Thursday, 30 October 2025

 Jess WILSON (Kew) (15:01): I rise to speak on the State Taxation Further Amendment Bill 2025. I note it is 3 o’clock on Thursday afternoon and we will have very, very little time to debate a state taxation bill that will see Victorians slugged with a further $100 million a year in tax by the Allan Labor government. Because we have so little time to debate this piece of legislation, I will keep my contribution shorter than what it would have been so that my colleagues have an opportunity to talk about the impact of the Allan Labor government’s taxation regime on their constituents and on all Victorians.

This bill, like so many bills before it, is little more than a tax grab by a cash-strapped Labor government desperate to find revenue to plug its ever-growing debt in this space. The government may try to present this bill as a clerical bill, tinkering around the edges of Victoria’s taxation system. But buried within it are two significant tax increases that illustrate just how bereft of ideas this government has become when managing finances in this state. The first is the completely unjustifiable hike in the congestion levy, payable on carparks in the CBD and surrounding suburbs, and the second is the completely shameless tax grab that increases pet registration fees on dogs and cats and greyhounds in this state. This is a tax that will be passed on to pet owners or have to be absorbed by already stretched local councils.

I will give a very brief overview of some of the more uncontroversial measures in this bill before delving into these significant cash grabs in more detail. First, the bill makes some changes to the Land Tax Act 2005 that will affect the application of the vacant residential land tax, exempting residential properties in Dinner Plain from the VRLT in a belated recognition of the area’s alpine conditions and seasonal use. When the government expanded the VRLT from 1 January this year, they exempted all alpine resort areas, but for some reason they forgot about Dinner Plain, which is the only Victorian village located at a similar altitude to the alpine resorts. The properties at Dinner Plain are largely under freehold ownership, and the VRLT has been applied to properties in this area which are largely not occupied outside the winter season. I note this amendment will apply retrospectively from 1 January 2025, and the State Revenue Office will identify and contact Dinner Plain owners who paid the vacant residential land tax to arrange refunds.

I will flag here that I intend to move textual amendments to this bill. This measure in particular is an appropriate step in fixing what was the government’s stuff-up in the first place, seeing Dinner Plain property owners slugged with this tax unfairly and now having to seek refunds. I take this opportunity to congratulate a number of coalition members who have been fighting for residents in Dinner Plain, fighting for them to have this vacant residential land tax removed so that these residents do not have to pay the tax when other alpine resorts do not have to do so.

This bill also clarifies how foreign purchaser duties, absentee owner surcharges and the first home owner grant apply to New Zealand citizens, ensuring that to qualify for exemptions New Zealanders must show they ordinarily reside in Australia for at least six months. But these amendments align these particular measures to the taxation conditions that generally apply to special category visas, which are exclusive to New Zealand citizens.

Another change this bill makes to the Land Tax Act is the creation of a new land tax exemption. The exemption will apply to land valued under $300,000 where the owner lives on that land in a non-permanent dwelling such as a caravan or a tent. Currently these people are subject to land tax, but this will mean that vulnerable people who do not yet have the means to build a more permanent home on their land are no longer being penalised by the tax system. The bill also makes changes to the application of the commercial and industrial property tax, the CIPT, clarifying that properties only enter the scheme where duty is paid on 50 per cent or more of the property’s value. It introduces a duty exemption for transfers between trustees and custodians to simplify administration.

The bill also amends a number of acts to simplify various taxation processes, including allowing electronic service of documents under the first home owners grant and raising the land tax hardship relief threshold from $1000 to $5000 to allow more cases to be heard by the State Revenue Office commissioner rather than the Land Tax Hardship Relief Board in order to speed up decision times. And finally, I note the bill clarifies how building permit levies are calculated, establishing a formula for how construction costs are to be determined for the purposes of the building permit levy.

I now want to turn to the really substantive parts of the bill, and I want to be very, very clear about the significant increase to the congestion levy that this bill proposes to implement. The bill will increase the category 1 area rate levy from $1750 to $3030 per leviable parking space. It will increase the category 2 area rate levy from $1240 to $2150 per parking space. This represents a 73 per cent increase on both category 1 and category 2 levies. But to make matters worse, the bill expands the category 2 area east into parts of Burnley, Cremorne, South Yarra, Windsor, Richmond, Abbotsford and Prahran. That means that car parks for the first time in the City of Yarra and the City of Stonnington that have not been previously liable for the congestion levy are now being hit with more than $2000 per space. This is a blatant tax grab by the Allan Labor government that will be passed on to Victorians, who are already feeling cost-of-living pressures. The proposed levy increase will impose an additional average cost of $13 per day plus GST on car park spaces in the CBD. This cost will be passed on to everyday Victorians. Regional Victorians coming into the CBD to see a medical specialist will pay more. Victorians living in the suburbs who want to go to see a show or watch a game of footy will be slugged. Victorians living with a disability, for whom public transport is not always an option, will pay more to get into the city. Not everyone can take public transport, and for many reasons people need to drive into the CBD. But under the Allan Labor government once again that just got more expensive. If you are heading into the city to go to dinner or to go to the theatre or you want to go to another cultural activity that Melbourne has to offer, you may not want to take public transport home at night. Driving in and parking in the city should be an option that is available to everyday Victorians and is not so expensive that it is out of reach. But under these changes once again that is going to change, because the Allan Labor government cannot manage the finances in this state.

But it is not just people wanting to come into the city that will pay for this tax hike. It is now people who want to go into Prahran. It is people who want to go into Albert Park or Fitzroy. All of these suburbs for the first time are going to be hit with the congestion levy – for the first time. It will be the small business owners and operators on Bridge Road, on Chapel Street, in Albert Park and in Fitzroy that will suffer under the Allan Labor government’s tax hike, because this is a blatant tax grab from a government that cannot manage the finances and is seeing net debt soar in this state.

It will result in fewer customers and less foot traffic. Many small businesses in this state are already struggling to keep their heads above water because of the dire economic conditions under the Labor government. They have already been slugged with COVID debt levies and all manner of Labor fees and charges. There have been more than 60 tax increases, fee increases, levy increases over the past decade under the Labor government.

The reality is that this tax hike goes to the very heart of the decline of Melbourne. The CBD and its surrounding suburbs were once thriving and dynamic centres of culture and enterprise. But the impacts of COVID lockdowns and Labor’s debt have beaten down people and the traders of Melbourne. We hear it every single day, we feel it on the streets and you just have to talk to any business owner in this state to hear the pressure they are under under the Allan Labor government. In fact in the words of a former Labor member in the other place Philip Dalidakis:

Melbourne now feels angrier, edgier, more brittle.

In his column in the Age last week he had many heads nodding around Melbourne that know that feeling and that sadness when it comes to what has happened to Melbourne under the Labor government. This is just another example of how it is going to be harder to revitalise the CBD. Instead of working to revitalise our capital city, making it a global destination, what is the government doing? It is taxing.

This is not about congestion, because we asked the Treasurer’s office what modelling had been done to inform the increases.

Tim Richardson interjected.

Jess WILSON: Infrastructure Victoria in 2017.

Bridget Vallence interjected.

Jess WILSON: Ten years ago – that is right, member for Evelyn. What modelling has been done to inform how much these taxes have increased by? None, the Treasurer’s office told us – absolutely no work had been done. Maybe they might do some data analysis after the fact, but no modelling had been undertaken to inform the increase in the tax hike under this change.

This is a government that has lost control of the finances. Everywhere you turn, they are looking for an opportunity to tax Victorians more – $85 million a year from this, the congestion levy. For the first time they are expanding it into suburbs that are desperate to get the foot traffic up. Small businesses that are looking –

A member: They are pedestrians.

Jess WILSON: Who use cars to get to these places, to go to restaurants. Every single day Victorian restaurants, Victorian small businesses, are seeing the decline of consumer confidence in this state, and it is this government and tax hikes like this that make it impossible to revitalise this city and this CBD.

I just want to finish on the other tax hike in this bill. The congestion levy increase is 73 per cent, but there is a 100 per cent increase on another tax in this bill, and that is the levy that the state government puts on every cat and dog and greyhound registration in this state. This bill will double the amounts payable to the state government from cat and dog registration fees collected by councils – a 100 per cent increase. If it woofs, if it purrs, Labor will tax it. That is the reality of where the finances are at in this state – not even your pet dog or your pet cat is safe from the Allan Labor government. When asked ‘How will this be passed on to consumers? Will it be passed on to pet owners?’, the Treasurer’s office said, ‘Oh, well, they might pass it on, or councils could just try to absorb it.’ Once again, this is cost shifting onto local councils, just like the emergency services tax. This is the reality of the Labor government: every opportunity it gets, it cost shifts to someone else – put a tax on the pet dog or the pet cat. This is one of those taxes that will resonate with Victorians, because if you own a dog or a cat, like over 1 million households do in this state, you do not expect the Allan Labor government to come after you with a new tax.

This just highlights how desperate this government is for tax revenue. Why? Because under this government we have the highest debt in the country, soaring towards $200 billion in coming years. What will that mean? That every day Victorians will be paying an interest bill of over $29 million, or $1.2 million an hour. As we see that net debt soar, what is the answer from the Allan Labor government? That they are going to put up taxes at every opportunity to make it harder in this state to do business, to cut the cost of living or to even own your own pet dog or pet cat.

 Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (15:16): It is a pleasure to rise and follow the member for Kew on the State Taxation Further Amendment Bill 2025. I was listening to the range of contradictions in that contribution around no-one coming into the CBD but then the congestion levy that will stop the mountain of people coming into the CBD to access all kinds of things that make Melbourne one of the top-rated cities in the world. I just want to take the member for Kew through the September figures. Melbourne remains ahead of Sydney as the top interstate overnight destination for trips, for nights and for visitor spends, with international travellers staying 3 million nights in the June 2025 quarter. Those opposite might narrate doom and gloom, but the figures tell a very different story.

