Tuesday, 14 May 2024
Bills
State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024
Bills
State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024
Statement of compatibility
Tim PALLAS (Werribee – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Economic Growth) (11:22): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024:
In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024.
In my opinion, the State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024 (Bill), as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with the human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this Statement.
Overview
The Bill makes a number of amendments to the Duties Act 2000, the Gambling Taxation Act 2023 (Gambling Taxation Act), Land Tax Act 2005 (Land Tax Act), the Payroll Tax Act 2007, the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the Taxation Administration Act 1997 (TA Act), the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Environment Protection Act) and the Victorian Conservation Trust Act 1972.
Many provisions of the Bill do not engage the human rights listed in the Charter because they either do not affect natural persons, or they operate beneficially in relation to natural persons.
Human rights issues
The rights under the Charter that are relevant to the Bill are the right to privacy and the presumption of innocence.
Right to privacy: section13
Section 13(a) of the Charter provides that every person has the right to enjoy their private life, free from interference. This right applies to the collection of personal information by public authorities. An unlawful or arbitrary interference to an individual’s privacy will limit this right.
Social or emergency housing exemption: Land Tax Act
Clause 12 of the Bill introduces sections 78B and 78C into the Land Tax Act which relevantly provide that in order to obtain a land tax exemption in relation to social or emergency housing, the owner of the land must apply to the Commissioner for the exemption and provide the Commissioner with any information the Commissioner requests for the purpose of enabling the Commissioner to determine whether the land is exempt.
To the extent that the collection of any personal information from a natural person in relation to these land tax exemption applications may result in interference with a natural person’s privacy, any such interference will be lawful and not arbitrary as these provisions do not require that a person’s personal information be published.
Further, these provisions only require the provision of information necessary to achieve the purpose of determining eligibility for the land tax exemption which is exclusively in the taxpayer’s possession. Therefore, there are no other reasonable means available to achieve this purpose.
Presumption of innocence: section25(1)
The right in section 25(1) is engaged where a statutory provision shifts the burden of proof onto an accused in a criminal proceeding, so that the accused is required to prove matters to establish, or raise evidence to suggest, that the accused person is not guilty of an offence.
Gambling Taxation Act amendment and TA Act failure to exercise due diligence
Clause 5 of the Bill inserts new section 14A into the Gambling Taxation Act which requires a casino operator to provide specified information requested by the Commissioner within a specified timeframe. Clause 23 of the Bill amends section 130B of the TA Act to specify that if a body corporate commits an offence against new section 14A of the Gambling Taxation Act, an officer of the body corporate also commits an offence against that provision if the officer failed to exercise due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence by the body corporate.
Although this provision requires a defendant to raise evidence of a matter to rely on a defence, it imposes an evidential, rather than legal burden.
Courts in other jurisdictions have generally taken the approach that an evidential onus on a defendant to raise a defence does not limit the presumption of innocence. The defences and excuses provided relate to matters within the knowledge of the defendant, which is appropriate in circumstances where placing the onus on the prosecution would involve the proof of a negative which would be very difficult. Therefore, this amendment is compatible with the right to the presumption of innocence protected by the Charter.
Conclusion
For these reasons, in my opinion, the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the rights contained in sections 13 and 25(1) of the Charter.
TIM PALLAS MP
Treasurer
Second reading
That this bill be now read a second time.
I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.
Incorporated speech as follows:
It is with pleasure that I introduce this Bill to deliver a number of 2024–25 Budget initiatives. The Bill also amends several state taxation laws to support fair and effective revenue management for all Victorians.
The Bill contains amendments to the Duties Act 2000, the Environment Protection Act 2017, the Gambling Taxation Act 2023, the Land Tax Act 2005, the Payroll Tax Act 2007, the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Act 2023, the Taxation Administration Act 1997 and the Victorian Conservation Trust Act 1972 to ensure their consistent operation.
