Wednesday, 28 May 2025

State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2025

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Danny Pearson:

That this bill be now read a second time.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (10:54): I rise to speak on the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2025 on behalf of the coalition. In its substance, much of this bill is about technical changes – not just technical changes – to a number of tax-related bills, including the Commercial and Industrial Property Tax Reform Act 2024, the Land Tax Act 2005, the Payroll Tax Act 2007 and the Taxation Administration Act 1997, as well as others. But what this bill does not do is make any structural tax changes or substantially reduce the tax burden on Victorians.

We have been having a debate in Victoria about that burden. The recent budget highlighted the incredible burden of tax that is being placed upon the shoulders of every Victorian. When you look at the government’s strategy – I suppose if we use the word ‘strategy’ in the loosest possible terms – in their budget and in their most recent budgets, the underpinning of the revenue base for the government’s spending, their overspending, is taxing Victorians. Victorians now know that the tax burden is too great. Over the life of this government wages have gone up by an average of roughly 38 per cent and the tax burden has gone up by 183 per cent. The real winner in this state is the government through its massive, massive tax collection.

The government said before the budget, ‘We promise there will be no new tax increases – promise, promise, promise there’ll be no new tax increases.’ This was on the same week as they passed an emergency services levy that will rip $3 billion from people over the forward estimates. This state tax bill, as I am led to believe, included the previously announced congestion levy. The government advised me that the congestion levy would be included in this bill, but because the government wanted to avoid the community’s deep, deep distress about the level of taxation imposed upon them, the government, as far as I am advised, removed the expansion of the congestion levy from the bill. In the next sitting weeks – I suspect the next sitting week or the one thereafter – we will see a congestion levy bill. So much for the promise of no new taxes. We know that not only was the congestion levy announced and committed to but the budget included the increased revenue. The $100 million of new revenue because of that new tax is in the budget. So the promise of no new tax is simply not true; it is included in the budget. All the government has tried to do, sneakily, is move the measure to impose that new tax from this bill and presumably to its own bill in a couple of weeks time, which just goes to show the duplicity. But I go back to the point: what this bill does not do is deal with structural issues in the tax system or the overburdening of tax upon every Victorian.

There is one thing this bill does do which the coalition has been calling on for some time, as has been publicly reported; this is not something that I am just saying. It has been publicly reported that the coalition has been saying over and over again that on land tax domestic violence victims should not be punished for fleeing because of domestic violence. The government has been sending bills, including, as has been reported, to one victim in Bayside for fleeing their home because of threats of violence. We had a domestic violence victim who received bills from this government – and threats if they did not pay – to pay land tax because they had been threatened with violence. How could that be?

For quite some time the coalition has been trying to get the government to take this issue seriously. I personally wrote to the Premier seven times. That is after writing to the Treasurer and that is after raising it with the minister, who obviously were constrained by the legislation as it was. But I wrote to the Premier seven times and said, ‘We have to do something, Premier.’ So I note that this bill does seek to do something for domestic violence victims in relation to land tax obligations – it is something. However, I do note that the amendment contained in the bill, as far as I am advised from the department, is not retrospective, so any of the victims who have been sent land tax bills because they have fled up to when this bill is given royal assent will not be helped. The government has said to me they will not be helped. This amendment will only be prospective. So we would say to the government: though we absolutely accept that after being dragged kicking and screaming on this issue there has been some attempt to do something in this bill, it will not fix the problem that exists for victims who have raised the issue to date, and that is concerning.

The other concern in relation to this particular measure is this measure has a number of requirements around it, as you would expect. When the measure is tested by the department as to whether or not an exemption exists, one of the tests is whether the person who flees from their property has earned a dollar or any more from that original principal place of residence, because if they have, they are not eligible for an exemption. This has been a very, very contentious issue, because what we are saying to victims, who we know often take a long time to leave the circumstance they are in and in almost all cases find it extremely difficult to find a new place to live – finding the next place to live, even if it is somewhere safe next, is a very, very difficult thing – is that if you earn a dollar on your primary place of residence you will not have access to redress. Just think this through logically – and when bills are drafted logic very rarely comes into it. What happens in many cases, and cases that I am aware of, is a victim leaves because of domestic violence, and they might have someone, for example, rent their property because they cannot afford the next place to live. They certainly cannot afford to pay for two properties – one they do not live in and the next place that they will live. But what these restrictions say is if there is one dollar earned on that original principal place of residence they are excluded from help.

I appreciate entirely that this is a very complex issue. I appreciate that it is a very difficult issue to resolve, especially with black-letter law. But to have a simple rule that says that if one dollar is earned on the original property a person cannot be exempt from a land tax obligation just does not make sense, because they may need to generate income to live once they flee. What we are saying with these amendments is the victim is now obliged to fund two properties. So if you leave, you are obliged to fund two properties.

You are obliged to pay rent on your second property or however you choose to live in the property you flee to – you have obviously got to pay for that, you have got to keep it, you have got to pay all the bills associated with that – and then on the first property you will be land-taxed if you earn one dollar there. I just do not think it passes the logic test.

Of course we would have been open to having a conversation, because we were the ones proposing to close and to help resolve this issue, to work through a better pathway forward. Perhaps it could be by Treasurer’s call; perhaps there could have been a circumstance where the Treasurer has the capacity to say there may be circumstances where someone leaves their principal place of residence and earns a dollar on the property to survive, to have a roof over their head. The Treasurer could make that determination, because they are complex issues, and as I have said, we accept that. But to simply say, ‘If one dollar is earned, therefore they are no longer eligible for a domestic violence exemption to land tax’ is just wrong.

The other thing the government have neglected – and this has been raised with them many times – is that we are aware of circumstances where people have been forced to leave their homes because of natural disaster and the government has chased the victims of natural disaster who are living in a second property while their first property is being repaired. We are not talking about people who are trying to fleece the system or do anything wrong; we are talking about people whose homes are either destroyed or partly destroyed. The government is saying, if you leave your property because of, in most recent cases, flooding – you are forced, you cannot live there – ‘if you leave your property, we’re going to land-tax you on that property when you’re living somewhere else.’ How can that be right?

When it comes to the domestic violence issue, we have led on pushing for this amendment, and we accept that, though not fully formed, there is an amendment here. But we have also raised the natural disaster concerns, and the government has said, ‘Maybe we’ll look at it another time.’ Well, here is the bill right now. ‘We’ll look at it another time’ – when? The government provided advice that there could be a state tax amendment bill later in the year. Well, there are currently victims – Ihave raised them in the chamber – who have been forced to leave their home because of flooding, and the government is trying to bill them for land tax because they have been flooded. It is not their fault there has been a natural disaster, and yet the government’s response is ‘Maybe down the track we’ll think about it.’ It is not good enough. On the domestic violence issue, I would reiterate the calls we have made privately and make them publicly too: the government should consider whether or not the hard and fast rules around the measures are appropriate, because there will be circumstances where it is fair and reasonable for a dollar to be earned on the original property.

I am not in any way saying this is an easy issue, and it may need Treasurer’s intervention. We may be talking only about a handful of cases each year, but I think it is only fair and reasonable for the Parliament, when considering this amendment, to think about whether or not this exemption properly covers the issues that need addressing. In the case that I have raised – not in detail, because of course we are talking about very, very difficult circumstances – these amendments will not solve that case for two reasons: (1) because of the hard-and-fast rules and (2) because it is not retrospective. So every case which has come to a member of Parliament where land tax is being charged on people because they have fled domestic violence will not be solved by this bill.

I say: why wouldn’t we want to help the people who have already got the bill?

Why would we want to help only people in the future? I think it would be reasonable to say this amendment solves a problem in the law. So why wouldn’t we want to work out a way to help the people who are needing help, and why wouldn’t we want to just make sure the details are right and make sure that amendment fully covers them? As I said, it also covers natural disaster, because we know there are cases, as I have said, where people are being charged land tax for being forced to move out of their homes while their houses have been either fully or partially destroyed, and that is just not right. It is just not right.

The other concern we have with the bill is that in the wording from the department there is a new measure that has been described as a tax. Now, I know the government promised no new taxes in this budget, but the measures in this bill include, in the government’s own words, a ‘penalty tax’ measure. I have not included this new penalty tax measure in our 61 new taxes and charges. I think it would be fair to say we could, because the government has described it as a tax.