The member for Kew in her first speech made a very eloquent reflection when she said that:

Improving financial literacy will be a priority for me.

Well, goodness me, with an $11 billion black hole and cuts to services and now narrating more opposition to a revenue source, this is an extraordinary prism that we find ourselves in. The Shadow Treasurer is wanting to preside over substantial cuts to services, and when you see that first speech it makes the member David Limbrick in the other place blush. It is the libertarian nature of very small government: ‘Governments don’t create any jobs; just leave it to the free market and let market failure run ragged on Victorians.’ This is the new Liberal Party: small government, smashing services and cuts to frontline services that Victorians rely on.

Let me go to the congestion levy and the member for Kew’s points about this. The member for Kew called out an Infrastructure Victoria reference. We know that congestion alone costs Victoria some $10 billion per year. We know that is disproportionate. When you jump on Punt Road and you are rolling in at 35 minutes for a few-k journey, you know that the congestion is building up. We need to diversify the way we get into our city and into our essential areas. You know those opposite get the former Premier Dom Perrottet for their fundraisers. Remember that? They roll him out. He is that bastion of wisdom. He was such a great economic manager. Well, guess what? We are aligning the levies to the same circumstances as Sydney. There we go. It is so revolutionary this; it is so disastrous. Those opposite love that. They want to go back to the colony of New South Wales. That is how desperate they are to talk down Victoria. If they could make it New South Wales and name half the things after colonial leaders, they would in a second. In a second, they would be back there. But the congestion levy is on the same merits and terms as Sydney. So they lord it over us with Premier Berejiklian and they lord it over us with Premier Perrottet, but these are similar measures to what we find in the northern state, in New South Wales.

So where do we get to? There is an economic reference, a justification, for this. By way of comparison and to give the member for Kew that context, in 2018 Infrastructure Victoria, the state’s independent infrastructure adviser, as we know – there are those that hold it up to huge standards when it suits them but then will not when it comes to issues that do not suit their narrative – conducted a review of the last time the levy was increased and the boundaries were expanded in 2015. They concluded that the levy had been successful at reducing the supply of leviable car parking in the leviable areas off the morning peak by 3900 vehicles. So we are supporting those communities to get to where they need to go. When the member for Kew talks about getting to essential appointments and services, you cannot – for an hour – with some of the congestion that is going on. We are building the major infrastructure projects that those opposite are abundantly opposed to.

Remember their major congestion buster. It was their big major infrastructure project. The member for Evelyn might remember this because it was of such state significance that they contracted out the stickers being put up at Southern Cross station. Remember that?

It said airport rail was just down there. Tourists came into Melbourne – the very limited numbers under the Napthine–Baillieu years – and walked to the edge of the platform, looking for the airport rail, and there was nothing there. All those opposite contributed to reducing congestion in Victoria at that time were stickers at the end of platform 14 on the way to Geelong. That was literally their contribution.

We have got an infrastructure agenda that is the envy of the nation. It is no thanks to the work of the federal Liberal coalition, which the member for Kew – a massive fan of the former Treasurer, a fellow Victorian, fellow person in her area – talks about. The fandom for the former member for Kooyong and the federal Treasurer was extraordinary in the member for Kew’s speech, because she talked about economic management and how great he was. He took it up to $1 trillion debt – I do not know if you saw. The chart is so big it goes off. You have to increase the chart, and it keeps going. That was before COVID. They just kept going. Guess how much funding Victorians got? Zero. Economic infrastructure, congestion-busting infrastructure funding – zero. I know that the Leader of the Nationals got a few bits and bobs from Chester down the road in Gippsland, but nothing from the Liberals – nothing whatsoever.

Danny O’Brien: Nothing from the Labor government here in Victoria.

Tim RICHARDSON: He says nothing. The Metro Tunnel – any danger? Any danger for the Suburban Rail Loop? Those opposite – no contribution; there was nothing. I was hoping there would be a bit more of an intellectual discussion here around how we respond to it, because we know the member for Kew is the number one seed. We know once the member for Brighton nicked off, the concession prize was knocking off the member for Evelyn as the Manager of Opposition Business, who was doing a great job, had us on the ropes and made us a bit nervous at the time, but that was the concession.

Danny O’Brien: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I believe the member has strayed dramatically from the bill, and I ask you to bring him back to it.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Alison Marchant): I will ask the member to come back to the bill.

Tim RICHARDSON: Significant sensitivity there. The member for Kew – I was hoping just for some sort of eloquent display of understanding congestion and how we eradicate this and how we respond to this into the future. We got nothing. We got no leadership there. We got no narration, just again more opposition, more division and more talking down Victoria and the CBD once again.

I go back to that. The economics of this stack up. By way of comparison, the reference that I made to reducing 3900 vehicles off the morning peak means the last increase in the levy saved around two lanes of freeway worth of congestion off our roads. In today’s money that would be around $1.6 billion in avoided freeway expanded costs. That is an extraordinary number. The member for Kew and member for Evelyn interjected at the time and said, ‘Well, that was based in 2017.’ Well, yes, if you were basing the Liberals’ infrastructure policies and the do-nothing of their approach to congestion busting, yes, it might have been worse. The inverse of that is that congestion has not gotten worse, that the population has not grown and that the 2017 number was not a worse point than where we find ourselves now because congestion has gone backwards. That is not comparable whatsoever. What we see is that the economics of that would be substantially better.

What we find here is it is again the Shadow Treasurer’s perspective that is reaffirmed by the Leader of the Opposition. It is a do-nothing, no-solutions-based approach to a bill once again to say, ‘The government’s bad. The government’s always bad. Victoria’s bad,’ but then the stats again stack up. We are outstripping Sydney in our visitor economy. Melbourne is the absolute engine room of the nation’s economy, and that has played out time and time again. We see that in business growth in our area. We see that in investment across our state. We see it in jobs creation – nearly 900,000 jobs have been created by this government. The narrative does not stack up over there whatsoever.

When we see $11 billion as the gap, we know what that means for Victorians in our state. That means congestion will not be busted, because services will be cut. That means the workers that are building the essential projects that are stripping back congestion will not be delivered in the future. There will be no pipeline of works. Everything will come to a grinding halt. We have seen that before by those opposite. The notion in the shadow minister’s response around where the debt profile is as 24 per cent of gross state product – it is far less than when the federal government left us, in the mid-30s of GDP.

This is a really interesting narrative, that it is all doom and gloom in Victoria, but those opposite charmed over those who took it up to $1 trillion in debt – $1 trillion in debt was what they left federally. That is in a comparable sense. We have all the economic markers pointing towards Victoria still being a great place to invest and thrive into the future. What we do not need right now is $11.1 billion in cuts in opposition to this – just add that to the ticket.

The member for Kew, and maybe the Leader of the Nationals – because I know he has got form for wanting to break the coalition; he got admonished and then rolled the former leader, and now he is at the main table – might want to reassess. Maybe he wants to think about telling them not to make those cuts. Regional and rural areas would suffer from those $11 billion in cuts to teachers, to nurses, to child support workers and to police and emergency services, because that is what is coming if the member for Kew, the Shadow Treasurer, ever got in charge of the finances.

 Jess WILSON (Kew) (15:26): Under standing orders, I wish to advise the house of amendments to this bill and request that they be circulated.

 Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (15:26): Well, it is always a pleasure to follow the member for Mordialloc and to speak on the State Taxation Further Amendment Bill 2025, which is the living, breathing embodiment of the old Maggie Thatcher line that when socialists run out of money they come after yours, because this is what is happening again under this government. They have run out of money, and they just keep coming for more taxes every step of the way, every opportunity they get – ‘What can we tax?’ Who would have thought, after all the noise that this government has made about puppies and about dog parks – and the member for Mordialloc knows; he is smiling because he remembers doing entire Public Accounts and Estimates Committee sessions on dog parks –it took this long for the boffins in the Treasurer’s office to go, ‘Puppies and kittens – we can tax them too.’ So they are doubling the tax on kittens and puppies. What sort of government does that? It is outrageous.

Jess Wilson interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: It is a desperate government, member for Kew, that would increase the dog and cat registration by 100 per cent. And it reminds me, member for Kew, of other things that the government is increasing taxes on to a level of 100 per cent, like every household in the state under the new emergency services tax – a 100 per cent increase in the rate that every single household is paying. They will have all probably got their rates notices by now with the extra little bit in red highlighting the state government’s 100 per cent increase under the emergency services levy. And not only that, every commercial business as well has got a 100 per cent increase across the state and there is a 64 per cent increase for every industrial customer. If you are a farmer, you are paying the same as you were last year, but we know that the sword of Damocles is hanging over your heads for next year, when a 150 per cent charge is awaiting every single primary producer in the state. That is because this government is so desperate for money.

Fancy the member for Mordialloc talking about the federal government’s debt levels when so much of that debt incurred by the federal government was to bail out businesses in Victoria who were repeatedly locked down during COVID by this Labor government. It was the former Treasurer Mr Frydenberg who came to the rescue of Dan Andrews and this Labor government by actually bailing out the businesses here, and now they are complaining about the debt they have got. Seriously? To complain about the debt – $194 billion you are heading for. That is $29 million a day in interest this government is incurring on behalf of Victorians. That would fund the Sale College rebuild in two days – in two days it would get funded. But that is $29 million a day in interest that Victorians are paying because this profligate lot on the other side are not able to manage money.