Budget measures
Land tax exemption for social and emergency housing
In line with the 2024–25 Budget announcement, the Bill amends the Land Tax Act 2005 to introduce a social and emergency housing exemption. Existing land tax exemptions, such as those for public statutory authorities and charities, cover many types of social and emergency housing but not all situations are exempt. The new exemption covers social housing or emergency housing owned directly by an appropriate housing provider, as well as privately-owned housing where the owner has engaged a provider to manage the property. Vacant land declared for future use as social and emergency housing by a charity will also be exempt. The exemption reflects the diverse range of delivery models in use by the community housing sector and supports the reduction of costs for owners who use land for this purpose. The new exemption will commence on 1 January 2025 for the 2025 land tax year onwards.
Waste levy changes
In Victoria we send around 4.8 million tonnes of waste to landfill each year. This is a waste of precious resources, which could be avoided by reducing the amount of waste we generate and recycling more. To drive this change, and support Victoria’s transition to circular economy, waste levies will be increased from 1 July 2025. The Bill amends the Environment Protection Act 2017 to increase the metropolitan municipal and industrial waste levy from to $169.79 per tonne from 1 July 2025. The amendment also proportionally increases the waste levy rates at rural landfills, which attract lower levies than metropolitan landfills, and increases the reportable priority waste levy for Category C and D wastes to $169.79 per tonne from 1 July 2025. The rates for other categories of priority waste are unchanged to continue encouraging the safe disposal of hazardous waste materials. These changes harmonise Victoria’s waste levy rates with the comparable rates in New South Wales and South Australia and will encourage investment in resource recovery infrastructure and disincentivise waste going to landfill. The revenue raised from the waste levy provides core funding for agencies including the Environment Protection Authority, Sustainability Victoria and Recycling Victoria. The remaining revenue is added to the Sustainability Fund to advance environmentally sustainable uses of resources, best practices in waste management, and community action or innovation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or address climate change in Victoria.
Conservation covenants
The Bill amends the Victorian Conservation Trust Act 1972 to establish a legislated trust to support the establishment of conservation covenants by Trust for Nature (the Trust) to protect and conserve privately owned land in metropolitan Melbourne. To support the Trust’s work, the Victorian Conservation Trust Act 1972 is amended to establish the Vacant Land Conservation Covenants Account (the Account) under the Trust Fund. The Secretary of the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) may authorise payments out of the Account to the Trust for reasonable costs and expenses incurred in relation to the entry of conservation covenants for land that is in metropolitan Melbourne, is vacant and unimproved (does not have a dwelling) and is within a zone other than a non-residential zone. DEECA’s annual report prepared under Part 7 of the Financial Management Act 1994 must include details about income and expenditure in relation to the Account along with the number of covenants entered into as a result of money paid out of the Account.
Vacant residential land tax amendments
Expanding the holiday home exemption
As part of the 2024–25 Budget the Bill amends the Land Tax Act 2005 to extend the holiday home exemption from vacant residential land tax (VRLT) to certain homes owned by companies or trustees of trusts. Last November the Government committed to extending the exemption to properties held in the name of a trust or company as of 28 November 2023. The current exemption only applies to holiday homes used and occupied by the person who owns the land, or the vested beneficiary of a trust to which the land is subject. The Bill broadens the exemption to allow shareholders of companies, certain beneficiaries of trusts and relatives of those shareholders and beneficiaries to satisfy the holiday home exemption requirements for a property owned by a company or trust. However, the exemption only applies if land has been continuously owned by the same company or a trustee since 28 November 2023 without any change in beneficial ownership (other than any transfers between relatives). The expanded exemption will commence on 1 January 2025 for the 2025 land tax year onwards.
Exempting land contiguous to holiday homes in metropolitan Melbourne
From 1 January 2026, VRLT will apply to unimproved residential land in metropolitan Melbourne that remains undeveloped for 5 years or more, in line with changes to the Land Tax Act 2005 made by the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Act 2023. This change may lead to situations where residential land is used and occupied as a holiday home and therefore exempt from VRLT, but adjoining residential land on a separate title is not exempt because it has been unimproved for 5 years or more. This would result in inconsistent treatment of a holiday home and any land contiguous to the home that enhances its use and occupation. The Land Tax 2005 is therefore amended to allow unimproved residential land contiguous to an exempt holiday home to also be exempt. The amendment commences on 1 January 2026 in line with the expansion of the VRLT to unimproved residential land in metropolitan Melbourne.