A member interjected.

James NEWBURY: This measure is new, member. This measure is new, and it has been described in the government’s own briefing as a new ‘penalty tax’ measure. The government has described it that way. What the government is seeking to do through this measure is create a new penalty. I was not going to make a big point of it, but as I have been asked, I will have to refer to the government’s own advice. The government is seeking to approve a new penalty tax measure that the State Revenue Office can impose, and what this penalty measure would do is allow the State Revenue Office to penalise people for not paying a bill, effectively. Currently they can impose a 25 per cent penalty tax, to use the government’s words, or they can impose a 75 per cent tax, and this new measure would create a new penalty tax of 50 per cent. So it is a new measure, a new penalty tax – I do not want to misquote – as the government has described to me in writing.

I note that the State Revenue Office issued 15,405 assessments with a penalty tax in the last financial year. All of these were charged at the 25 per cent penalty rate – I suspect because the requirement of imposing a 75 per cent imposition through a tax penalty requires a very serious and egregious form of not paying your required bill. So far, the State Revenue Office has charged the 15,000 people a 25 per cent tax. If this bill were to pass, I suspect if we were to have a look at these figures next year we would see a good proportion of them move into this new 50 per cent penalty rate, because the new penalty rate test will be based on recklessness, which obviously has a common law definition. I suspect what this will do is revenue raise for the State Revenue Office through this mechanism and they will up the penalty provision, and presumably they have asked for it for that reason. They want a new penalty tax measure, so there is a new penalty tax in this budget in addition to the congestion levy measures, which are actually included in the budget revenue, and the coalition wholly does not support this new penalty tax measure.

So under standing orders I wish to advise the house of amendments to the bill and request that they be circulated.

Amendments circulated under standing orders.

James NEWBURY: The two amendments that we will move relate to natural disaster in the circumstance of land tax, so a victim of a natural disaster should receive an exemption from land tax – it is not fair and reasonable that the government is land-taxing people who are forced to move from their homes because of natural disaster, so we are seeking to amend that in a similar way to the domestic violence provision, so it would be in addition to the domestic violence provision – and also we are seeking to strike out the 50 per cent new penalty tax, the new tax that the government has in this bill. Though, because they are technical amendments, we will not be voting on them in the lower house, I do make clear that these amendments will be moved in the upper house, and I suspect and would hope that members in the upper house who will have the opportunity to consider this will be able to say to the government: why is it that people who are being forced to flee their homes because of natural disaster are being land-taxed for it? How can the government possibly stand up and try and explain that natural disaster victims should be land-taxed because they have fled their either partially or fully damaged homes? How can that be the case? So the amendments will seek to address that issue, as the amendments will also seek to address the new penalty tax provision in the bill.

Unfortunately, we do not have the capacity, because the government does not consider bills in this way, to take these amendments to a vote in this place because the government does not see fit to take any bill into consideration in detail, as it were, in this place, but in the upper house members across the entire chamber will have the opportunity to consider these issues in detail. Whether or not the upper house members consider a new tax fair and reasonable – and I will let that stand where it is – I do very much hope that the members in the upper house can look at the amendment that relates to natural disaster and say, ‘Well, that’s fair. That amendment is fair. We can’t be taxing people because they’re forced to flee their home because of natural disaster.’ So I do hope that the members of the upper house can look at that fairly and reasonably.

There are a number of other technical changes in the bill. Many of them we have gone through in detail with the department, and they have estimated that they should be of no cost impact, so they genuinely are believed to be technical, and we can only take them on face value. We probably look at any change in a taxation bill from the perspective of the government trying to find a way to close a loophole and make money, so the first question we often ask is: how much money are they estimating it will make? We take the department at their word that these technical changes will not do that. For example, there are some technical changes around the commercial and industrial property tax reform on qualifying use of land, and there are some changes around sale of trust property being moved between trusts where the owner remains the same, and we understand that in that circumstance there are no additional cost implications. There are some minor changes around unclaimed money and also around the Victorian conservation trust in terms of also providing money.

With all of those things, we take the department at its word that it will not have anything other than technical changes.

I should note that the bill does make amendments to the First Home Owner Grant and Home Buyer Schemes Act 2000, and I think it is important to recognise that yesterday the coalition committed to a game-changing policy to provide first home buyers with massive tax relief. If you are a first home buyer and you have not been able to get into the market – as we know, that is certainly the case, as less and less young people are able to get into the market – a future coalition government will wipe that stamp duty cost up to $1 million. So up to $1 million you will pay nothing. The government have been saying for the past day that they think more people will want it – good. The government have been saying more people are going to want this tax cut, and the answer to that is: good. What is interesting from this government is they are taking cheap shots about how many people want this policy, but I have not heard the Premier say she will match it. Where is the Premier? I have not heard the Premier say she will match it. I am happy for the Premier to tell Victorians every single day of the week how much people love this tax cut. Every single day the Premier and every minister can talk about this tax cut. You are welcome, ministry, to talk about this tax cut. You are welcome to talk about how many more people you think are going to take it up. You are welcome to underline the importance of it. Talk about it all day, every day. I want to talk about it.

Talk about our five tax cuts. Talk about our tax cuts every day – more than happy. On the first home buyer tax cut we are proposing, talk about it every single day. Do you know what the estimate was? It was that 17,000 people in a full year would take up that tax cut, and the government think it may be more – they think it may be 18,000. Fantastic, because it is young people getting into homes. For the government to say we are going to do nothing and we are going to take cheap little shots because they think people want it and we are going to do nothing – well, that just absolutely highlights the craven nature of this tax-loving government. Talk about the policy as much as the government wants. The difference is we will cut stamp duty for first home buyers significantly, which the government now says is going to be very, very, very, very popular and taken up. Fantastic – that is the goal. That is what we are trying to do. That is why we designed the policy. Yet what have we heard from the government? Nothing. Are they going to match us? No. Are they going to match the tax cut? No. The government and the Premier can talk about how much this policy is needed every single day of the week. I would love the Premier to talk about it every single day. The ministry can talk about it every single day, because it is true: people need it. That is why the policy is there. That is why we created it. That is why we announced it. At some point, do you know what is going to happen? At some point, do you know what the community is going to say? ‘Well, what about the government? What are they going to do? They’re talking about this policy and the need for it all the time. They’re talking about how popular it is going to be, but they are not agreeing to it.’ In terms of the bill, we are not opposing the bill. We will be moving the amendments that we will be moving, but we will not be opposing the bill.

Natalie HUTCHINS (Sydenham – Minister for Government Services, Minister for Treaty and First Peoples, Minister for Prevention of Family Violence, Minister for Women) (11:24): I am really delighted to rise to speak in support of the amendments to the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2025, and I want to focus in on the measures around the meaningful financial relief for victim-survivors of family violence that are being delivered through these amendments. These are really practical steps that remove financial barriers and support recovery and safety for those impacted by family violence.

Starting with the first measure, which is in regard to land tax exemption, I want to highlight that this is an amendment that will exempt victim-survivors from paying land tax on their principal place of residence for up to six years if they have been forced to leave due to family violence and have not received income from the land. We know that fleeing family violence can be one of the most difficult and dangerous decisions a person can make, and it often comes with significant financial stress. Quite often, particularly for women leaving these situations, we find a myriad of financial complexities and quite frankly a huge mess that needs to be untangled in leaving that relationship. We have heard from victim-survivors who have fled their homes about the financial impact that family violence can have. This exemption recognises that no-one should be financially punished for escaping violence. It removes an unjust burden and offers relief during what is often the most precarious period of recovery.

By removing the land tax obligation during this time we are creating a fairer, more compassionate system that acknowledges the realities of rebuilding life after violence and responds with the dignity and support victim-survivors deserve. Of course we know that this bill comes into effect on 1 July, and those victims that are currently in this situation or have been in this situation can and have been supported by the current Treasurer and the previous Treasurer with ex gratia applications that have been made. Those financial liabilities have been alleviated and those people have been supported, and we will continue to do that till 1 July.