We are seeing that as well in the tax increase in this legislation on the congestion charge – a massive increase there, which as the member for Kew says, will impact people coming to the city. This government likes to say that it governs for all Victorians. This is an extra tax on regional Victorians who are wanting to come to the city. They want to come to the city if they can – to see a show, go to the footy, go to the basketball or netball – but they are going to be taxed extra to do so if they have to go and find a car park.

I also want to pick up the member for Mordialloc on the, frankly, laughable modelling that the government is supposedly putting around there. It is one thing to stuff up your own numbers, but only this government could get the modelling wrong on the opposition’s numbers as well. It explains everything you need to know about this government. We are hearing, ‘Oh, these nasty cuts. There are going to be terrible cuts that the Liberals and Nationals do.’ We have a quote that I think is relevant to this:

… Victoria has over 500 entities and 3400 public boards and committees … You can’t tell me that there’s not some fat in there.

It sounds like a terrible, nasty, Liberal thing, doesn’t it? Who was it? That was the current Treasurer Jaclyn Symes when she announced 3000 jobs will be cut under the Silver review, and this mob is now trying to scream that we are the problem on this side. It is unbelievable that they think this; it is just a disgrace. It is a government that cannot manage money. Victorians are paying the price because these people on the other side are looking for tax increases every step of the way.

This bill has been curtailed deliberately by a government that does not want to talk about more tax increases – on puppies and kittens, for God’s sake. As a result I want my colleagues to be able to have their say. I will leave it there, but Labor cannot manage money, and Victorians are paying the price.

 Nathan LAMBERT (Preston) (15:31): I am slightly surprised to have two opposition speakers finish well short of time. I might take the opportunity to speak about the State Taxation Further Amendment Bill 2025 at some greater length than the Leader of the Nationals. I would like to begin by going back to April 2023, when the member for Sandringham was the Shadow Treasurer. Back at the time – the Leader of the Nationals is gesturing wildly. Does the Leader of the Nationals have an interjection, or –

Danny O’Brien interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Alison Marchant): Through the Chair. Order!

Nathan LAMBERT: Through the Chair. The member for Sandringham, when he was the Shadow Treasurer, back in April 2023, stood up in this place and made a claim regarding taxes. He said very boldly that:

… under the Liberal–Nationals you will be literally thousands of dollars better off every single year.

At face value of course that would be a good thing, but naturally you cannot just wave a magic wand and achieve that. Immediately the Shadow Treasurer was asked what services he was going to cut to fund what appeared to be about a $5 billion black hole, which his various comments implied. Here we are now in 2025, 2½ years later, and the black hole has grown. The Treasurer now has it at about $10.8 billion a year. I heard that the member for Mordialloc had it at $11.1 billion. He has, to his credit, very adroitly added in the effect of the textual amendments that the member for Kew has just circulated in the house. He has calculated on the fly that they are knocking back the congestion levy changes and thus adding another $340 million to the black hole. I can see him nodding. I think if we were to actually tack on the cats and dogs changes, that might even be $11.2 billion. Whichever way it is calculated, it is a very large hole in revenue that the Liberal and National parties need to explain.

We did hear in fact during question time that the Minister for Economic Growth and Jobs speculated as to what the black hole related cuts in services might look like. He talked about 18,000 nurses, 9000 teachers and 4500 police officers losing their jobs.

Danny O’Brien: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, similar to my point of order before, this contribution at this point is nowhere near the legislation before us.

Nathan LAMBERT: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, this is a bill that goes directly to the fiscal arrangements and taxation arrangements of the government, and that is what we are discussing.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Alison Marchant): I will rule on the point of order. I will bring the member back to the bill, but other members have raised taxation in this state, on both sides.

Nathan LAMBERT: For the further benefit of the Leader of the Nationals, the member for Kew has just circulated textual amendments that seek to adjust the revenue arrangements of the government, and all members here have every right to ask what other adjustments might be made, including on the expenditure side, in relation to services, as a result of those amendments circulated by the member for Kew. As I said, the minister speculated that this might involve losing teachers, losing nurses, losing police officers. As I heard it in the chamber, opposition MPs denied that. The only thing I have ever heard, by way of explanation, for how the Liberals or Nationals will fill their $11.2 billion black hole, is that they will apparently ‘address project blowouts’. I do know that some businesspeople who attend lunches with the Liberal Party members cringe a little when they hear this project blowouts explanation, and that is because many of our good business leaders understand basic accounting.

The member for Mordialloc was talking about the importance of financial literacy, and I could not agree more. Perhaps for the benefit of the Liberal and National members, we will just step through those basics again. When you have a budget that is balanced, and this government has a budget that is balanced, that means your cash flows are roughly the same – your revenue and your expenditure, your operating result is balanced – if you take $11.2 billion out of the revenue side, you have a deficit. You have very significant deficit – you have got $11.2 billion worth of deficit. You cannot fix that deficit by de-scoping or cancelling capital projects. They are, for the most part, balance sheet transactions. You could, at a very long stretch, try and fix the problem by reducing your depreciation, as accountants know, but that would require cancelling $100 billion worth of capital projects.

It is very confusing trying to work out where the Liberals and Nationals are on any of our capital projects. Many will remember they of course opposed the West Gate Tunnel. They ganged up with the Greens to try and defeat it. They opposed the West Gate Freeway update. I think they also ganged up with the Greens to try and defeat it. I do remember that their federal counterparts pulled several billion dollars, from memory, or tried to pull it out of the Sunshine station upgrade. But now that we arrive here in late 2025, I think they actually support the entirety of the government’s capital expenditures across the forward estimates – I have certainly never heard anything to the contrary. So if they are doing that, it brings us back to this very central question: how are they going to pay for their black hole? To which the only answer must be cuts in services.

Danny O’Brien: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, while we are all loving that we are living rent free in the government’s head, I renew my point of order that this is not related to the legislation before us.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Alison Marchant): I bring the member back to the bill.

Nathan LAMBERT: Acting Speaker, on the point of order, in the debate in this house the member for Kew has circulated textual amendments that roughly remove $390 million from the revenues of this government. We have every right in a debate to ask what the impact of that is.

The Treasurer put out a media release, I think yesterday, that went exactly to these questions, and I might just quote some of the key questions that that media release asked: will the Liberals and Nationals commit to publishing their costings each time they make a promise to the Victorian people?’

The Treasurer also asked:

Will you support the congestion levy changes this week, or add $85 million a year to your billion-dollar blackhole?

That is very much to the topic of the bill. We have heard today, looking at those textual amendments, as I said, that the answer to that is no. But her final question, and perhaps the most important question, is:

When will you detail the cuts to fill the growing $10.8 billion blackhole?

I come back to that point because it is the single most important question to ask about the fiscal program of the alternative government in this state.

Then turning further to the details of the bill that we have in front of us, I do just want to spend a moment dealing with the commercial and industrial property tax changes, and that is because I think that is a very important and still underrated reform. I remember the opposition actually tried to block this important reform, and the member for Sandringham, who was then the Shadow Treasurer, moved a reasoned amendment to that effect. Those of us who were here in the chamber at the time argued that it was an important reform to get on with, and that if we needed to make some of the adjustments that he was talking about, we would do so through legislative measures. Of course that is exactly what we are doing here today, and I will not repeat further comments from that second-reading speech.

I will note the very strong support, including in Preston and Reservoir, for the way that this reform and our vacant residential land tax reforms, which are touched upon in part 6 of this bill, discourage land banking and encourage people to make good use of any land or property that they own. It is very frustrating for people in Preston and Reservoir when they understand that there is pressure on our housing and the need to get more housing built, which of course this government is doing, to have some people sitting there with fantastic properties that are empty or sitting on land that could be properties and doing nothing with it, sometimes for decades. I can give you a couple of examples. There was a vacant property at 233 Gower Street, which was actually sitting within the Preston High grounds, that was not tenanted out, with no-one resident in it. I am very pleased to inform the house that the government have now purchased that property, and we will be putting it to good use as a further part of Preston High’s grounds. Similarly, there is an infamous burnt-out property next to the Preston Hotel that has not been addressed in years. There is a property up at 1C Macartney Street that has been unfinished now since 2010 – so for over 15 years. These reforms are helping make sure that people who do nothing with these properties and leave them sitting there will be compelled to or will at least face a financial disincentive for continuing to do so.

Finally, very briefly in the time we have got left, I would just like to echo the remarks of the member for Mordialloc about the congestion levy and the how that it is a really well-designed levy for the kind of things we are trying to do with the city. We do have to deal with growth. We do have to deal with peak-hour congestion, which is one of the hardest things to do with growth. That is exactly what this levy does. I agree with him that the adjusting of things to the Dom Perrottet levels that he referred to is a good change. I support the rest of the bill and commend it to the house.

 Bridget VALLENCE (Evelyn) (15:41): I rise to make a contribution on the State Taxation Further Amendment Bill 2025. As sure as night follows day, this tired Labor government will always find a new way to tax Victorians more, and that is simply because Labor is addicted to tax. Labor is spend and tax, spend and tax, spend and tax, and as debt levels skyrocket, Labor’s taxes go up, up and up. All this news is bad for Victorians in a cost-of-living crisis. At its heart, this bill is nothing more than a device to tax Victorian families more, because Labor are running out of money and they will not do anything to fix their financial incompetence, their wasteful spending and their skyrocketing debt. This latest grab for cash will do nothing to improve the lives of Victorians. Instead, as I said, it will only make the cost of living for Victorians that much harder.