Other amendments
Metropolitan planning levy
The Bill amends the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to provide additional circumstances where metropolitan planning levy (MPL) can be refunded and to extend the 90-day validity period of the MPL certificate. MPL is imposed as a requisite for making a leviable planning permit application for the development of land in metropolitan Melbourne where the estimated cost of the development exceeds a threshold amount. The Commissioner of State Revenue (Commissioner) issues a certificate on the full payment of the levy, which is valid for 90 days after issue. The limited 90-day validity period and inability to provide refunds impose administrative difficulties on planning permit applicants and the State Revenue Office. This includes the need for applicants to extend planning permit applications in many cases, and unfair outcomes where the levy cannot be refunded in unforeseen circumstances. To improve the fairness and effectiveness of MPL, the Bill extends the 90-day certificate validity period to 180 days, and allows refunds applications to be made either where an applicant died before the application was made and no other person is proceeding with the application, or the relevant planning scheme was amended before the application was made resulting in either the proposed leviable development no longer being permitted or no longer requiring a permit. The amendments commence on the day after Royal Assent.
Land tax deductions
The Bill amends the Land Tax Act 2005 to provide a taxpayer, who is a member of only one joint ownership or a beneficiary of only one trust and who owns no other lands individually, is not to be assessed at the secondary level. Both joint owners of land, and land held on trust where a trustee of a fixed trust or unit trust has notified the Commissioner of the beneficial interests in the trusts, are assessed for land tax at two levels. Joint owners are first assessed together on their jointly owned land, and then individually on all taxable land they own, including their interest in any jointly owned land. For affected trusts, the trustee is first assessed on the trust land at the general land tax rates, and then the beneficiary is individually assessed on all taxable land they own, including their beneficial interest in the trust land. In each case, a deduction applies to the individual assessment to reflect the share of land tax that was already assessed to the joint ownership or trustee. The changes to land tax under the COVID Debt Repayment Plan from the 2024 to 2033 land tax years include a temporary fixed charge amount, which currently applies at both the primary and secondary levels. This means the deductions available to some joint owners or relevant beneficiaries may not fully offset the secondary liability as intended, resulting in exposure to double taxation. To remove this anomaly the Land Tax Act 2005 is amended to provide that a taxpayer, who is a member of only one joint ownership or a beneficiary of only one trust and who owns no other lands individually is not to be assessed at the secondary level. This restores the position of the above taxpayers prior to the introduction of the surcharge. The amendment operates retrospectively from 1 January 2024 to ensure it applies for the full duration of the temporary surcharge under the COVID Debt Repayment Plan (2024 to 2033), and that affected taxpayers are not subject to a higher land tax liability than intended for the 2024 land tax year.
Insurance duty
As announced in the 2023–24 Budget and legislated in the State Taxation Acts Amendment Act 2023, duty on business insurance will be gradually abolished over a 10-year period starting from 1 July 2024. Business insurance is defined as general insurance relating to specified classes of business in the Prudential Standards issued by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA). To respond to changes to the classes of business in new Prudential Standards issued by APRA after the introduction of the 2023 amendments, the Bill amends the Duties Act 2000 to include Directors & Officers insurance and Cyber insurance as classes of business insurance for insurance duty purposes. This amendment is proposed to come into operation from 1 January 2025, to provide insurance providers with sufficient time to update their systems and processes.
In recognition that APRA may issue new or amended Prudential Standards in the future, the Duties Act 2000 is also amended to give the Treasurer the power, by notice published in the Government Gazette, to include other APRA classes of business as business insurance under the Duties Act 2000, or to carve out one or more kinds of insurance under a class of business from the same definition.
It is my intention to exclude public liability cover attaching to householder insurance (which is otherwise part of the public and product liability class of business) to ensure such insurance is not included within the definition of business insurance, by making of a declaration to that effect after the Bill has passed. This declaration will be effective from 1 July 2024.