The second amendment allows victim-survivors to requalify for the first home owners grant provided they meet certain requirements, and this is a significant and empowering reform. This is about being able to rebuild lives. In many cases women have accessed a first home buyers grant jointly with a partner only to find themselves in a violent or unsafe situation and their first home has become a place of risk and not safety. Unfortunately, some women do not know the financial complexities that they have gotten themselves into or that their partners have put them in during the time of their partnership. Sometimes an application has been made without them being aware of that application happening for a first home owners grant or in fact a loan because of misleading and fake documents that were put in place during the time of that relationship. These changes that we are putting in place through these amendments allow those who have received any financial benefit from the original property to access the first home owners grant again, giving them a fair chance to start over. It means they can rebuild in a new location and receive the same support and tax relief as other first home buyers.

Together these reforms reflect our commitment and our community in removing barriers and supporting recovery for victim-survivors. Way too often there are, in particular, too many women that stay in relationships because of these complex financial arrangements that are in place, because of the fear of not being able to have a secure home if they were to leave. These are really important changes that underpin that support to be able to leave. We know that these amendments will build on the broader work we are doing to prevent family violence and to support those who are experiencing it.

We know that ending family violence cannot happen through one avenue only. That is why we invested $92.8 million last year to strengthen women’s safety, a package that we announced which brings together a joined-up, cross-portfolio response to drive real change. Under the women’s safety package, which is the result of extensive conversations with victim-survivors and the sector, we are delivering the support needed across three key areas: firstly, immediate support for victim-survivors, secondly, delivering stronger justice responses to hold perpetrators to account, and thirdly, preventing violence before it starts.

We are investing in case management and therapeutic support for victims and have given additional funding to the highest demand services, providing recovery and healing, particularly for children and young people. We have boosted funding to the personal safety initiative, making sure that women can access vital safety upgrades to their homes sooner. We are creating new justice navigator positions, a new pilot to provide tailored support for victim-survivors of sexual assault. We are boosting case management for people who use violence to keep them in view and on record. And led by the Attorney-General, we are strengthening family violence intervention orders to better protect victim-survivors.

I want to touch on the great work of Respect Victoria. Through Respect Victoria, Victoria’s dedicated prevention of family violence agency, we are delivering the world-leading Ballarat saturation model, a first-of-its-kind initiative to embed prevention and early intervention right across the entire community. The Respect Victoria campaign What Kind of Man Do You Want to Be? has now reached over 1.6 million men over earlier months of this year, promoting healthy expressions of masculinity and really challenging those harmful norms. Some of that work was kicked off by the minister at the table beside me, the Minister for Emergency Services, and I thank her for her dedication.

Beyond the women’s safety package, the 2025–26 state budget builds on providing for the prevention of family violence portfolio to the tune of $123.2 million, which is to help keep women safe, keep children safe, hold perpetrators to account and support victim-survivors. The new initiatives through the budget will support the work of Respect Victoria to continue its statewide leadership media campaigns and innovative programs. It will continue to work with multicultural and faith-based organisations to deliver targeted family violence prevention and early intervention activities, because if we are not tackling prevention in this space, we are not doing our jobs.

We will continue to work to equip close to 400,000 workers with the tools to identify family violence through our multi-agency risk assessment and management program, which is the risk assessment tool that we use to inform our sharing of information around family violence and perpetrators. We will provide ongoing funding for statewide programs, and we will continue essential frontline services for people experiencing family violence and sexual assault. We are also funding an additional six crisis accommodation properties to support victim-survivors transitioning out of refuge and maintaining an intensive 24/7 outreach support for those in motels at critical risk. In addition to this vital work, our refuge system continues to expand. Once completed we will have capacity for 199 households a night, up from 170. We are also delivering up to 1000 new social housing properties specifically for victim-survivors through the Big Housing Build to ensure people have a pathway out of crisis.

With the 18 hubs and 19 access points in our Orange Door system across the state, we will continue to underpin and coordinate a response to family violence. This response is free, it is accessible and it is for people experiencing family and partner violence, bringing together specialist work and expertise from across the industry. They work specifically with Aboriginal agencies and men’s services to make sure that victim-survivors do not have to navigate the system alone. At the Orange Door in Werribee we thank Westjustice for their work, who are running a restoring financial safety program and doing an excellent job there. Can I also thank the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance for their leadership in this work.

Annabelle CLEELAND (Euroa) (11:34): I also rise today to speak on the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2025, a sprawling piece of legislation that tinkers with nearly every core taxation law we have in Victoria. The acts being amended include the Commercial and Industrial Property Tax Reform Act 2024, the Duties Act 2000, the First Home Owner Grant and Home Buyer Schemes Act 2000, the Land Tax Act 2005, the Payroll Tax Act 2007, the Taxation Administration Act 1997, the Unclaimed Money Act 2008 and the Victorian Conservation Trust Act 1972.

It is quite a list, and if you were paying attention to the recent budget you will know why: the Allan Labor government never misses a chance to invent or expand a tax. It is their favourite lever, because heaven forbid they look at trimming bureaucratic bloat or reining in wasteful spending. As the many, many comments on social media have said recently, this government will tax us for breathing soon.

This bill on its surface makes a number of administrative and compliance changes. We are told it is about clarity and streamlining, but buried within these policies are real and often painful consequences for ordinary Victorians. Yes, it tightens enforcement by introducing a new penalty tax rate for reckless noncompliance, because the assumption again is that taxpayers must be doing something wrong. The most significant and perhaps well intentioned part of this is the land tax exemption aimed at supporting victims of family violence. This is absolutely a step in the right direction, and any legislative action that helps people in crisis deserves credit. But there are some serious flaws. These changes will not apply retrospectively, which means countless victims navigating complicated tax debts – debts that stem directly from abuse and trauma – will not receive the help they need. And if those individuals have had to lease their property just to survive, they are punished. The government has decided that receiving rent means you are no longer entitled to the exemption no matter your situation, and I think that is wrong.

In the Legal and Social Issues Committee’s recent inquiry building the evidence base on people who use family violence we made 61 recommendations, and we need this government to act on those and not just tick a legislative box with incomplete solutions, because on the ground in my electorate the situation is dire. In Benalla, a town where the rate of family violence is 71 per cent higher than the state average, this government, the Allan Labor government, shut down the community services hub earlier this year and then had the audacity to gaslight my community and say that it never existed. The hub is gone, and the hub included 12 critical agencies like Beyond Housing, the Centre Against Violence and the Orange Door, and these were lifelines. We have communities like Euroa, Broadford, Seymour and Heathcote where services are virtually non-existent and demand is out of control. The land tax exemptions may look good on a press release, but they mean nothing if people in danger across the state cannot access the services that they need to begin with.

On the broader issue of land tax, in 2024 alone 1763 landowners in Mitchell shire were hit with these increases and nearly 500 in both Strathbogie and Benalla. These are not big landholders; these are people living on blocks they have worked for their whole lives, and many of them are being taxed incorrectly. In Avenel Matthew Trewin is still trying to convince the State Revenue Office that his land is primary production. He has done nothing wrong; he is just stuck in the gears of a broken system under the Allan Labor government. For the Giannarelli family of Seymour and David Russell in Benalla it is the same situation. David received a bill for land tax on the home he lives in. He sent rates notices, power bills and water bills proving it was his residence, and after months of waiting for the exemption to be confirmed the SRO sent debt collection letters. It was just heartless, and it is really pushing people to the brink. This is what happens when the Allan Labor government looks at Victorians like their own ATM and not people. And it gets worse: if you operate a small business from your home – a garage or a studio or a home office – you then lose your primary place of residence. If the home is held in a family trust, forget it – the system assumes you are a developer and not someone trying to run a business and pay the mortgage. It is out of step with how people live and work today, especially in regional areas, where mixed-use properties are a necessity and not a luxury.

This is not about fairness, this is about revenue, and it comes at a time when people in Kilmore, Broadford, Euroa and Benalla, as well as Seymour, are all at financial breaking point. Cost-of-living pressures are through the roof, fuel prices are up, power prices are skyrocketing and water charges are rising, and now families are getting land tax bills on top of all of this.