After promising no new taxes back at the 2014 election, and even the Treasurer promising no new taxes before her last state budget only a few months ago, this Labor government over 10 long years has added 65 new or increased taxes. Under this Labor government, the proposal in this bill is to significantly increase the so-called congestion levy, but it is nothing more than a tax imposed on Victorians who are visiting the city from out of town, from out of the suburbs or at odd hours or who might be working in a cafe making food or coffee, cleaning offices, going to a show or dining at a restaurant. We should be doing much more to attract people to our city, whether for work or for recreation, and doing much more to revitalise our city and boost Melbourne’s economy. Yet with this new law, Labor will increase the car park tax by over 70 per cent. That is not going to encourage people to go to shows in the city, to shop in the shops at Chapel Street or to go to the cafes in Richmond.

Congestion is not the problem to solve that it once was. City office occupancy has plummeted since the COVID pandemic lockdowns by this Labor government and the work-from-home changes. Visitation is down. City traders are absolutely on their knees under this Labor government, as a result of Labor’s longest lockdowns and, more recently, the never-ending violent protests under the watch of this Labor government, week in and week out. Under Labor’s new tax plan, for car parks in the category 1 area, which includes the Melbourne CBD, the car park tax will increase from $1750 to $3030, and for the category 2 area of the inner suburbs, the car park tax will increase from $1750 to $2150. Further, Labor is expanding the category 2 area to hit even more Victorians with their car park tax.

This is an illogical tax. Residents in Prahran, South Yarra, Richmond will now be forced to pay this new car park tax. Local residents and visitors who need to drive to the Prahran market to buy their fruit and veg and shop on Chapel Street will now be forced to pay for this new car parking tax, which will hurt the already suffering small and family businesses in these inner suburban areas and in the city. Labor government MPs will say that people can ride a bike or catch public transport, but if you are a mum with little kids, perhaps someone with a disability or elderly or someone coming from the outer suburbs – like in my area, Coldstream or Mount Evelyn – from where you literally just cannot catch public transport to go to the iconic Chapel Street to shop; you will need to drive. But with this tax, people probably will just not do that. It is a disincentive to come in and frequent the shops in our inner city and suburbs.

When we sought clarification from the Treasurer’s office in the bill briefing about what analysis or modelling had been undertaken in relation to this 73 per cent tax hike on car parks and how that would actually improve congestion, we were told that the modelling that this Labor government was relying on was done back in 2016, 10 years ago. That is simply out of date. How lazy it is for this Labor government to use modelling from 10 years ago, well before the city landscape completely changed through the COVID pandemic, lockdowns and work from home. Visitation to the city has dropped. The latest financial report delivered by the Treasurer earlier this month recorded that $123 million was collected from Victorians under this car parking tax. Under this new tax hike, in this law, Labor expects to reap almost double the amount, with $222 million expected revenue from Victorians as a result of this car park tax hike. Over the forward estimates, Labor predicts the tax will increase to $228 million for the 2026–27 year, $234 million for the 2027–28 year and $240 million for the 2028–29 year. So in total, over the forward estimates, Labor expects to gain an additional incremental revenue of $924 million – nearly $1 billion from Victorians over the next four years with this car park tax.

We have established that this Labor government are addicted to taxes, to taxing hardworking Victorians more to plug their budget blowouts and their skyrocketing debt. And like any addict, this Labor government is looking for its next hit – now it is the family pet: the pet tax. That is right, in this legislation, under Labor’s new tax plan, they will tax Victorians more for their dogs and cats, as this bill doubles the state government levy from pet registration. The clip on the ticket that this Labor government wants to take from pet registration is going to double under this new law by Labor. Seriously, the tired Labor government has absolutely no shame left. They have run out of ideas, and the only idea they have is to spend more and tax Victorians more.

The Treasurer only said back in May this year, before the last budget, that there would be no new taxes, and yet in a spectacular failed promise, this law we are debating today introduces two new taxes on Victorians. The pet tax will impact over a million households in Victoria. They have no shame. Detailed specifically in this legislation and in the minister’s second reading speech, Labor’s new pet tax hike proves how much of a dog’s breakfast the state Labor government’s budget has become and how desperate Premier Jacinta Allan and her government have become with the skyrocketing debt, how they are going to pay that down and how they are going to deal with the unfunded Suburban Rail Loop pet project of theirs. Again, under Labor’s new tax plan in this bill, the clip on the ticket in relation to pet registration will double.

Labor cannot manage money, they cannot manage the budget, and it is Victorians that will pay the price. Labor are taxing Victorians more because they have reached unsustainable levels in terms of the debt. It is clear that Labor’s addiction to taxes clearly will not stop.

Victorians are paying double the tax that they were 10 years ago. In the 2014–15 financial year the total state tax revenue of the government was $18.3 billion. Ten years later the state tax revenue for the 2024–25 financial year is $38.9 billion. Victorians are paying double the amount of tax after 10 years of this Labor government. It is time for a fresh start. It is time for a fresh start to restore sound financial practices, to lower taxes and to help ease the cost of living for Victorians. We oppose this bill and the unfair new tax grabs in this bill.

 Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (15:50): We know that this legislation will make a range of amendments to various taxation acts to – I will just give the overview to start with – keep our tax system fair for struggling property owners living on their property, make sure the community of Dinner Plain is treated like any other alpine resort, make reforms to tackle the spiralling cost of congestion in our city and make amendments to make sure Victoria has an efficient and fair tax code. I do not pretend I can cover all of that, but I will seek to cover a fair whack of the bill.

When it comes to that first element, keeping our tax fair for struggling property owners living on their property, what am I talking about? We know that there are a lot of people struggling out there. There are Victorians that are living on their parcels of land, and they will have saved very hard to be able to get to that point. Sometimes those people might fall on hard times and need to live on the property, even though they do not have a permanent structure. They might be living in a caravan or some other type of non-permanent building, and they are just trying to get by. But because the principal place of residence exemption for land tax only applies to land with an occupancy certificate, they may end up getting a land tax bill in the mail – that is pre these amendments coming through. We of course think that is unfair, and that is why we are exempting properties with a value under $300,000 with non-permanent shelters from land tax. It is important that those Victorians, who are just trying to get by and only have one property that they live on, do not face unnecessary and burdensome bills. It is a very nuanced element but one that is certainly tackling a direct cost-of-living issue. We trust that with the good passage of this bill, that can help to alleviate that burden for those Victorians.

I want to now proceed to another significant element of this bill, namely the congestion levy. Fundamentally, when talking about congestion levies, they are seeking to change behaviours with a very good and sound rationale. If you simply sit on your hands and hope that change will happen, we know it does not. In fact we need to foster good and positive ways to make people actually have less burdensome commutes, commutes that are actually more efficient. If we are talking about specifically, say, people with a disability or mothers with prams and other things that have been mentioned, although they certainly can travel on public transport, that is all the more incentive to reduce congestion on the road so that they have shorter lengths of commutes in terms of duration. Simply hoping for a change is not the way forward. We have seen this globally; we are not only relying on data that we have to date. We see in other parts of the world, not least the UK, that they have significant congestion levies imposed. Less people in cars will also help to reduce emissions fundamentally, subject to them being electric or otherwise. But even so, even an electric vehicle, as admirable as that can be, is still an object on the road; it still creates congestion.

It is always going to be better the more people we get onto public transport or active transport as the case may be. Certainly we will see that with the Metro Tunnel coming on board. I note the opposition did suggest it was a hoax. But of course being a Labor government, as we do, we are delivering, and I am very excited about that. I had the great pleasure of joining colleagues to see the seamless connection between the stations, and it is really going to be transformative for our state. We are not only imposing certain elements to curb and to change behaviours of Victorians, but we are also facilitating much easier ways to get around our city.

We know that there will be an increase in services in terms of additional services with the Metro Tunnel in December, and then of course the full uplift in February which will be a thousand extra services. I also want to note that since 2022 there has been an uplift with both the Metro Tunnel and certainly Anzac station, which is very close, right on the edge of my seat of Albert Park. Also for commutes in and out of Fishermans Bend there has been an uplift of 1500 services and a significant uplift in patronage, none the least on weekends.

I was actually at a book launch the other day and there were so many locals there who were really so excited about the fact that the uplift in the 237 bus has really made a personal difference to them. I also have had really positive feedback on other bus services, such as the 606. I know people want even more – great. The more advocacy we have for more uplift, even better. But there was significant uplift on that, which actually had a significant benefit for a lot of school students. I am excited whenever we have community talking about public transport and wanting more of it or more access ways for cycling – this is a good thing for our state. We know along St Kilda Road that we have the properly segregated bike lanes and the uptake there has been absolutely fantastic, really providing a much easier transit, a much healthier transit for so many Victorians along St Kilda Road. It is a very busy part of our state. It was certainly a very complicated upgrade to make, but it has been well worth it.

I should say that we do tackle this from a holistic perspective. Obviously this bill is specifically about state taxation, but nevertheless it is not in a vacuum. It is built around all the other factors and all the other elements that we are implementing or have already been implemented to help Victorians get where they need to go.

Actually, it was just a couple of weeks ago I had a traffic and pedestrian safety forum in Southbank. I certainly was not controlling, for want of better word, who turned up to that particular forum. I was very pleased to see if people were talking about parking or talking about increasing lanes on freeways. No, what they were talking about was how much they love public transport and active transport, and they wanted further enhancements in that space, which was absolute music to my ears. So contrary to the sort of the rhetoric we hear from those opposite, I think that through really positive uplift in terms of public transport and major infrastructure developments that the Labor government has rolled out, we can see that Victorians are very keen to take them on and to enjoy the benefits of them.