Casino tax records
The Bill amends the Gambling Taxation Act 2023 to enable the Commissioner to compel a casino operator to produce a document or information on a prospective basis for periods of up to 6 months. The Victorian casino operator is required to lodge a return and pay casino taxes to the Commissioner each month. The Commissioner under section 73 of the Taxation Administration Act 1997 (TAA) has an existing investigative power to require the production of information, documents or things in a person’s custody or control by way of written notice (section 73 notice). However, the Commissioner cannot use a section 73 notice to require the production of records on a regular or ongoing basis, such as the daily records created by the casino operator. The Gambling Taxation Act 2023 is thus amended to enable the Commissioner to require the casino operator to provide information, documents or things specified in a written notice that are or may come into the operator’s possession for a prospective period not exceeding 6 months. In recognition of historical non-compliance by the casino operator in disclosing and reporting on its operations for tax purposes, as identified by the Royal Commission into the Casino Operator and Licensee, the penalty for failure to comply is equivalent to the existing penalty for failure to comply with a section 73 notice under the TAA (500 penalty units in the case of a body corporate and 100 penalty units in any other case). The Bill also amends the TAA to provide for the criminal liability of officers of the casino operator who fail to exercise due diligence to prevent the commission of this offence. The amendment commences on the day after Royal Assent.
Growth areas infrastructure contribution
The Bill amends the Planning and Environment Act 1987 in respect of the growth areas infrastructure contribution (GAIC) to ensure it interacts with section 35 of the Subdivision Act 1988 as intended. The State Taxation Acts Amendment Act 2023 closed a loophole that previously enabled developers to utilise subdivisions under section 35 of the Subdivision Act 1988 (section 35 subdivisions) to excise land for public purposes at an early stage and prior to GAIC being triggered, thus avoiding realisation of a GAIC liability. However, the Planning and Environment Act 1987 further provides that subdivisions do not trigger GAIC if they are carried out by a public authority or municipal council and no additional lots are created, which is applicable to section 35 subdivisions. This may provide an avenue for developers to minimise their GAIC liability in a similar manner. The amendment provides that a section 35 subdivision is only an excluded subdivision if it subdivides land owned by a public authority or municipal council, which aligns with the policy intent to enable these authorities to separate part of a parcel of land that is or has been acquired compulsorily or by agreement from the balance of a parcel. The amendment commences on the day after Royal Assent.
Payroll tax for high-fee non-government schools
The Bill amends the Payroll Tax Act 2007 in respect of the payroll tax exemption applying to non-government schools. The State Taxation Acts Amendment Act 2023 amends the Payroll Tax Act 2007 from 1 July 2024 to limit the exemption to low-fee non-government schools declared by the Minister for Education with the consent of the Treasurer (declared schools). However, the Payroll Tax Act 2007 has other exemptions that high-fee non-government schools (undeclared schools) or related entities providing educational services to them could potentially claim in some circumstances. These include exemptions for wages paid by religious institutions or non-profit organisations to employees engaged exclusively in charitable work, or wages paid to persons providing educational services in connection with the curriculum of a school (other than for profit or gain). Therefore the Payroll Tax 2007 is amended from 1 July 2024 to provide that undeclared schools are not eligible for exemption as religious institutions, and separate entities providing educational services in connection with the curriculum of undeclared schools are not eligible for exemption as religious institutions, non-profit organisations or for educational services, in relation to services provided to undeclared schools. The amendment will reinforce the policy of limiting the exemption for undeclared schools so that their payroll tax treatment aligns with that of government school, without affecting the status of any declared schools from 1 July 2024.
I commend the bill to the house.
James NEWBURY (Brighton) (11:22): I move:
That the debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
That the debate be adjourned until tomorrow.