Many are still trying to recover from floods, fires and droughts. I do want to acknowledge the member for Brighton’s amendment and support him to allow an exemption from land tax for people who have experienced natural disasters. I know in my community people are still out of their homes and receiving land tax bills after enduring the October 2022 floods. It is heartless. We need to have some understanding about how these taxes impact everyday Victorians, and the government has to acknowledge that they need to be here to help, not hinder and certainly not hurt Victorians. This bill also amends the payroll tax, and again it is about compliance and not compassion. There is no relief here for small businesses, just more red tape.

While we are speaking about the relentless tax burden on our communities, I want to turn to one of the most pressing issues facing my electorate – facing families, businesses and communities – and that is the worsening drought conditions across central and north-east Victoria. I recently launched a petition to call on the Victorian government to formally declare drought across the region. In just one week I have had more than 5500 people sign that petition – most of them are farmers. They are proud, hardworking people who do not ask for handouts but are desperate for a fair go. They are running out of options. The paddocks are bare, our dams are dry, and the cost of transporting hay and water is astronomical. These are not poor-season stories; these are stories of desperation. I have stood with families who have had to destock herds built over several generations. I have seen the emotional toll of watching crops fail again and again, and the sheer exhaustion of working 20-hour days just to stay afloat. They need breathing space. They need acknowledgement. They certainly do not need to be hit with an emergency services tax that quadruples their property rates overnight, and that is exactly what is happening.

While this government refuses to declare a drought, they have no issue with sending out the emergency services tax bill and treating productive farmland like it is a Melbourne development site. This is what I mean when I say you are punishing people who are already suffering. When a family’s entire livelihood is tied to the land and the land gives them nothing back, the last thing they need is a tax notice in the mail charging them thousands of dollars to protect that land. It is gut-wrenching and it is unfair, and it is exactly why we are fighting for a drought declaration, not just for the emotional and moral recognition but because it could provide the key to real and practical relief. In some cases this drought declaration can allow us to access emergency grants, low-interest loans and rebates. But most importantly, it is an exemption from this brutal emergency services and volunteers tax. This levy is not about services, it is about revenue. It is about filling Labor’s budget black hole. If this government genuinely want to support regional communities, then they should start by acknowledging the drought right in front of them. By doing so, it might make some of their tax grabs a little harder to justify.

The Allan Labor government cannot ignore the 5500 small business owners, residents and farmers who are asking and begging for some support. Do not pretend the conditions are not that bad. We are on our knees in regional Victoria. I do support the member for Brighton’s amendment to allow the exemption from land tax for people who have experienced natural disasters. We are sick of being the cash cow for the Allan Labor government who cannot manage money. They cannot manage our emergency services, and regional Victorians, particularly farmers in my community, are paying the price.

Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (11:44): It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2025. Once again I rise in this house and the other side are lecturing us on financial responsibility, economics and integrity while one of their former leaders, who sits in this house, is crowdfunding so he does not lose his house. It is unbelievable.

A member interjected.

Paul EDBROOKE: No, no, I do not need to get a new repertoire. I think it is pathetic, treating people like that, and I will not take lectures from people who cannot even read a bill about integrity and financial responsibility. What you are doing to that person is absolutely pathetic, and you should be ashamed.

On the bill, if I can just reset for a second and go back to the Shadow Treasurer’s contribution, I would ask people in this house: should you pay your tax bill? I think everyone in this house – there might be a couple of outliers, but most people would say yes. Should you act with reasonable care in regard to your tax? I think most people would agree – yes. Should you not conduct yourself with intentional disregard to your tax obligations? I think most people would also agree with that, right? Well, the Shadow Treasurer I think is misleading the house, because he is a little bit confused by saying –

Vicki Ward interjected.

Paul EDBROOKE: He might be more than a little bit confused, member for Eltham, that a penalty tax is a new tax, because that is not the case. He is a little bit confused about the Taxation Administration Act 1997. So I will put it a little bit more simply for those in the house. It is a simple analogy; see if you can keep up. You are caught speeding in your car. You breach the Road Safety Act 1986, I think it is. You are breaking a law. There is no tax there. You are then fined for your breach of the road rules. You pay that fine, therefore accepting those points and admitting your fault. That is not a tax. But by the Shadow Treasurer’s understanding in his contribution today, that is a new tax. So a speeding fine would be a new tax, because a penalty tax, which he was talking about in relation to the Taxation Administration Act 1997, is an enforcement measure that deters noncompliance. If people comply with their tax obligations, as they legally should, penalty taxes would not apply. So this is not a new tax. This change encourages people to comply in the same way that other legislation includes penalties for noncompliance. I think most reasonable people in this house would agree that that is not a new tax.

The Taxation Administration Act 1997 currently imposes a base penalty rate of 25 per cent, being the standard rate, and 75 per cent where the Commissioner of State Revenue is satisfied that a default was due to intentional disregard of taxation law by the taxpayer. You will pay zero if the commissioner is satisfied that the taxpayer acted with reasonable care to comply with the taxation law or the default occurred because of circumstances beyond the control of the taxpayer, and the current penalty framework limits the commissioner’s ability to respond proportionately to non-compliance across a range of severity. So it is not an introduction of a new tax. It is changing, and proportionately changing, a non-compliance framework. In these circumstances, a middle penalty tax rate of 50 per cent based on an objective test of recklessness will allow for greater flexibility in the penalty tax regime and assist in achieving more tailored and better outcomes for compliance. The State Revenue Office issued 15,405 assessments with penalty tax in the financial year that ended on 30 June 2024. All of those were at the 25 per cent penalty rate. I note that the Shadow Treasurer conveniently did not explain this, and from what I was hearing, he was trying to tell the people of Victoria and the people in this house that a penalty tax is a new tax. That is just not the case, and I think that is confusing the issue. It is a very, very long bow to draw.

Member for Euroa, I have been here long enough not to tolerate being lectured about family violence by those opposite. I was in the house when we introduced the Royal Commission into Family Violence. I was in the house when a member in the other place David Davis called it a ‘lawyer’s picnic’. I was in the house when one member in this house at the time refused to stand for family violence victim-survivor Rosie Batty. So I will not be lectured by people on that side of the house about how we could be doing things that we are not doing for those victim-survivors.

Again, it seems a little bit confusing. We heard the Shadow Treasurer shout across the table to the minister that the Treasurer has never, ever used extraordinary powers to grant ex gratia exemptions for victim-survivors, and that is just not the case. The Treasurer has the power to grant those ex gratia exemptions to family violence victim-survivors who we think have a retrospective issue with their land tax. They have been used before, and I am sure they will be used again.

This bill also allows victim-survivors to requalify for the first home buyers benefits if they meet the criteria. That is something that I stand by. It is amazing. I have heard people come to my office and ask why they cannot do that. They believe it is unfair, and I have got to say I agree with them, so I am glad that this is in the bill.

The bill also supports the availability of long-term residential alternatives for renters. It clarifies that a minimum three-year rental lease must be genuinely offered to a renter in a build-to-rent development in order for that development to receive significant tax benefits, and if a renter chooses a short-term lease, a declaration must be jointly signed by the BTR provider and renter to show that a minimum three-year lease term was genuinely offered. The bill also prohibits rental terms of less than 12 months being used in BTR developments eligible for tax benefits.

There are also a number of other significant amendments in this bill, one being the unclaimed money amendments. They detail that if a person or entity is legally owed funds that cannot be located, they may have unclaimed money. The bill empowers the registrar of unclaimed money to recover unclaimed money paid to a person who is not the genuine owner. The bill also allows the registrar to pay unclaimed money to a subsequent genuine claimant even if a claimant has already been paid.

We have the extension of the off-the-plan temporary duty concession, which has been spoken about by former speakers. The temporary off-the-plan duty concession will be extended for a further 12 months to 21 October 2026. The concession, first announced in October 2024, allows outstanding construction and refurbishment costs to be deducted when determining how much stamp duty is owed.