Further still, we know that we also have really significant investments through the SEC to ensure that with our public transport also that we are really cutting or slashing our emissions. I know that we certainly are upgrading our bus fleet. Having ridden on an electric bus a couple of times, I must say it is fantastic. You no longer get that diesel sort of inhalation, but it is also much quieter and a much more pleasant ride. Really when we are talking about disincentivising people to schlep with their cars into the city – and let me tell you, it is not much fun. As somebody who lives right on the city, it is so much more pleasant to hop on a tram or to even use your legs, I must say. Obviously we are allowing for the different needs of different people, so I am not wanting to reflect on people with disabilities or otherwise who might need other forms of transport. But it must be said, the more of us that can use public transport or active transport, the better it will be for everyone in terms of reducing congestion.

We also know it would be a significant saving for the economy as well. In fact Infrastructure Victoria has modelled the congestion cost to the Victorian economy at over $10 billion per year from 2030 alone. You can see there is a very clear economic imperative to put in place very strategic but transparent measures to ensure that we continue to press down and to tackle and to curtail congestion for our state, because all Victorians will no doubt be better off.

Even going back a little further, in 2018 Infrastructure Victoria, the state’s independent infrastructure adviser, conducted a review of the last time the levy was increased and boundaries expanded, which was in 2015. They concluded that the levy had been successful in reducing the supply of leviable car parking in the leviable area, which led to 3900 fewer vehicles in the morning peak period. In anyone’s language, that is a significant benefit in terms of reducing the burden of having to sit – how boring, let alone cumbersome – in traffic and having less time for you for your extracurricular activities or to spend time with your family. There is another incentive to reduce congestion and to improve the ability of Victorians to get around our great state of Victoria.

 Rachel WESTAWAY (Prahran) (16:01): I rise to speak on the State Taxation Further Amendment Bill 2025. Whilst this is an omnibus bill containing many technical amendments, some of which I support, I must focus my remarks today on the provisions that will directly harm the community I represent: the expansion of the category 2 congestion levy into Prahran, South Yarra and the City of Stonnington. I speak today not only as the member for Prahran but as the new Shadow Assistant Minister for Small Business and Shadow Assistant Minister for Hospitality. This issue sits at the heart of both these portfolios and, more importantly, at the heart of my community. Under standing orders, I wish to advise the house of amendments to this bill, and I request that they be distributed.

I am circulating an amendment to clause 19 that would remove Stonnington from this expansion. Specifically my amendment removes references to Dandenong Road and Queens Way as boundary markers and adjusts the geographic description to exclude the Stonnington municipality while maintaining the boundary at Punt Road. This is not a wholesale rejection of the levy system. This is a surgical amendment to protect a precinct that is fundamentally different to the CBD.

Let me be clear: we are facing in my community government taxes that will put parking up by 73 per cent in my electorate. Chapel Street in Prahran has a vacancy rate of 15.87 per cent. Chapel Street in South Yarra sits at 13.12 per cent and Toorak Road in South Yarra is at 8.33 per cent vacancy. It will have a significant impact on my area if we have this tax included. I listened to the member for Albert Park, and while she states that this congestion levy is going to save the environment, let us be clear here: this is a parking tax. What I am hearing from local residents and shoppers in my area is that they will just drive to Chadstone, which is not helping the environment – it means people will have less money in their pockets and emissions will be greater.

Nearly one in six shopfronts on Chapel Street in Prahran stands empty. These are former cafes, boutiques and local businesses that have closed their doors. These are the small businesses that I represent. These are the hospitality venues that once made Chapel Street famous. I walk Chapel Street daily – at least when I am not in this place – and I talk to traders. I hear from the cafe owners that are struggling with rising costs. I meet with the boutique retailers trying to compete with online shopping, and I am in regular contact with the management at Prahran Market. Local traders, the Stonnington council, business associations and the broader community have been investing time, energy and resources into revitalising this precinct, and we have seen green shoots – real, tangible signs of recovery. The private sector is leaning in, taking real risks and investing real money in our community. Look at the magnificent Prahran Arcade that has just been done up – private investors are restoring a heritage icon. Look at the Cecil Place precinct – new investment, new energy. Look at the Jam Factory precinct – billions of dollars invested in these areas to create part of Chapel Street, as well as the small businesses seeking to find a precinct that gives them an edge on the megamalls and online shopping that they are currently facing.

These are private businesses and developers backing Chapel Street’s future with their own capital and hard work. They believe in this precinct, and they are willing to take the risk. What does the Labor government do? They find a new and innovative way to make it harder. At every turn the private sector leans in, invests and takes risks, and this government slaps a 73 per cent increase on the parking tax on its customers on top of all the other taxes and charges that they are currently facing. It is not just bad policy but sabotage. This government wants to make it harder and more expensive for customers to visit these revitalised spaces; to shop in these beautiful, restored heritage buildings; to dine in existing and new venues; and to support the small businesses and hospitality venues in my electorate.

As the Shadow Assistant Minister for Small Business and the Shadow Assistant Minister for Hospitality, let me share what is at risk. Prahran and South Yarra combined represent 4267 businesses generating $1.02 billion in annual turnover, $971 million in visitor spend and critical employment for thousands of Victorians. And the crucial detail: 64 to 65 per cent of visitor spending comes from people outside of the precinct. These are destination shoppers coming from across Melbourne for independent traders, for cafes, for restaurants. Chapel Street represents the absolute best, and this government and this levy are going to kill it. We absolutely need to carve it off.

My amendment offers a solution: remove Stonnington from this expansion and protect Prahran, South Yarra and the surrounding areas that were never intended to be captured by the CBD congestion levy. This does not undermine the levy’s purpose for genuine CBD locations; it simply recognises that the destination shopping strips facing 16 per cent vacancy rates need support and not additional tax burdens. I urge all members to support this amendment – support Chapel Street, support South Yarra, support small business, support hospitality, support a community that has been fighting very hard and deserves better than to be treated as collateral damage in a revenue grab. I call on the government to work with the opposition to fix this, whether it be here or in the upper house, before it is too late for the businesses and the workers in my electorate.

 Eden FOSTER (Mulgrave) (16:07): I rise today to speak in favour of the State Taxation Further Amendment Bill 2025. This bill, while technical in its nature, is profoundly rooted in the core values of fairness, equity and the unwavering belief that government must work for every Victorian. My focus is shaped by growing up in a diverse working-class community, which has instilled in me a profound sense of compassion for those facing adversity. It has shaped my focus on mental health, education and social justice. This is a government that understands the essential contract between citizen and the state: we pay our taxes, and in return we expect world-class services, a strong social safety net and a government that plans for the future. The amendments contained here are the machinery of that contract, ensuring its smooth, fair and responsible operation.

This bill, a collection of administrative and legislative amendments, might seem far removed from those social concerns, yet I argue it is an integral piece of the puzzle. An equitable and robust state taxation system is not an end in itself; it is the essential means by which we fund things like the rollout of the royal commission reforms in mental health, deliver world-class schools and health facilities, build the critical infrastructure our community needs and deserves, and ensure that no Victorian is left behind. The bill before us is a package of commonsense, necessary and targeted reforms. It seeks to achieve a number of key outcomes, shoring up the state’s financial bedrock against unexpected legal challenges, ensuring the fair and intended application of our taxes, supporting local economies and reducing administrative burdens for everyday Victorians.

Moving now to some of the amendments, I would like to talk about the Congestion Levy Act 2005. Since its inception this levy has served a dual purpose of managing congestion in our central areas and providing a dedicated, sustainable revenue source for vital public transport and road projects. Our government is delivering the largest transport investment program in the state’s history, and to sustain that level of investment for projects like the Suburban Rail Loop, the Metro Tunnel and major level crossing removals, a stable funding base is non-negotiable.

This bill makes the necessary adjustments to increase the category 1 area rate to $3030 and the category 2 area rate to $2150 from the 2026 calendar year, as committed to in the budget update. Critically, we are also expanding the category 2 area to include suburbs that are now experiencing the kind of commuter pressure the levy was designed to manage, whether it be Burnley, Cremorne, South Yarra, Windsor or targeted parts of Richmond, Abbotsford and Prahran. The expansion of the category 2 area is simply a reflection of the success and growth of our city. Areas like Cremorne and South Yarra are no longer just fringe suburbs. They are major employment and commercial hubs, generating significant traffic and demand for infrastructure. It is only equitable that where congestion occurs the levy designed to manage it applies. This is commonsense recognition of how our city has grown and how congestion has spread.

However, we are also being flexible and fair. This is where community consultation, which I value highly and this government values highly, delivers a practical outcome. The bill provides a significant 50 per cent concession for conditional free retail parking spaces in the expanded category 2 area. This means that local shopping centres and retail strips will not be unduly penalised. This exemption applies to spaces available to customers free of charge for at least 1 hour or for those who make a purchase. Critically, the 50 per cent concession for conditional free retail parking demonstrates our balanced approach. We are committed to urban planning that supports public transport and discourages unnecessary car use in dense areas, but we are equally committed to supporting the small business owner who relies on convenient customer parking for their shopfront. This is a targeted measure to protect local economies from unintended consequences while fulfilling the primary policy objective. It supports local jobs, encourages local commerce and ensures that the economic engine of our inner suburbs continues to thrive.

Furthermore, we are reducing complexity and red tape by formally excluding exclusively residential parking spaces from the levy framework entirely. This is a sensible administrative fix that ensures the levy serves its intended purpose and does not target the resident who simply parks their car at home. And when you have public transport as good as we do in Victoria, with the soon-to-be-open Metro Tunnel and greater services across the network, who needs to bring the car? You can hop on a train, tram or bus and do what you need to do in those suburbs.