James NEWBURY (Brighton) (11:23): I am absolutely outraged that the Treasurer would walk into this chamber, introduce a bill that increases tax – two new taxes, I understand, there could be more; we have only just been handed the bill – and they have done it immediately. They have moved these taxes and proposed to guillotine the bill tomorrow. They have proposed to stop any debate by tomorrow. It is absolutely outrageous. We are outraged on behalf of Victorians. What we know already about this bill is that it will increase the waste levy by 30 per cent. On top of that, the government has not consulted with anybody. It has not consulted on new taxes that are being foisted upon Victorians, and these taxes will seriously hurt business.
The second measure, the fire services levy, is a combined take, I understand, of a billion dollars. This bill will hurt people, this bill will hurt businesses, and the Treasurer has just stood up and said he wants to ram it through this chamber. I am not surprised he wants to ram it through this chamber. Of course he does, because he does not want the community to know about it. He does not want the community to consider it, and he certainly does not want non-government members to shine the light that is deserved on this pernicious bill and what it does.
The other element this bill goes to I can only just speak briefly about because I have just been handed the bill. I have only just been handed the bill, but this is going to go straight to the heart of the non-government school tax that the government introduced last year – a tax on children. It is one of the most shameful things this government, in my view, has ever done – to introduce a tax on non-government schools and to tax children. Schools now are effectively paying the state to teach children. We know they are doing an incredible job, and because this government have run out of money they have introduced a tax which hurts schools and which hurts, absolutely, the hip pocket. We know the impact of those taxes not only on non-government schools but on religious schools. We know many religious schools provide services and education to kids who cannot afford them. I know that there are near my community many Jewish schools that provide services to people who cannot afford them, and this tax goes directly to how many children can be taught. This tax absolutely undermines the good work they do.
The coalition will not stand for a bill which partly closes what the government calls ‘loopholes’ around this new school tax. Who knows how many of the members on the other side of the place are even aware that that is what this bill does. This goes straight to the non-government school tax again. And the government and the Treasurer walk into this chamber and say, ‘We’re going to introduce a billion dollars of new taxes. We’re not going to show anyone the bill. We’re going to give you 24 hours effectively.’ We are going to have 24 hours. We can have a short time of debate tomorrow, because they have already confirmed there will be no debate on it today.
Michael O’Brien interjected.
James NEWBURY: A short debate tomorrow, member for Malvern, and they will ram this bill and ram these new taxes through. It is absolutely outrageous. And to think the bill also closes loopholes in relation to non-government schools is absolutely shameful. There is no wonder in my mind that the government want to ram this bill through this place; of course they do. But they need to be called out for it, and every single member that votes to allow this should be condemned for allowing the government to guillotine and ram through a bill so pernicious – but a bill that also introduces a billion dollars of new taxes. This is an outrageous proposition.
Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (11:28): The government sought to move the second readings on the State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024 and the Financial Management Amendment (Gender Responsive Budgeting) Bill 2024 on budget day, and those opposite were more than happy to hear one but not the other.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, we are debating the state tax bill.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are actually debating a procedural motion on whether we adjourn said bill for tomorrow.
Paul EDBROOKE: Thank you for clarifying that to the member for Brighton, Deputy Speaker. This is a disservice to the Victorian community and this Parliament House and a political stunt by those opposite. The Manager of Opposition Business had said that people will be excluded from speaking on this bill, and that is false. The Leader of the House has made clear that this side of the house would love everybody to speak on or make a contribution on the budget, which is why we gave notice of the budget take-note in the first place. It is a procedural debate, and it is clear that what the opposition manager of business is not clear about is that the bill that he was speaking on was not the procedural debate we are speaking on now.
He did mention the fire services levy, and for those opposite, for those at home even, I would say that the fire services levy is being returned to the figure it was under those opposite. It is not a huge increase that is going to blow the bottom out of every household budget, and certainly it is at the figure that was introduced by those opposite.
I know that there are lots of people on this side of the house that would love to speak on the $400 bonus, and we have already heard some factually incorrect hocus, factually incorrect statements made from those opposite, about what that actually is and that people do not get cash in their pockets. Well, you tell that to the person that now does not have to fork out for the camp or the uniforms or something for their kids.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, we are debating a one-day adjournment of this state tax bill. That is what the current debate before the house is, and the member is not debating that matter.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member had strayed from the procedural motion, and we would appreciate him coming back to it.
