe. What we should be doing is praising the work of all those frontline workers, all those people that stepped up during an absolutely critical time in our history that none of us had ever experienced before. I commend the bill to the house.

Sitting suspended 1:00 pm until 2:01 pm.

Business interrupted under resolution of house of 18 May.