My next point focuses on the amendments to the Land Tax Act 2005, particularly the vacant residential land tax. This tax was designed to encourage the efficient use of housing stock, but we must ensure its application is not punitive to everyday Victorians facing genuine unforeseen life circumstances. We have listened to home owners. The VRLT amendments introduce a crucial exemption for properties undergoing major renovations or repairs, where the work starts and finishes within the same calendar year. We all know that renovating a family home is a complex and often delayed process, and this decision to exempt properties undergoing major renovations that start and finish within the year is a direct response to real-world feedback. We want people to improve their homes. We should not punish them for a construction timeline. To hit a family with a vacant land tax while they are investing in their property and upgrading their housing is counterproductive and unfair. This amendment prevents the VRLT from becoming an accidental renovation penalty, ensuring it focuses exclusively on its original policy intent – activating genuinely vacant housing supply. This amendment applies a much-needed dose of common sense, ensuring the VRLT is used to capture genuinely neglected properties, not properties that are simply under improvement.

In a similar vein, the bill corrects a historical anomaly by introducing a land tax exemption for low-value land with non-permanent shelters. This is a measure of dignity and recognition. The exemption for low-value land with non-permanent shelters is a small but powerful act of recognition. It acknowledges that not everyone lives in conventional housing and that our tax system must be flexible and compassionate enough to respect the dignity of every resident, regardless of their living situation. We are ensuring that people who are living on low-value land in temporary or non-permanent structures, often due to financial necessity or unique circumstances, are not subjected to an unfair tax burden.

This reflects a deep commitment of this government to social justice and supporting all Victorians, no matter how or where they live. To the beautiful alpine community of Dinner Plain, the bill retrospectively excludes land within this unique village from the imposition of vacant residential land tax. This is a clear demonstration that our government is listening to the specific needs of regional Victoria and correcting an anomalous application of the tax that did not reflect the unique purpose and seasonal use of property in that location.

I would also like to speak on other amendments, including those to do with Domestic Animals Act 1994 and the changes to pet registration made in this bill. Currently when a family registers their pet with their local council, a small amount of that registration cost goes to the state government to be distributed to a number of animal-related welfare programs such as education for institutions that race greyhounds and support for groups like the RSPCA that coordinate adoptions of domestic animals and provide other forms of animal welfare. I want to make it crystal clear that this money is used to support causes that are about as universally loved and admired as you can get. I doubt you will find a member of this chamber that dislikes the RSPCA, for example. Yet the reaction to this change from those opposite has been completely disproportionate. I have seen social media posts from multiple members opposite saying that the government is introducing a pet tax. When the RSPCA come out and say that they are expecting a sharp rise in animal cruelty reports and that they do not get extra resources to continue investigations to do with livestock, those opposite shrug their shoulders. But we listen. We do what we can to make sure that they can continue their work. Let us be clear about what this change actually means: it is an increase in the portion of money that goes to the state government to support animal welfare, of $3.50 for greyhounds and $4.64 for domestic cats and dogs per year. That is less than a cup of coffee per year going to animal welfare. With my now probably 10 seconds left, I want to congratulate the minister for this bill and commend the bill to the house.

 Ellen SANDELL (Melbourne) (16:17): I rise to speak on behalf of the Victorian Greens on the State Taxation Further Amendments Bill 2025. The bill includes a number of measures that can broadly be grouped into three categories: some property tax changes, the congestion levy changes and changes to animal fees. I will deal with each of those in that order.

The bill proposes some relatively straightforward changes to a number of the state’s property taxation acts, including the Land Tax Act 2005 and the vacant residential land tax, the Duties Act 2000, the Commercial and Industrial Property Tax Reform Act 2024 and the Building Act 1993. The Greens are happy with these minor amendments. It is worth noting that this year’s budget papers show that the reforms to the vacant residential land tax, which were actually a result of negotiations with the Greens and the Treasurer and include better enforcement of the tax, will roughly double the expected revenue from unoccupied housing in the 2025–26 financial year. It is a really significant change and one that we were really proud to be a part of, because it provides millions more dollars year on year to build social and affordable homes in the context where we have a once-in-a-generation housing affordability crisis.

More importantly, it will help to minimise land banking and bring thousands of currently unoccupied homes into the rental market and the housing market. That provides houses that will actually be lived in – homes for Victorians – rather than empty houses that serve only as speculative assets for investors. Beyond all the political talk – I know that Labor talks a lot about housing – the simple fact is that the government’s own economic modelling shows that the growth in house prices will be at least double that of wages year on year. To put that another way, even Victorians earning a decent wage will find it increasingly hard to afford to buy a home under the state and federal Labor governments. That is why the Victorian Greens passed amendments to reform the Victorian vacant land tax. That is also why the Victorian Greens passed amendments to regulate Airbnbs, including the right for people who live in apartments to ban Airbnbs in their own buildings. We did these things and we advocated for these things because the Greens are the only party in Australia who believe that the government should provide housing as a basic human right.

Everyone needs a place to live. Shelter is a basic human right. Without a home, you cannot get a job, you cannot get an education and you cannot stay healthy. You cannot live a good life if you have nowhere to live. So why do Australian governments still give more taxpayer handouts to investors to buy their seventh, eighth or ninth house, rather than investing in and making it easier for young people to buy their first house? It does not make any sense. It is not fair for young people – actually, it is not fair full stop. We need to radically change the way that we think about housing in this country. Every single person deserves a safe home, and that right, that right to a safe home, should trump an investor’s desire to make more profits from buying up multiple homes. We in the Greens believe that affordable housing means making housing less expensive relative to a person’s income, whether that person rents, lives in public housing or is paying a mortgage on their home.

Beyond the amendments to property taxes, the bill also proposes changes to the Congestion Levy Act 2005 to expand the congestion levy into inner eastern suburbs, as well as increase the applicable levy rates. Congestion charges have long been used in cities around the world to change people’s transport choices, from motor vehicles to cleaner, healthier, cheaper options in areas where there are good active and public transport alternatives. Road congestion alone costs the City of Melbourne – which is in my electorate – $4.6 billion every year, and this is estimated to grow to $10 billion by 2030 as the city grows. We simply cannot afford the financial costs of traffic.

The transport sector is responsible for almost a quarter of Victoria’s total carbon emissions as well, second only to electricity generation, and transport is actually the fastest growing source of emissions, with private cars being responsible for around about half of all transport emissions. Air pollution – which is separate to carbon emissions but related – from motor vehicles is also responsible for around 1800 premature deaths in Australia every year, which is notably a higher number of deaths than the national road toll. Australian medical studies have also found that commuting by cars is associated with cardiovascular disease, diabetes – conditions considered among the leading causes of preventable deaths in the nation. Of course there is the improved amenity, livability and commercial activity in areas where roads prioritise active and public transport over noisy and polluting traffic. It is simply nicer to live on a road with active transport rather than a lot of traffic.

More than half of Melbourne’s vehicle trips are already less than 6 kilometres, meaning there is massive potential to further lower traffic congestion in the CBD and inner suburbs. But the thing is, a congestion levy in and of itself will not be effective to realise these benefits if people are not also provided with safe and efficient active and public transport infrastructure alternatives. The state government has invested in some major public transport projects for the CBD and inner suburbs, notably the Metro Tunnel project due to open later in the year. At the same time it has built a private toll road, the West Gate toll road, through an unsolicited proposal from Transurban, which is going to funnel thousands of cars into our CBD and inner suburbs, especially in my electorate in north and west Melbourne, making our streets less safe and creating more traffic and pollution.

Of course the state government over many years has grossly neglected investing in other essential public transport infrastructure. Perhaps nowhere is this neglect more apparent than in the accessibility of the inner-city tram network. In 2020, five years ago, the Auditor-General found that only 15 per cent of tram services were fully disability accessible, and this pitiful figure has barely improved in the last five years under this Labor government. Ten per cent of the population has mobility issues, and up to 40 per cent of the population over 70 has mobility issues, and that is estimated to grow, as we have an ageing population. So we are talking about hundreds of thousands of Melburnians who simply do not have the option of stepping onto a tram in our inner city. I have heard from so many of those people in wheelchairs who are frustrated that the tram goes straight past their door and they simply cannot get on or off it.

Labor promised to make our tram network accessible. The deadline came and went a couple of years ago, and that promise remains unfulfilled. The state Labor government has a fairly poor record on active transport infrastructure like bike lanes, where nearly all the heavy lifting has been left to local councils, especially in terms of building separated bike lanes. But underfunded councils are limited in what they can achieve on their own without state assistance. Ten per cent of people living in the inner city already ride to work, with a similar proportion walking, yet Infrastructure Victoria reports that 200,000 more active transport trips would occur every day if the state government invested in dedicated bike lanes and pedestrian infrastructure. That is a huge increase that could be achieved.

Safety fears – being hit by a car – are the number one reason why people do not ride their bikes, and tragedies are still far too common. Just last week and again today in this place I paid tribute to a young man in my electorate William Richter, who at just 19 years old was tragically killed on Macaulay Road in Kensington, near my house, hit by a truck while riding his bike and heading to a class at the University of Melbourne. His family lives just a few streets away from me in Kensington. The thing is, he is only one of several young people killed while riding their bikes in my electorate just in the last few years. Many of them have been hit by trucks in tragic and preventable circumstances where the infrastructure played a big role in those crashes, either lights that let trucks and cyclists go at the same time onto a collision course or separated bike lanes that should have been built and were not built that could have prevented those tragedies. The evidence clearly shows that the presence and quality of dedicated cycling infrastructure significantly improve safety, and where bikes are separated from cars by separated lanes far more people feel safe to ride, in particular far more women feel safe to ride. Women are under-represented in our cycling data at the moment for that reason.