If I go back to those family violence tax relief measures for a second, just to clarify so there is no confusion, the bill introduces tax relief measures under the Land Tax Act 2005, the Duties Act 2000 and the First Home Owner Grant and Home Buyer Schemes Act 2000 to support victim-survivors of family violence. Under the Land Tax Act 2005 these measures will mean victim-survivors of family violence do not have to pay land tax in relation to their principal place of residence for up to six years if they have left their principal place of residence due to family violence and have not received income from the land. I will just also clarify that the Treasurer does have the power to grant ex gratia exemptions. Under the FHOGHBS act and the Duties Act the measures will allow victim-survivors of family violence to requalify for that first home buyer benefit as well if they meet certain requirements.

Once again, I point members, especially those opposite, to have a look at what some of their members have said historically and the actions some of their members have taken historically as well. We hear members on the other side of the chamber talking about royal commissions and inquiries. It is very important that some of the new members go back – maybe do a Google search, maybe look through Hansard – and see what the position of their opposition was at the time, what some of the shadow ministers said and what some of the upper house members said about some of these things. It is one thing to come here acting like butter would not melt in your mouth, but we on this side of the house know what actually happened. We have seen the actions, we have seen the protests, we have seen those statements like ‘A royal commission into family violence is a lawyers picnic.’ I will not sit here today and hear people telling us that we have not done enough when they have been opposed to some of these changes, whether it be the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System or the Royal Commission into Family Violence. Your actions speak louder than your words. Know your history. Do not lecture us on things that you have no foundation of evidence to be making statements on. I commend this bill to the house.

Bridget VALLENCE (Evelyn) (11:54): The State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2025 seeks to amend a number of acts in relation to taxation and increasing revenue for the state, as well as changing the tax treatments for some Victorians. I would like to first address some of the positive aspects of the bill and then address that tax revenue under this Labor government will increase to record proportions.

The changes to the Duties Act 2000, the First Home Owner Grant and Home Buyer Schemes Act 2000 and the Land Tax Act 2005 will exempt the victims of family violence from being required to pay various taxes and charges as a result of finding themselves in situations where their safety is at risk as a result of family violence. This is something that the Victorian Liberals and Nationals opposition has been calling for, recognising that victims of family violence need all the support that they can get – all the support and assistance that governments are able to provide. Sadly, I have had constituents who have come into my office or phoned my office pleading for help to find urgent crisis accommodation who are sleeping in their car with their children. It is a confronting situation, and these constituents are finding themselves in these situations through no fault of their own. It is devastating for them and their family, who have had the courage to flee family violence. Usually these are victims of an abusive partner where there has been gambling or drug addiction or something else that has caused significant distress for them and these relationships have broken down, and it is truly heartbreaking to see. I sincerely do hope that the changes in this legislation, these measures, will go some way to helping these family violence victims and provide them with the assistance that they need when they need it, to help them have a fresh start. We commend those changes.

Now I turn to how this Labor government will be taxing Victorians to oblivion under this budget – absolutely taxing Victorians more. In the 2025–26 period, this financial year, Victorians will be forced to pay an incredible $41.7 billion in tax by this tired Labor government. That is $2.5 billion more than last year. This will make Victoria the highest taxed state in the country. This Labor government is just obsessed with tax, and when this Labor government runs out of money it comes after the pockets of hardworking Victorians. Under this tired Labor government Victorians have been forced to pay more than 60 new or increased taxes in the last 10 years. I am sure that there are some Labor members of the Parliament that will remember the former Premier Daniel Andrews, who stood before all Victorians on live television on the eve of the 2014 election and promised that the Labor government would not introduce any new taxes – a promise broken, with more than 60 new or increased taxes under this Labor government. In comparison, back in 2014 Victoria’s tax revenue was only $18.6 billion. Since 2014, taxes have increased by a staggering 173 per cent. This is an extraordinary increase. It is massively contributing to Victorians’ cost of living at the moment. Victoria is in a cost-of-living crisis. Families are struggling, and the increase in tax is really hurting. I mean, the $41.7 billion of taxes that this Labor government will take from Victorians this year equates to nudging on $6,000, on average, per Victorian. It is a massive tax burden on Victorians.

In recent weeks we have seen how completely out of touch Labor’s Treasurer Jaclyn Symes is with ordinary Victorians. When the Treasurer was asked about the increased taxes Victorians were being forced to pay, the Treasurer’s response was that Victorians could afford to pay more. This gives you the clearest indication and the clearest insight into how Labor thinks. They do not care about families struggling with higher grocery prices and increased power bills. They just think that Victorians can afford to pay more tax. The day before the budget the Treasurer said:

There is nothing in the budget that changes the tax settings tomorrow.

Either the Treasurer had not read her own budget papers or she was deliberately misleading Victorian families. Not only are existing taxes increased under this budget, but there is a brand new tax that was introduced, being the emergency services levy.

This is a new tax that will cost Victorians an extra $3 billion over the forward estimates. To suggest that there were no changes to the tax settings under this budget just demonstrates how completely disingenuous this tired Labor government has become.

Labor’s Treasurer then also remarked, when referring to the massive increase in taxes, that:

… unlike WA who can literally dig money out of the ground, in Victoria, we have limited ability to raise revenue …

This Treasurer Jaclyn Symes clearly has no idea, because the reason why the state of Victoria cannot raise any additional revenue in this way is because this Labor government keeps shutting down industries as a part of its extreme left alliance with the Greens. Does anyone remember? I am sure that they do. Particularly my friend the member for Eildon will remember our magnificent timber industry. In 2019 around 29,000 Victorians were employed in the timber industry, and it was an industry that contributed around $1.5 billion to the Victorian economy. But this Labor government ganged up with the Greens to decimate the Victorian timber industry and put thousands of Victorians out of work – cut down our timber workers. Labor put a $2 billion hole in our economy, and yet they now somehow complain that other states can make money more easily out of industries than we can.

Then this week the Treasurer thought that she would try and crack some jokes. She thought she would try and crack some jokes at a business forum, where she asked the audience: which is your favourite tax? What an absolute disgrace. How out of touch is Labor? How out of touch is Labor’s Treasurer? No wonder Labor has lost Victorians’ trust.

Next year Victorian employers will be forced to pay $6.9 billion in payroll taxes, an increase of $354 million. In addition, the budget papers predict that payroll tax receipts will increase by 4.9 per cent a year over the forward estimates to $11 billion by 2029. This is a tax on workers. The higher the tax burden is for business, the less people they can employ. No wonder the Australian Industry Group said that increasing taxes will continue to drive businesses out of Victoria to Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales.

On top of this job-destroying payroll tax, Victorian employers are also forced to pay a COVID debt levy. Even though the COVID pandemic finished back in 2021, this Labor government is forcing Victorian employers to pay its COVID debt levy for another eight years, until 2033. In 2025–26 Victorian employers will be forced to pay $1.1 billion under the COVID debt levy, and to add insult to injury, the budget papers predict the COVID debt levy will increase by 5.9 per cent each and every year over the forward estimates.

There is the increase to the car parking congestion levy in the budget. Labor is increasing the rates and expanding the geographic area that will be subject to the levy to include the eastern suburbs, raising an additional $94 million in tax, an increase of 73 per cent. Motor vehicle taxes and registration fees will also increase under this budget. Car registrations are expected to increase by $162 million, and the duty the government imposes on these registrations, effectively double taxing Victorians, will increase by $75 million. The budget papers predict that motor vehicle registration fees will increase by 5.1 per cent a year. So not only are fuel prices going up, but the cost of registering your car under the Labor government is increasing as well.

Labor’s fiscal strategy has two points: skyrocketing debt and taxing Victorians more in a cost-of-living crisis. The Victorian Liberals will take a different approach and have already announced cutting five taxes. If elected next year, we will cut the emergency services tax, giving $3 billion back to Victorians, we will cut the health tax, we will cut the schools tax and we will cut Labor’s holiday and tourism tax. That is so important for my electorate in the Yarra Valley. We will cut the stamp duty for first home buyers, for young people aspiring to own their own home. Again, all Labor know is skyrocketing debt and taxing Victorians more, and it is a shame on them in a cost-of-living crisis.