Paul EDBROOKE: I will reiterate that those opposite did have the choice. Life is full of choices, and they made their choice. We on this side of the house would like to speak about this tomorrow. It is a budget focused on fiscal discipline. It puts us on the right path going forward. And people on this side do want to speak on it and people in our community do want to hear about the facts. I think that those opposite again – it happens outside the chamber and also happens inside the chamber – exhibit mass hysteria, dramatics, acting, when maybe they should open the budget books some time and read the actual budget.
I do note one thing I would like to speak about when we are speaking on the bill, and that is the Frankston Hospital. Apparently there has been a $1.1 billion blowout. How can there be a blowout when that project was increased in scope and had its budget increased in the last budget? You simply do not have blowouts that are indicated in the previous budget, and I for one would like to clarify that, because I know the people in my community know about that. But what has been spread out there recently does not reflect that. Certainly I think this is the sensible way to go. I know those opposite will always not deny an opportunity to waste time, as they are now. This is a time-wasting exercise. It is a stunt.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the motion is a procedural motion in relation to the one-day adjournment, not a defence of 55 new taxes.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Paul EDBROOKE: There is no point of order. I think what the member for Brighton is missing is that big thing of books he always brings up during question time. If you had that, you might have got that one right.
Katie Hall interjected.
Paul EDBROOKE: The Pensky file, thank you member for Footscray. With that I will make a brief closing remark, which is that it is this side of the house that has passed a budget that many people in this house would like to speak on. We are happy to do that. Everyone is invited to speak on the budget, but that will be tomorrow. I know that those opposite will divide on this, and that is fine – that is democracy – but I think we might win the day.
Emma KEALY (Lowan) (11:33): I rise to speak on behalf of my fabulous Nationals colleagues, because we know that it simply is not fair for the democratic processes that we should be adhering to in this place that you would adjourn a bill for one day when you have just tabled it in the Parliament now. We know, as we heard earlier today, that the most important thing that we are going to debate this week is the Financial Management Amendment (Gender Responsive Budgeting) Bill 2024. There is only one day that we are able to debate that in this place, and that is tomorrow.
So what the government are actually saying by introducing this bill urgently, by saying we have to debate it tomorrow and it has to go to the guillotine at 5 o’clock tomorrow is, ‘We don’t want to talk about gender-responsive budgeting. We don’t think that it is important enough to spend just one single day of debate on gender-responsive budgeting.’ Now, that is absolutely hypocritical and not the rhetoric that we usually hear from the Allan Labor government. Usually we hear it is so important that we discuss and debate gender-responsive budgets. In fact it is something we see a whole book dedicated to – it is a very important part of the budget day – but now here we are, when it comes to actually talking about it in this place, of adding to debate, it is diluted down. It is diluted down so we have the ability to spend less time debating and talking about gender-responsive budgeting as opposed to actually putting a focus on that, and we had an opportunity to do so. Labor had an opportunity to have a day focused on that. They have scrapped that through trying to adjourn this debate on this bill to one day rather than the standard 14-day period that is the custom and practice in this place.
What we need to do as well is to have the opportunity. I am sure members of the Labor Party would love to go out to their electorates and explain why they are putting up taxes yet again and why we are going to see from Labor another example of driving up household bills. Part of this legislation is about pushing up the waste levy, making sure we are getting more money into the coffers to fill that budget black hole. There is also another massive increase in the fire services property levy. These are both taxes put on by Labor at a time when we know the former Premier promised no new taxes. Here we are with yet another taxation bill from a Labor government that only knows how to spend money and how to waste money. They certainly do not know how to manage money, they certainly do not know how to manage projects, and it is Victorians that are paying the price.
When we look at this bill, why should it be adjourned for one day? Only because Labor want to hide what they are doing, which is applying more and more taxes on Victorians. They are driving up household bills and they are putting more and more cost-of-living pressures on individuals in our communities, on families in our communities – the families who are struggling to make ends meet. The businesses who employ these people cannot make ends meet. They are looking to go interstate. Almost 8000 businesses from Victoria have moved interstate because they could not be supported by the Victorian government. They know that this is not a good place to do business, and do you know why? It is because of bills like this from the Labor government that just want to tax Victorians to the eyeballs to fill their budget black holes.