We know that encouraging active transport is also great for the climate. It reduces air pollution as well as carbon emissions, it benefits people’s health, it reduces traffic congestion and increases available parking for people who do have to drive. There are some people who do have to drive. That is exactly why even the peak motoring organisation, the RACV, is among the most vociferous advocates for more separated bike lanes across inner-city Melbourne. You would not think so, but they can see the benefits – where you get more people onto bikes and more people walking, there is more space for people who do need to use their cars.

The Greens believe that a congestion levy, if it is to be introduced or expanded, must be accompanied by greater investment in active transport infrastructure in the areas that it covers. We must also ensure that both state and local governments are required to invest revenue raised from the levy into the essential public and active transport infrastructure that is still so lacking in the CBD and inner suburbs. Infrastructure Victoria, an independent body, has also called for this, saying that if a congestion levy was to be expanded or increased, that money must go into dedicated active transport projects. This system already exists in the current congestion levy when it comes to the City of Melbourne. A portion of the revenue raised from the City of Melbourne due to the existing levy goes back to the City of Melbourne for sustainable active transport infrastructure through an MOU, but with an expanded levy the active transport investment must be significantly expanded and cover the other local government areas that are covered by the expanded levy.

I have also been concerned about the impacts of the levy on the Queen Victoria Market in my electorate. They have had a rough time of late, but they are an incredible, historic market in my electorate that all of us are so passionate about protecting. Our community is very much connected to and has a great love for the Queen Vic market. I have been in conversation with the Treasurer about reducing those impacts on our beloved local market.

At this stage the Greens will not oppose the passage of this bill through the lower house, but we will not simply wave it through the upper house unless it is accompanied by significant increases in funding for local councils to build active transport infrastructure to improve and protect the lives of all those who live, work and travel in the city and the inner suburbs. The other part of –

Mathew Hilakari: Keep going. Extension of time.

Ellen SANDELL: I have got more. Do not worry. I have got more.

Mathew Hilakari interjected.

Ellen SANDELL: I could do another 25 minutes. Is that what you are here for? Great. Okay, Let me go. What topic? You give me one and I will –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): Order! Through the Chair, member for Melbourne.

Ellen SANDELL: Sorry, Acting Speaker.

Thirdly, the bill covers some fees to do with pets and greyhound racing. The bill proposes to increase the tax on registration of racing greyhounds paid to Greyhound Racing Victoria in the next financial year from $3.50 to $7 per dog. The greyhound racing industry involves the state-sanctioned murder of hundreds of healthy dogs every single year here in Victoria. According to last year’s Greyhound Racing Victoria annual report, 415 dogs were ‘wasted’ in 2023 and 2024, up 26 from the previous year – more dogs killed every year. And let us be clear – very clear – that ‘wasted’ in the greyhound racing industry means dogs are killed, and far more dogs are killed after greyhound racing than rehomed. Many of these dogs are euthanised due to experiencing excruciating pain from serious racing injuries, while other healthy dogs are killed simply because they do not run fast enough.

This is cruel. This is a supposed commercial industry that is built on cruelty to animals – cruelty to dogs – through overbreeding, live baiting, drug use and any number of baroque torture techniques employed to try and make dogs run faster than they are naturally capable of. And I say ‘supposed commercial industry’ because all this cruelty and all this killing of dogs does not actually generate any commercial profit, but incredibly is only kept alive by the Labor state government’s subsidies, which amount to around $40 million a year – $40 million a year that the taxpayer is giving to the greyhound racing industry to kill dogs and engage in animal cruelty, largely at the behest of the gambling industry, if we are being honest about it.

Despite this $40 million annual handout, last year’s Greyhound Racing Victoria annual report indicated a $22.7 million industry loss, requiring an additional emergency loan from the state government of $3 million to cover their urgent liabilities. Why is the state Labor government bailing out the greyhound racing industry in Victoria, when it has been banned in so many other states? It just does not make any sense. Let us put greyhound racing’s annual subsidy in its proper perspective: this is a state Labor government that is currently refusing to provide just $4 million to save our local community health centres from shutting down, but they can bail out the greyhound racing industry to the tune of the same amount. When it comes to the entrenched cruelty and senseless killing of hundreds of greyhounds every year, state Labor, incredibly, appears to provide a blank cheque to the greyhound racing industry of taxpayer money.

The Victorian Greens say that the state-subsidised cruelty and senseless killing of dogs simply must end. We will introduce an amendment in the coming weeks to raise the tax on greyhounds that is proposed in this bill. It is proposed at $7; I think it should be $1000. I think it should maybe be $10,000 – whatever it takes to shut down the greyhound racing industry in Victoria, because that is what they have done in other states, and that is what we should do here in Victoria. I have got 3 minutes and 42 seconds left. I think the member for Werribee would like me to go further, but I might leave it there.

 Paul HAMER (Box Hill) (16:34): I rise to talk about the State Taxation Further Amendment Bill 2025. There is quite a lot in this bill, but before I get started I do want to acknowledge the member for Albert Park’s contribution, in particular her ability to weave some Yiddish vernacular into Hansard, which would be I think a first in this place, and I commend her for that effort.

There are a number of acts which are proposed to be amended through the State Taxation Further Amendment Bill 2025, these being the Congestion Levy Act 2005, the Land Tax Act 2005, the Domestic Animals Act 1994, the Duties And Land Tax Acts (Amendment) Act 2005, the Building Act 1993, the Commercial and Industrial Property Tax Reform Act 2024 and again the Duties Act 2000.

I want to spend most of my time on the Congestion Levy Act, which I would like to think that I have a fair bit of an understanding of, having done some research on this topic way back when in a completely different life. I think a few members have touched on it, up to now: what the purpose is of introducing a tax like this. This tax has been in place in Melbourne for approximately 20 years. It has been in place in other jurisdictions for even longer than that.

I am sure this will interest you, Acting Speaker Lambert. As I am sure you know, the congestion tax is a form of Pigouvian tax. Approximately 100 years ago the English economist Arthur Pigou proposed the notion of negative externalities and proposed a system in terms of how they could actually be priced so that the individual that was deriving the benefit from them would have to potentially bear the cost of the externality that they were creating. We see this externality play out particularly in the cost of congestion, but we also see this in many other ways. It is a large reason why we have taxes like the so-called sin taxes on alcohol and on cigarettes, because we see the health impacts that it creates by having those taxed. It is not just about the product and what somebody is willing to pay for that product, and it is not just about raising revenue, but it is about trying to send a signal to the market about the negative impacts that it is creating. That is exactly what the congestion levy is proposed to do and has been effective in doing over the 20 years.

We see that in various forms across the world. Sydney obviously has a very similar system to what the system is in Melbourne. We see London has had their form of congestion charge, which is much more of a direct user charge on drivers coming into the city. Singapore also has a similar charge, where you almost cannot move anywhere in Singapore without having your licence plate recognised and then being charged for the benefit of driving into the city centre. That has all been predicated or premised on the basis that by having a charge on those who are entering the city or those who are opting to park in the city that is obviously having an impact on all other users. In return for that there is a cost–benefit balance.

There have been a number of points raised by both opposition and crossbench members about the taxation and levy element of the bill versus how you address the supply and the supply of alternatives. I cannot think of one government in the history of this state that has done more to increase the supply of infrastructure, particularly to those inner-city areas where the congestion levy applies.

I had the opportunity a few weeks ago to go to the new State Library station – a wonderful, wonderful facility. I cannot believe the ease with which people will be able to transfer and travel from Melbourne Central station, where people can get off from travelling from the east on the Belgrave–Lilydale line, just walk up to the concourse and then cross over. Then you are straight into State Library station, and you can go off to Anzac station, or you can go up to the university precinct. It will be a real game changer. The capacity increases from that additional infrastructure supply are absolutely amazing.

The previous member talked about bicycle facilities. There has been an enormous increase in bicycle facilities right across the inner city. I appreciate that some of that has been developed by the councils, who have been recipients of part of the money from the congestion levy, specifically for this purpose. They have invested some of that money into active transport corridors.

We also see as part of the West Gate Tunnel Project the new veloway, a wonderful new access path for cyclists to come into the city. On the North East Link, which is happening in my patch, they are also upgrading the bike trail there, as there have been to date a couple of areas of significant gradients. I know when I used to try and ride in I would probably conk out halfway up the hill and have to push my way up to the top and then get a bit of an easier ride down. But there are a lot of improvements that are happening on active transport, and that happens when we are doing any major infrastructure project, and the councils are doing the same.

I just want to go into a bit more detail on the Congestion Levy Act and some of the impacts and changes that will happen when the congestion levy is imposed. My understanding and knowledge of the act is particularly in relation to the first iteration of the act, which was passed in 2005, and how parking providers – because the parking providers are the ones that will receive the bill notification from the State Revenue Office – responded. Interestingly, and probably not surprisingly, a lot of them sought to change the way that their parking was provided, so they would be looking to provide those spaces in a way that did not attract the tax, which is not surprising in any way. You would expect that that would be the way that a rational person would operate. This did actually have an impact on travel behaviour, because at the time the levy was only operating on long-term spaces. Predominantly, I think, it was spaces which were available for use for 4 hours or more, so spaces that were available for a shorter time did not attract the levy and also if they were available after a certain time. So if they were available just sort of during the day for a short period of time, then they did not attract the levy. By changing their offering it actually meant that consumers also changed their behaviour. There were more offerings for people to come in, for example, after 9:30 am or after 10:00am, when the early bird long-stay parking no longer applied. Drivers then responded with their feet, the market changed, and the consumers then said, ‘Well, I’m actually going to come in after that period of time because it’s going to be cheaper for me to take advantage of that.’ Through that, they were no longer travelling into that car park between 8 and 9 and adding to the congestion.