Paul HAMER (Box Hill) (12:04): I too rise to speak about the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2025. I will get onto the details of the bill shortly, but I just want to take up a few of the points that have been raised by members of the opposition. The member for Evelyn seems to think that if only we had kept some of our timber industry we would be flush with royalties. Unfortunately, we do not have timber that is 300 million years old, which would form a great swathe – the black coal that Queensland and New South Wales have. In fact since 2010, just to talk about royalties, Western Australia has taken $101 billion in royalty income from iron ore and petroleum and Queensland and New South Wales have raked in $74 billion and $29 billion respectively, mostly on black coal, compared to just $1 billion in royalties in Victoria. Even our gas resources do not fall within the Victorian purview because they are on the continental shelf and they are outside the state exclusion zone, so they go to the Commonwealth and not to the state. It is very easy for other states’ budgets to conveniently avoid looking at the royalties as a revenue in terms of their total taxation, and a royalty is a tax on the industry and the business of that state.

I also want to talk about stamp duty, both what is announced in this bill, which is the extension of the off-the-plan temporary duty concession, and also the changes that have been proposed by the Shadow Treasurer. You would have thought he had just invented sliced bread, such is his passion in terms of identifying this as this great new policy that they have just stumbled across that nobody had ever thought of before. I do want to point out that there is an existing stamp duty concession for first home owners right here in Victoria and if you are buying a new home the concessions are greater still. I do want to make it really clear that the plan that the opposition have announced is not about building any more housing at all, because it can apply across the board, whether it is an existing home or it is a new home.

There is a very instructive example on the State Revenue Office website. It talks about a new home owner who is buying an apartment off the plan for $950,000, so that is just within the limit of what the Shadow Treasurer has been talking about. Because he is buying that apartment off the plan he can deduct the contract price from the overall cost, and if that is reduced and if that is below $750,000, which is the threshold, he can receive a concession. In fact if it is below $600,000, that individual can receive a full reduction in the stamp duty. By having those different measures in place, if you can find a home up to a million dollars and a new home that is up to a million dollars and you are able to afford that, you are likely to already get that stamp duty advantage.

So who is this really going to benefit? It is only going to benefit a small number of people who are actually buying existing homes. If you are buying existing homes, you are not actually making any change to the overall housing supply and the housing stock, which is desperately needed. We know the Shadow Treasurer has a lot of form in this place, because he has been very vocal that he does not want more housing in his area. On one side he is offering this carrot, which is not really a carrot at all, but he is putting it out there as if it is some new invention that only the Liberal Party could have ever thought up. But associated with that, there is not a single policy that addresses the housing supply issue and actually brings more housing into the market and encourages particularly first home owners to get into the housing market and deliver that supply.

I think this ties into the extension of the off-the-plan temporary duty concession that we are proposing in this bill.

I think it has been a really important policy initiative, because we have a lot of development that occurs in Box Hill, as most members would know. That development takes many different forms, so even in a large development you will have quite a number of small apartments which are at the lower end of the price range. Then you will have numerous penthouses and higher order apartments that would be perhaps sort of in the $3 million, $4 million range. A lot of the developers say that to get a development off the ground they need to have a certain amount of buyers and a certain amount of off-the-plan buyers to be able to commence construction. Where those buyers come from, they do not really mind, but it is often going to be at the higher end that that investment will occur, and that will trigger and stimulate the development of that property, which will then bring to market all of the other properties and all of the other apartments that are within that development. Particularly in this period of time, where obviously we know it has been a difficult time for the property industry with the rising costs of construction and interest rates, at the lower end there are not as many buyers coming into the market. All of those factors contribute to needing a policy that further incentivises other buyers, including investors, to come into the market at various ends of the spectrum. I think having this extension in the bill is a really good initiative. Obviously we have seen how it has worked for 12 months. I remember when it was introduced and when it was announced back in 2024, the Property Council Australia actually called for it to be extended for a longer period of time, because they said investors and property developers need a bit more certainty. They need to have that extended length of time to be able to make some of those decisions, particularly at the higher end of things. So I am glad to see that that has been included in the bill.

The other matter I wanted to refer to is the changes in the Land Tax Act 2005 in relation to the build-to-rent developments. This bill clarifies that a minimum three-year rental lease must be genuinely offered to a renter in a build-to-rent development in order for the development to receive significant tax benefits. This is a really important issue in my community. We are witnessing quite a number of build-to-rent proposals and quite significant build-to-rent proposals. A couple of months ago I attended the topping-out ceremony of our largest build-to-rent apartment building in Box Hill. I think it has 450 dwellings that will be added to the housing stock. A key reason why it was able to get over the line and be developed was the build-to-rent scenario and operations that we have introduced into this state. It will mean 600 to 800 new people coming into Box Hill and being able to rent in Box Hill in a variety of different apartment sizes. I know it does include some affordable housing as well. So it is an important bill, and I commend the bill to the house.

Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (12:14): I rise to make a contribution on the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2025. It is a bill that the opposition are not opposing, but we do have some textual amendments and some things that we would certainly like to see included in this. I cannot help myself but to start – knowing that this is a taxation bill – by looking at comments by our Treasurer, particularly at the Property Council Australia forum the other day. She asked everybody what their favourite tax was and made a bit of a mockery about taxation in Victoria. I found that offensive, and it should be offensive to all Victorians that she was joking when we have become the highest taxing state.

We have a bill before us which makes amendments to quite a number of areas today regarding taxation. It amends the Commercial and Industrial Property Tax Reform Act 2024, so that is fairly new and they are already making changes; the Duties Act 2000; the First Home Owner Grant and Home Buyer Schemes Act 2000; the Land Tax Act 2005; the Payroll Tax Act 2007; the Taxation Administration Act 1997; the Unclaimed Money Act 2008; and the Victorian Conservation Trust Act 1972, and that is in relation to Trust for Nature, which maybe not so many people in this chamber are familiar with but is something that I have seen used in my area on private property quite a bit. And it is disappointing that some of the land that has been fenced off to help replenish it and rejuvenate it has been left and is blackberry-laden.

However, I am going to first of all begin my comments talking about the changes to regional employees, and I note how important regional Victoria is to the state’s economy. Regional Victoria does not receive the funding that I think it should. But this amendment here is around the Payroll Tax Act, and it is about the definition of a regional employee. I figure that means there has been a little bit of grey. I am not quite sure – I was not able to go to the bill briefing – whether there were issues around the interpretation or even legal matters afoot. For about seven or eight years now regional employers have been entitled to reduced payroll tax. This is essentially a stimulus, and it is to support businesses and employment growth in regional areas. Being in regional Victoria, we need that stimulus and regional growth. I think again of comments by the Treasurer who said:

… unlike WA who can literally dig money out of the ground, in Victoria, we have limited ability to raise revenue.

That is why they certainly look at increased taxing. And I look at some of the bigger projects that do impact on regional Victoria, where there are big employers, and this certainly has been in the gas industry and in the timber industry, which the member for Evelyn canvassed as well. In 2019 there were about 29,000 Victorians employed in the timber industry, and it contributed about $1.5 billion to the Victorian economy. So on one hand the government is trying to do the right thing by offering payroll incentives and clarifying the definitions here. But at the same time, by closing down the timber industry and really putting the brakes on gas exploration in Victoria, it is working in the opposite direction.

I am going to spend the rest of my contribution talking about the family violence tax relief. These are amendments that are brought forward around land tax duties and the first home owner grant and homebuyer scheme. Now, family violence is something that everybody in this chamber agrees needs to be tackled. And I would just like the government to understand that there is not the headway being made that they continue to claim. If I have a look at the crime statistics in family violence areas only, serious assault in the last 12 months has gone up 15.8 per cent. This is in the family violence context. Common assault is up 8 per cent. Family violence stalking is up 15.74 per cent, nearly 16 per cent. Harassment and private nuisance is up nearly 13 per cent, and threatening behaviour is up 14 per cent. Harassment, if you look at a decade, is up 134 per cent over a decade, and assault over a decade is up 68 per cent. So the government must understand that they are not kicking the goals in this space that they all claim to be kicking. It is really quite distressing. It is more than just a checklist and saying, ‘We’re doing this and we’re doing that.’ We have to make a difference. Those statistics must change. And as I want to reiterate, those statistics are from the family violence dashboard of the crime statistics. They are not broad. They are within that context.

The Minister for Prevention of Family Violence earlier when she spoke on this bill said:

… if we are not tackling prevention in this space, then we are not doing our jobs.

So then, Minister, I ask, through you, Chair: why is it that you have cut primary prevention of family violence in this budget? That is just direct hypocrisy to stand here and to say:

… if we are not tackling prevention in this space, then we are not doing our jobs.

But just last week they handed down a budget that is spending a lot less in this space – 24 per cent less than what they spent last year. That is staggering.

I notice that people on the government benches are really trying to ignore what I am saying. That should not be the case. Family violence service delivery is down 3 per cent on what was spent last year, so the minister needs to get a grip on the budget, because I really do not think she understands this portfolio. I know she is new to the ministry, but she has had it previously, so she should know that we need to be doing more in this space.

What this legislation does is provide certainty for those who flee family violence in and around the land tax bill that they may receive if they have a property. This provides some certainty if you have fled family violence and you have no intention of returning. At the minute they cannot access a land tax exemption if they cannot know for sure – they have to get the ex-gratia payments, jump through different hoops and things like that. But this provides a six-year window for them to be exempt from land tax. However, that is if they do not receive any money. Say you have a property that you get land tax on, you flee that property and you cannot use that, because if you earn money, you cannot get a land tax exemption, so you cannot rent it out. If you are going to somewhere else, another property, perhaps you will be paying rent there. So you are really hit financially with a bit of a double whammy. You have got a vacant property; if you rent it out, you cannot get the land tax exemption, and you will be paying rent elsewhere.

I would not want to be in a position where I relied on the government to help, because the average waiting time for long-term social housing for clients who have received a priority housing or priority transfer allocation due to family violence is 18 months. Again, the targets are 10 months. Well, they are not even close to their targets. You would not want to be relying on that. On one hand the government are saying, ‘We want to help people, give them a break for six years with land tax,’ but then we will have a vacant property that no-one is using. And we have got a problem with rental properties. It makes much more sense that they can rent that property out so that they have got an income, they are offsetting the rent that they are paying elsewhere and they do not get slugged with this additional burden. If you have fled family violence, you are in a fairly heightened state. You are stressed. If you have children, they are stressed as well. It is very difficult to re-establish yourself and to recover if you are still worrying about a property that you might have to keep maintained. You have to continue making sure that the gardens are in a condition that is not upsetting the neighbours, that the house is not falling into disrepair. So you are still going to have costs. I do not think the government has really seen this in its entirety.

What this bill also does, though, is allow victim-survivors to access first home buyer benefits if they purchase another home, because they may have been a first home buyer with their former spouse, the person they owned the property with, through the breakdown and the family violence. When they are getting their next property and they are trying to re-establish themselves, they do have a bit of a foot in the door. I would really like to see this extended to victims of natural disasters, particularly floods, because if your house has had havoc wrought on it by floods and the floorboards are all rotting, you have got damp in the wall – we do not have tradies in the country that are just there to jump at things really quickly, and the smell and the works that need to be done there can take two or three years. I would like to see this exemption get extended to include those that have suffered as a result of natural disaster when they cannot live in that property but they are still doing it tough and have been slugged land tax.

Nathan LAMBERT (Preston) (12:24): I rise also to speak in support of the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2025. As members here know, we debated the annual appropriation bills yesterday, but both Labor and Liberal treasurers have for a long time also brought a state taxation amendment bill to the Parliament that deals with more long-term taxation arrangements, and before us is the first such bill brought by our new Treasurer.

I do just want to begin by acknowledging our new Treasurer’s great work on this bill in what continues of course to be a challenging environment.

Budget paper 2 sets out some of the challenges that we face and notes that while the COVID-19 pandemic is now five years behind us, we do still see the economic aftershocks of that event. Most notably, the inflation that peaked in 2022 has really only just subsided, and we see the cash rate changes continue to follow that. Of course, as the Treasurer said in her budget speech, we have a five-part fiscal strategy in place for that post-COVID era, and this budget makes strong progress on the third step and brings the fourth and fifth into the forwards as our capital expenditure moderates back to those pre-COVID levels. I just want to note that this bill comes before us in the context of the Treasurer’s good work on that budget and note of course that there are no new taxes in here, as the Treasurer made clear.

Nonetheless this bill is an important part of our total budget package, and I do have to turn to the opposition’s position this bill, as set out by the members for Eildon and Evelyn. I was slightly surprised that the member for Brighton, when he stood up, did not take the opportunity to move amendments to stamp duties or other things that he spoke about very passionately yesterday. Instead he has circulated some different amendments that we have in front of us that essentially pick up on two topics. The first one is the matter relating to natural disasters, which the member for Eildon was just speaking about. As the member for Eildon probably knows, there are some longstanding arrangements whereby those things are dealt with with ex gratia payments, as has actually been the case, as the Minister for Women alluded to, with respect to family violence situations. We are making an important change to bring in some of those family violence arrangements to give them legislative certainty in the bill before us.

I understand that the member for Brighton was suggesting the same thing for natural disasters. We have only seen that at 11:30 this morning. I think that, unusually, the member for Brighton said that the opposition will not even be voting in favour of those amendments; they are just going to wait for them to go to the upper house. So that is what they will do.

Cindy McLeish interjected.

Nathan LAMBERT: It is, as the member for Eildon points out, the procedure of the house, as I understand it.

But the more substantial amendment that the opposition have brought forward relates to omitting clause 29. I did think, Acting Speaker Edbrooke, in a different role you as the member for Frankston have already spoken eloquently to this unusual argument made by the member for Brighton. He tried to claim that this change in clause 29 was a new tax, which, as we know, it is not, as you pointed out, Acting Speaker, in your contribution. Unfortunately, there are a small number of people in this state who try very, very hard to avoid tax, and the poor State Revenue Office spends a lot of time dealing with these people. One thing they often do, because they know they get in a lot of trouble for fraudulently trying to avoid tax, is they try and make it look like they accidentally forgot to pay their tax. There have been penalties in place for that for a long time now. There is a 25 per cent penalty if it looks like you did genuinely accidentally do it and then a 75 per cent one if it looks like you actually did it deliberately. All that the bill in front of us does is introduce a tier in between – a 50 per cent threshold – that allows the SRO to punish people for what is reckless behaviour. I put it to the member for Brighton that for some people that will probably be used in place of the 75 per cent penalty – it may actually be a slight reduction in the penalties they face. But your point, Acting Speaker, when you were making your contribution, is the most important: those kinds of things have never been treated as new taxes and in fact are not treated as taxes in our constitution.

The more substantial point that the member for Brighton made in his contribution yesterday, repeated by members of the opposition today of course, relates to their proposed big budget changes, where they claim that they are going to abolish five taxes and return billions of dollars to Victorians. There is a lot to unpack in that proposal from the opposition, but I suppose the centrepiece of it was the changes to concession arrangements for stamp duty for first home buyers. I think the member for Box Hill, who spoke on behalf of the government earlier, addressed those really well, pointing out that the most important fact, which we must point out again, is that is existing Labor government policy. There are already concessions – full concessions, up to $600,000 – from stamp duty for first home buyers. It is existing policy for a good reason. We understand that home ownership rates have been falling, and the Premier acknowledged that in her contributions yesterday.

In fact the Premier also spoke to the very good work that we are doing on the supply front, which is very important to that question of home ownership, and in fact in the bill in front of us we have some important amendments relating to the off-the-plan concession. We know that that off-the-plan concession helps people who are building new housing and helps the finances stack up when they are doing those projects. I see some nods from the member for Morwell – he knows that and supports it.

Similarly, we have some further extensions to our build-to-rent arrangements, and they also very importantly recognise that someone who is constructing new dwellings to rent out is doing something very different from someone who is just buying an existing dwelling to rent out. The people constructing new ones are adding to our supply, and the bill before us allows us to continue providing them with a concession to support the construction of new housing and to make it easier for everyone in Victoria to purchase a new house, including first home buyers.

I do want to touch on a very central part of the member for Brighton’s case yesterday, which was this allegation that 43 per cent of the cost of a new home in Victoria is taxes and charges. I see you smiling, Acting Speaker Edbrooke, only because I know like most of us you heard that and thought, ‘That is ridiculous.’ That is the claim that if you are purchasing a new home in Reservoir for a million dollars you pay $430,000 in tax. So I went and looked it up just out of curiosity, and I can let you know that, as you perhaps might have expected, it is a fabrication; it is an exaggeration upon an exaggeration. The first important point is that the work that was done there by the Housing Industry Association only refers to new houses. Secondly, it does not just count the direct taxes that you may have thought of – GST and stamp duty and so forth; it counts every possible tax you can imagine. So for a carpenter working on that site who had paid income tax as part of their work – as we all pay income tax – those income taxes are counted. As far as I can tell, if the carpenter went for lunch and paid GST on their hamburger, that was also counted. But then that of course does not get you anywhere near 43 per cent, and so what they had to introduce was this notion of regulatory costs.

Essentially, looking at it – Acting Speaker, you will enjoy this – they said that a block of land in Melbourne should cost $30,000. I know there are some members here that know – and the Minister for Agriculture at the table probably knows – that even out, say, Beveridge way I do not think you can buy a block of land for that; I imagine you would be looking more north of $200,000 to buy a block. Why does it cost more than $30,000? Well, it costs that because of course there are infrastructure costs and there is also extra demand. I imagine in some parts of the Mallee, where I originally grew up, you could find a house block for $30,000, but naturally a house block right next to Melbourne costs more for both the demand and infrastructure reasons, which I presumably do not have to set out to the house.

So that was the way in which they managed to get to this 43 per cent number, by introducing this magical regulatory costs category. To be honest, I feel a little sorry for the poor economist in that consultancy who spent many years getting their PhD. I know they did this bit of work, and people would have come to them and said, ‘We want a really big number,’ and they would have said, ‘The tax contribution – we can get that to 10 per cent,’ and they would have been saying, ‘No, we need a really big number,’ and I can only credit their creativity in managing to get to that very big number.

But the real question, I think, is – and I may draw my remarks to a conclusion around this, and the Minister for Finance made this most important point yesterday: when the opposition walk into this place and say that they are going to cut billions of dollars worth of taxes, it is a little difficult for me to work out exactly how much they were planning to cut. They flagged the $3 billion figure across the forward years, which relates to the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund, but I am not clear what the remainder of their proposed cuts add up to – let us just say billions. The fundamental point – you will appreciate this, Acting Speaker Edbrooke – is that that would place the budget into deficit, and the Minister for Finance quite rightly asked: how are you going to get the budget out of deficit and balance your books if you are making billions of dollars worth of tax cuts? Today, here we are now at 12:30 the day after the budget reply, and we have still had, as I understand it, no answer to that question. Are they going to cut health? Are they going to cut education? Are they going to reverse the free travel for under-18s that the government just announced to some popular acclaim, I might add? Maybe they are reversing that. It is incumbent upon the opposition, if they are going to walk into this place – we have a taxation bill in front of us – and say that they are going to reduce tax by billions of dollars, to explain how they are doing so.

I leave that key question still unanswered, but I just want to note that the rest of the more technical matters of this bill are of course very commendable. I want to thank our new Treasurer, who I said has done a great job, and Chris Barrett at the Department of Treasury and Finance and all the team there. I commend this bill to the house as an important part of an important 2025–26 budget for the people of Victoria.

Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (12:34): I rise to talk on the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2025. As previous speakers have also gone through, this bill amends various taxation-related acts, including the Commercial and Industrial Property Tax Reform Act 2024, the Duties Act 2000, the First Home Owner Grant and Home Buyer Schemes Act 2000, the Land Tax Act 2005, the Payroll Tax Act 2007, the Taxation Administration Act 1997, the Unclaimed Money Act 2008 and the Victorian Conservation Trust Act 1972. This bill comes in to clean up and make better our tax amendments that come through. I am sure that most Victorians at the moment can feel and see that we have a lot of tax that we have to pay to the government.

One of the amendments coming through is the amendment to the land tax. There have been a few people that have touched on how it makes a change for people that have to pay land tax that are involved with domestic and family violence. It is a good thing that if people going through family violence need to sell the family home, there is an avenue for them so that when the assets are divided up they do not have to pay a proportion of land tax on the property. Domestic violence is a scourge on every person in Victoria that suffers from it, from the person that is experiencing it right through to the children. I note that down in the Latrobe Valley family violence skyrocketed 18.3 per cent last year, a figure that is heartbreaking for most people in the Latrobe Valley. A lot of it goes unspoken and unheard, but we do need to speak about these skyrocketing figures. The rate of family violence incidents in the region last year was 3891 per 100,000 population, and I am very, very sad to say that the Latrobe Valley had the second highest rate in the state. But further to that, unfortunately, the next one in line is East Gippsland. It encompasses the Gippsland region, and domestic and family violence is at the forefront of what is happening in the Latrobe Valley at the moment. It is terrible that it is happening, and we need to put things in place to make sure that we get on top of it. Most concerning is that 36 per cent of all the family violence incidents in Latrobe last year involved children. We need to make sure that we try hard to provide outlets and avenues to people that are experiencing domestic violence. We need to make sure that there is a pathway for them and that we can help them to get out. The land tax exemption is going to play a big part in that.

As a former business owner running a plumbing business in the Latrobe Valley, I have had to pay my fair share of tax over the journey, as have many. As you said in your in your speech, Acting Speaker Edbrooke, we know that we have to pay tax and we know that we have an obligation. I am sure every single person that has to pay tax looks at every single way they can pay the least amount of tax that they can. As I said, as a small business owner there were times when the tax bill would come in and I would look at it and think, ‘How am I going to pay this?’ We had to ring up and ask for extensions on deadlines and we had to go on payments, but we always met that final bill that we had to pay.

When we talk to people in small business in the valley, those lines that I experienced years ago are still there. We are paying over 60 new taxes since the government came in. An emergency services and volunteers tax was introduced, and we have seen the issues on the front steps and around the state, because it is one thing to have a new tax and have to pay it, but it is another thing to have the money and the capital to be able to pay it. I am a regional MP, and we talk to our farmers, landowners and the people that are providing our food and fibre for the state. They say to me, ‘How are we going to actually be able to pay for these taxes that are coming in?’ So any tax breaks – and concerns – we can do here in the chamber are welcome. I do note that last week it was mentioned that the coalition, if we do form government, will scrap that tax, and that has been widely well received.

On the government’s new volunteer emergency services tax, we have got the Hazelwood North CFA, which is looking for new sheds and new equipment. This particular CFA shed is going to be 100 years old in a couple of years – that is as long as they have been around protecting the community. One of their major roles is to look after mine fires, as you are well and truly aware of, Acting Speaker Edbrooke, and once again we did not get funding in the budget for that. We would think that the new emergency services tax would possibly go towards funding new, fit-for-purpose facilities. It is an old shed with one toilet, so as we move through these days of having both male and female CFA members, we need to make sure that, if we are collecting this tax, it does go through to our CFA community, providing them with well and truly justified, fit-for-purpose facilities and also new trucks and new equipment, which we can do.

I want to change a little bit to talk about the impending shutdown of the Yallourn coal-fired power station followed by Loy Yang – Yallourn in a couple of years time and Loy Yang in 10 years time. What we find there is that the people that work in the industry at the moment are on a very, very good wage. They probably get paid between $200,000 to $300,000 working in the mine. They pay their taxes, then they move into the community and spend their money in the community. So one of my biggest concerns at the moment is trying to work out where the new industries are that are going to keep these people that are in this $200,000 to $300,000 wage bracket. How do we entice them to stay in the vicinity of the Latrobe Valley? We do not want them moving on.

That is where we need the government to come forward and tell us what manufacturing boom in the renewable sector is going to keep these people in the valley, to make sure that our schools stay open and that they are providing support to all our community groups with the money that they do make, and on the flip side ensure that they continue to pay their fair share of tax to the state government so we – especially Labor, which is in government at the moment – can make sure that they can balance the books. So one of the questions is: what is around the corner? I would love the minister to come out and say we have these 200, 300, 400 or 500 jobs so people are going to be able to stay in jobs earning that $200,000 to $300,000 a year. That is about all from me.

Ros SPENCE (Kalkallo – Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Community Sport, Minister for Carers and Volunteers) (12:44): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate the adjourned until later this day.