We have only just seen this bill, and I am very surprised that part of it is not an element around the mental health levy. That is the one thing the government likes to do when it comes to mental health – continue the mental health tax on businesses. They are not pausing that. But what are we seeing with mental health reforms? All of those recommendations have been kicked into the long-distant future. They are putting a pause on rolling out those recommendations. When it comes to the tax they have an opportunity to put it on hold, to pause it. Does the government stop for a moment to pause the tax on Victorian businesses? Absolutely not. I encourage the government to take the opportunity to reconsider allowing just one day until we debate this bill and then have only a couple of hours on it tomorrow. They are giving stakeholders and Victorians no opportunity to provide any contribution or to see it and are diluting the time that we can allocate to gender-responsive budgeting.
Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (11:38): We are seeing a fair bit of confected outrage, as per usual. I should note that the government sought to move the second readings of the State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024 and the Financial Management Amendment (Gender Responsive Budgeting) Bill 2024 on budget day. Those opposite were more than happy to make one public but not the other. That was a disservice to the Victorian people, and it was a political stunt.
Emma Kealy: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member appears to be reading. I ask her to table the document that she is reading from.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the member reading her speech or referring to notes?
Nina TAYLOR: Referring to notes.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is referring to notes.
Nina TAYLOR: I think I am well renowned for speaking to the chamber, as I always do. Thank you for welcoming me to speak more and even more freely than I do already. Thank you so much to the member for Lowan; I am truly touched. Obviously she really wants me to speak voluminously and expressively and vocally to everyone, so I shall continue to do that. Thank you so much for bringing that forward. That was very generous of you. I am truly touched.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Through the Chair.
Nina TAYLOR: Sorry. I am simply responding to the generous invitation from the chamber to speak in a more profound and more extensive way to the chamber. That is absolutely an honour.
Cindy McLeish: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member knows full well that she is defying your previous ruling and that she is not anywhere near the motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member had strayed somewhat from the procedural motion. I ask her to come back to it and continue.
Nina TAYLOR: Yes, thank you. I take your very considered comments there, Deputy Speaker, duly with the utmost respect that they deserve. I think it will be recorded that I am speaking vocally and broadly to the chamber. I hope that this is being noted by those opposite, although at times I do like to refer to specific elements of bills or otherwise so that we are accurate in the chamber and not necessarily just speaking on flight of fancy or other thoughts as well, so referring to legislation can be very helpful.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, while the member is on a flight of fancy, I would draw you to the fact that you have ruled that the member should get back to the motion, and I am not sure when we will start to hear her contribution on the motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question in front of the house is the procedural motion on the adjournment of the State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024 for tomorrow. I would appreciate it if the member for Albert Park would continue on that debate.
Nina TAYLOR: I welcome it, absolutely. It is absolutely fantastic to have this opportunity to speak on this procedural motion. I do note that the member of the opposition has said that people will be excluded from speaking on the budget, and I would like to put it on notice that this is absolutely untrue. We have made it clear on this side of the house –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, there will be an opportunity tomorrow to debate what the government has introduced by way of a motion explicitly, but that is not what this motion is about, and I would ask you to draw the member back to this motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not uphold that point of order. The member was actually responding to debate previously. There has been a bit of latitude. The member was actually coming back to it.
Nina TAYLOR: This side of the house welcomes every member in this place to make a contribution on the budget, which is why we have given notice of the budget take-note in the first place. That is why we gave notice of the take-note.
A member interjected.
Nina TAYLOR: I hope those opposite heard what I said. I could not hear it above the comment that was coming back to me, but I think I heard what I said, and that was that we have given notice of the take-note opportunity, so I would very much offer to the opposition to take the opportunity to speak to the budget on the take-note as well.
Accordingly, coming back to the fact that this is a procedural motion, we have very much hard work to attend to today. The government business program has been very clear, and I hope that all those in the chamber will take their appropriate opportunity to speak to the relevant legislation.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, with 30 seconds to go I do hope the member gets to the state tax bill and the adjournment of one day, which is what this motion is about.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the member for Albert Park continuing, or has she concluded?
Nina TAYLOR: I have 10 seconds.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the procedural motion, then, please.
Nina TAYLOR: Thank you so much. Accordingly, we propose that – oh dear. (Time expired)
Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (11:43): I assure the house that I will be speaking on the procedural motion, and as I have listened to this debate what has been very clear is that those on the government side do not understand what a procedural motion is. They do not understand what it is and in fact what bill it is that we are even talking about. This is about the adjournment by 24 hours of the State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024 – by 24 hours. When a bill comes into this house, normally when it is adjourned off it is adjourned off for 14 days. There is a bit of a bunfight if it is for 13 days, but the reason it is 14 days, other than custom and protocol, is it means that we can have time to consider the bill very carefully and consult widely. I know that with this bill, the State Taxation Amendment Bill, that has not even happened on the government side. We have now been given this bill hot off the press – it is still quite warm – that they have not got a clue about, and we need to get our heads around it too before it is debated. Having one day, having 24 hours, in which we are expected to analyse and understand what is happening and to get a bill briefing at the last minute is just not good enough.
It is not fair on the opposition. It is certainly not fair on the people of Victoria, because this is about multiple taxes. It is a state taxation amendment bill, and for the government to understand, this is about fiddling with the taxes. Taxes are complex as it is. You cannot just look at one thing and think this is exactly what it means; you have actually got to analyse and look for –
Paul Edbrooke: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, please bring the member back to the procedural motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order actually.
Cindy McLEISH: I began my contribution by talking about the lack of understanding by government members of what a procedural debate is. Perhaps they do need some greater guidance and some training from the clerks about what a procedural debate does entail.
We have one day now, from the introduction of this bill 20 minutes ago, in which to have a look at it and understand the complexities so as to debate it tomorrow. For the Shadow Treasurer, as the lead speaker, that gives him very little time. He has certainly got to do his budget reply today, but then he has to go out and talk to all of the bodies that need to be consulted with. As I am looking here, it affects the Duties Act 2000, the Gambling Taxation Act 2023 and the Land Tax Act 2005 – there are a lot of stakeholders that need to be engaged with. The waste levy is being increased by 30 per cent. There will be lots of stakeholders that need to be consulted about this, and I would imagine the backbenchers would be doing their own stakeholder consultations. They should not just rely on the briefing notes that are being handed to them by the department that say, ‘Say this, say that,’ and believe that what it is about without going out to speak to the real world. They too need time to go and do their own local consultation.
On the waste levy, there would be lots of municipal councils that are really hot under the collar about this 30 per cent increase. There is an alteration to the fire services levy, I believe, and that also needs to be examined in some detail. A couple of taxes could net a billion dollars. These are things that take time for us to go out and consult about. And when you consult with third-party stakeholders they will say, ‘I need a bit of time to digest this. I need a bit of time to understand that.’ On something as complex as taxes, they probably need an extra little bit of time as well.
We have got the schools tax, where they are tightening the grip further. We would like to hear from the schools about how that is going to impact them. They will need time to consider it. I think this is what the government backbenchers do not understand – that when a bill is brought to the house, firstly, people need to understand what that bill is and then why we are debating this, and one day is just not acceptable. The norm, the custom, is 14 days, and that allows everybody to do the relevant consultation. The government knows that it is going to introduce new taxes. It is something that is in their DNA – they consistently hike up taxes. They knew it, and they had time to get this organised so that they would not be bringing it in 5 minutes before it is due to be debated. That is just a failure on all levels.
Assembly divided on motion:
Ayes (51): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, 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, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Dylan Wight, Belinda Wilson
Noes (30): Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Gabrielle de Vietri, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Sam Hibbins, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, John Pesutto, Tim Read, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, Ellen Sandell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until tomorrow.