So it was possible to spread the peak traffic through the operation of the pricing mechanism, which is exactly what the purpose was, to get back to my original point about the whole notion of externalities and introducing a Pigouvian tax such as this, which is to try and change behaviours, and it is generally changing behaviours at the margin. I know there is the talk about congestion. No-one is under any illusion that you apply the tax and suddenly the congestion disappears in its entirety, but it does have an effect, and I commend the bill to the house.

 Tim McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (16:44): I am delighted to rise and make a contribution. It will be brief because I am trying to get another colleague up on this side for a few moments. I certainly have heard on our side the discussion around this: the congestion tax, the dogs and cats tax and all those other awful components of this bill. However, I would like to talk about the positive side of this bill and clause 33, which amends section 3 of the Land Tax Act 2005 to expand the definition of ‘alpine resort’ to include land located within the boundary of the locality of Dinner Plain. Dinner Plain is in my electorate. We all know Victorians have been unfairly hit by many of these taxes, but Dinner Plain residents have been more unfairly hit by the vacant residential land tax (VRLT). They have been charged land tax, while other residents in alpine resorts have not been – they have been excluded, and for good reason. It is just that Dinner Plain is actually situated in the Alpine shire and is technically not an alpine resort. However, we have all heard the saying ‘If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.’

Alpine resorts are all similar. They have all got winter snow-making, they have got winter recreation and they have got skiing and tobogganing – all that sort of thing. Dinner Plain is no exception. It is just that it is actually technically in the Alpine shire, and they are unfairly getting the vacant residential land tax, which makes them uncompetitive against other like properties in alpine regions. If you have got a property in Hotham, Falls Creek, Lake Mountain, Baw Baw, Bulla or Mount Sterling, you are exempt; but if you have got a property in Dinner Plain, you are not exempt, and this bill will correct that anomaly. I am very grateful to the Treasurer for making this change, because it makes those properties competitive again with other properties that are like for like.

I was contacted by Steve Belli – he is the chamber of commerce chair up in that region– and also Alan Taylor, the president of the Dinner Plain Community Association, just telling me how unfair it was. They have explained and gone through the characteristics. It is 1570 metres high, which is actually higher than Baw Baw and Lake Mountain, and still has only the four months of recreational use in the winter, like all the others. Furthermore, Dinner Plain is intrinsically linked to Hotham – they really are one community – and as I say, if a community like Dinner Plain has VRLT and other communities do not, then who is going to want to buy in Dinner Plain? If you are looking for a property up in the snow, you will go to Hotham, you will go to Falls – you will go to any other place but Dinner Plain, because they are hit with a vacant residential land tax. So this certainly squares the ledger. As I say, I am very grateful to the Treasurer for assisting us through that. My colleague in the upper house Gaelle Broad has prosecuted this case and fought very hard with the Treasurer. Although we are concerned about the other taxes that other members have spoken about – nobody is surprised with the debt that Victoria is in; we just keep getting more taxes – in this one instance for Dinner Plain, I am grateful. It is great to see this tax reversed for the people and the residents of Dinner Plain.

 Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (16:47): You did not have a few more minutes in you? Jesus. It gives me great pleasure to rise this afternoon and make a full 10-minute contribution on the bill.

Richard Riordan interjected.

Dylan WIGHT: Settle down. He has been yelling at clouds all day. I thought he might be worn out by now.

This bill does several important things, and indeed one of those is to increase the category 1 area levy rate up to $3000 – this is around the Congestion Levy Act 2005 – but also, incredibly importantly, to expand the category 2 area to include the new suburbs of Burnley, Cremorne, South Yarra, Windsor, parts of Richmond, Abbotsford and Prahran, which is entirely appropriate. These are central locations, central suburbs, that have a number of events where people are coming in and out of the suburb via whatever transport means that they use, but they are also suburbs with an abundance of amenity and an abundance of public transport options. If we look at the other inner-city locations that are included in this levy, which I will get to shortly, including Collingwood and Fitzroy, they are incredibly similar. They have an abundance of public transport options. So it is entirely appropriate that they are included in this levy. Because the evidence says that this levy works. It is a layered approach. The levy is not a silver bullet to congestion, but we know that it plays its role, and in those areas in Prahran, South Yarra and Abbotsford we know that it can play a significant role in trying to clear up some of that congestion.

I briefly listened to the member for Prahran’s suggestion, and she was referencing local businesses in the area. I would just like to point out that there is a 50 per cent concession for conditional free retail parking spaces within a category 2 area, which are located on or adjacent to retail premises and retail shopping centres. That is obviously incredibly important as well, so if there are people in the locality that are going to do perhaps grocery shopping – which is far easier to do by car given the significant amount of goods that you would take from a supermarket – there are concessions to make that easier on locals.

The member for Box Hill referenced healthy communities. We know that crippling congestion contributes to a community’s health and it contributes to the livability of a community. When you have people from outside of that community coming in and out of it consistently, as these inner-city suburbs do – because they have so much to offer, whether it be sports, the arts or anything else – we know that that congestion contributes to poorer health outcomes for people that live there. The expansion of and increase in the congestion levy is a layered approach and will play a role in the health of those communities.

But this is not the only thing that we are doing to help congestion. Like I said, it is a layered approach, and there are several levers that you need to pull. The member for Melbourne referenced some of the infrastructure projects that this government is undertaking to also help with that. We have the Metro Tunnel, a once in a generation – the city loop was another generation; the member for Melton was around, but I was not. It is a generational transport project that will allow for ease of movement around our city like we have never seen before. For folks out my way, to be able to get on the train at Werribee or Hoppers Crossing and get straight into the city loop, which will stop that very annoying changeover at Southern Cross or Flinders Street, is an absolute game changer. It makes it easier for those people to get in and around the city without having to use their motor vehicle. If they did want to use their motor vehicle, of course the West Gate Tunnel is opening soon, so that will be far easier for them as well.

A member interjected.

Dylan WIGHT: Well, it will cut 20 minutes off their travel time, which means that they can spend more time at home with their families, with their children, or more time in the community doing the things that they love.

A member interjected.

Dylan WIGHT: I have got a full 10 minutes in me. It will also allow for several new services on the Werribee line so people in my community can get to work easier, can get into the city easier and can get to the football, can get to arts precincts and can do the things that they want to do far easier. There are several more infrastructure projects. We can reference the West Tarneit station, which means that people in West Tarneit and Riverdale will be able to get on the train far easier and get into the city – or indeed get down to Geelong, but we are talking about the city here in respect to the legislation. They can get on the train and get into the city to go to work or to go to events without having to use their cars. We are doing so well that the West Gate Tunnel might be empty by the time we are done.

Just on the congestion levy and the opposition’s opposition to it, I did a little bit of research before coming in here, and I thought it was appropriate to take a quick trip down memory lane. The reaction to this from opposite has been somewhat hysterical over the past 48 hours and certainly during debate today.

Members interjecting.

Dylan WIGHT: Well, we know that Joe and Mary do not vote for any of you lot.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): Order! Member for Polwarth! Member for Brighton!

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): Order! It is difficult to hear the member on his feet. Can members on my left please come to order.

Dylan WIGHT: They may be starkly opposed to this congestion levy now, but let me remind those opposite that in 2014 the Liberal–National government, headed by then Premier Napthine, amended the congestion levy to actually create the existing category 2 areas. It was a former Liberal government that extended this levy into Fitzroy, into Collingwood, into Carlton North and into St Kilda. If you want to have a go at us for extending this, you guys gave us the answer to the test 10 years ago. They are opposed to it now, but let me tell you, they sing a very different tune when they are in government. It was those opposite whilst in government that extended this congestion levy and created the existing category 2.

In the finite amount of time that I have left, I would just like to reiterate that this measure is part of a layered approach to tackling congestion here in the great city of Melbourne. It will play a role in building healthier communities. It will play a role in busting that congestion that we see in the city, particularly on days of major events and art exhibitions. But what we have also done as a government is made sure that we are building those critical infrastructure projects to be able to get Victorians in and out of our central business district and surrounds as efficiently as we possibly can. In a short month or two we are going to see the opening of the Metro Tunnel, a transformational transport project that will change the face of our city. I commend the bill to the house.

 Tim BULL (Gippsland East) (16:57): I want to make a few quick comments on the State Taxation Further Amendment Bill 2025, and I want to very quickly focus on the element that doubles the fees for greyhounds. I am very, very interested to see how the minister votes when he comes in here, because he has not spoken on this, and this is a direct impost of $50,000 a year on the greyhound racing industry in Victoria. It will double their contribution to $200,000. The minister stands up in front of the greyhound crowd very regularly, and he talks about how important it is to the sector. He talks about the economic impacts and he talks about the employment all the time. We know that the three racing codes, including the greyhounds, are facing very tough financial challenges at the moment. The annual report released by Greyhound Racing Victoria this very week indicates the challenges that they face financially. Now here is a bill that is doubling the cost to GRV for the registration of racing greyhounds.

I certainly hope that when the minister comes into this chamber to vote in a few moments time, he is not running with the foxes and hunting with the hounds, he actually stands up and supports the greyhound racing industry by opposing this additional impost on them at a time when they are really facing a challenging financial period. They have put off 25 staff in the last two years, GRV, such are the challenges they are facing. The last thing they need is another $50,000 annual impost on their coffers from this government going on a money-chasing grab. Not only that, but those who want to adopt a greyhound and do the right thing are now having their little registration fees doubled.

I see the minister in the chamber. Let us hope he votes against this bill and supports the industry that he promotes in public and does not support the doubling of the financial impost on them.

The SPEAKER: The time sit down for consideration of items on the government business program has arrived and I am required to interrupt business.

Assembly divided on motion:

The SPEAKER: The question is:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Assembly divided on motion:

The SPEAKER: The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested.