Wednesday, 19 November 2025

 Danny PEARSON (Essendon – Minister for Economic Growth and Jobs, Minister for Finance) (11:21): I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

We have received a slightly amended version of the State Taxation Further Amendment Bill 2025 back from the other place. I want to thank the Treasurer for her consistent work in introducing measures to balance Victoria’s taxation settings. I note the amendments to the bill were moved by the Greens political party. We thank them for their amendments, and I note the government have supported those amendments. The amendments insert a requirement for the relevant minister to provide funding for councils included in the congestion levy zone to deliver projects to improve active transport access and usage via an MOU agreement. This proposal to utilise funds generated by the congestion levy to fund active transport projects in relevant council areas aligns well with the policy intent of the bill. It will improve active and public transport alternatives, and it will build on this government’s Big Build agenda. It will also further incentivise commuters to take up those modes. I do want to make the observation that when it comes to mode shift and when it comes to public transport in Victoria, the Labor Party is the only game in town when it comes to these sorts of investments.

This leads me to why tackling congestion in the –

James Newbury interjected.

Danny PEARSON: I will come to you in a moment, sport. You just hold your fire.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Through the Chair, Minister.

Danny PEARSON: You can just see it. The Kmart Costello, the Judas from the Liberal Party, is warming up. You have had a big week, haven’t you, son?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Through the Chair, Minister.

James Newbury interjected.

Danny PEARSON: Here we go. This leads me to why tackling congestion in the inner city is so important to the state’s productivity. Despite those opposite not supporting the bill and even moving amendments to remove the congestion levy from the bill, it is worth noting that – I would say the new Leader of the Opposition, but for the benefit of today’s discussion, is he the Shadow Treasurer? Is he the former Shadow Treasurer? Is he going to be the Shadow Attorney-General? You would not really know. We know he is the shrieking banshee from Brighton. We know that when the congestion levy was introduced in 2006 by the Bracks government, the levy was $400 per space. But when the Liberal Party were in power they tripled that levy to $1300 per space in 2014. For the last 11 years it has only been indexed by the government. Today, with the changes in this bill, many years later, we are not even doubling the rate. Those opposite are all over the shop when it comes to the congestion levy. On the one hand, they say it will not do anything to reduce congestion. On the other hand, they say that it is going to drive people away from the CBD. So really, which is it? Which of the two options are they putting forward?

They also say that it does not work, but there is evidence to show that it does. In 2018 Infrastructure Victoria, the state’s independent infrastructure adviser, conducted a review of the last time the levy boundary was expanded, and they concluded that:

… the levy has been successful in reducing the supply of leviable car parking spaces …

in the leviable area, which led to 3900 vehicles off the morning peak. In their 2020 report titled Good Move: Fixing Transport Congestion, Infrastructure Victoria further recommended that the congestion levy charge be increased and be expanded to include Richmond, South Yarra, Windsor and Prahran to tackle congestion.

The reality is that the Grattan Institute have consistently requested that Victoria align its policy settings with Sydney in relation to the parking levy because, they say:

Melbourne’s parking levy is around half the cost of Sydney’s.

The institute also believes a reduction in banked up cars will create a more livable city while improving road safety for pedestrians and cyclists. The reality is that by 2050 Melbourne will have a population the size of London’s today. We know that by 2030 congestion will cost this state $10 billion. You want to be investing in productivity-enhancing solutions like public transport and like active transport. You also want to make sure that people can be incentivised to engage in that mode shift, and that is exactly what we are doing.

This act will ultimately improve productivity. It will reduce congestion around Melbourne. It is important that the government actively and responsibly tackles this issue. We need to ensure that we increase the liveability of our city, and that is exactly what this bill will do. We have got a responsibility to tackle this issue. We are absolutely getting on and doing that, and I commend the amended bill to the house.

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (11:26): There is a rule in this place that, as a courtesy, the government will advise the chamber when it is dealing with matters before the chamber. I do put on record that at the start of the day the Leader of the House said to me that we would not be dealing with Council amendments at the commencement of the day; we would be dealing with them later today. There has been no notification, of course – no common courtesy provided to the opposition. But would it surprise you that when it comes to a great big new tax, this government would be sneaky and underhanded, because that is the calling card of this government – sneaky and underhanded.

For the government to shuffle into this chamber sneakily and bring about a new set of taxes without telling anybody, hoping it would be just snuck through and that no no-one would notice, says everything about the government. I say to the Leader of the House, if you want to play sneaky games, if you want to stop any cooperation or consultation in relation to the operation of the chamber, you have just proved to me that is the path you want to go down. I am appalled that the government would not show the common courtesy, the basic set of courtesies, when it comes to this chamber. So all bets are off – if the government wants to sneak through taxes without any common courtesy, then guess what, that is the game that we will play too.

These amendments bring out great big new taxes and impose them onto more Victorians, in addition of course to the 63 new taxes and charges this government have introduced over their terms – 63 new or increased taxes and charges. This is a new one. It is a great swathe of new taxes that do not just apply to the city, where this was first applied. This new charge goes right across much of metro Melbourne. It is absolutely shameful what the government is doing with this great big new tax, a tax that will apply to private car parks far, far out – into Stonnington. I mean, what this government is doing is absolutely shameful. For the minister to come in here and say, ‘It’s the responsible thing to do’ – I have never heard any single Victorian say, ‘We’re gagging for a new tax, and it would be only responsible for you to impose it upon us.’ I mean, what a con. What a con artist that minister is. It is ‘responsible’ to impose new taxes. No, it is actually responsible to cut taxes. That is what is responsible, and this government is imposing new taxes.

Every time the government gets up and says, ‘How shameful it is that this opposition wants to cut taxes, and they want to cut them a lot,’ I sit there and I laugh, and I think: sell our policy, baby, because we will cut taxes. The idea that this government think it is responsible to increase them just shows how out of touch they are. We have made very, very clear how important we believe that message is to Victorians and how much they are hurting with the cost-of-living impact. For the government to come in here and try and sneakily impose new taxes and try to hide –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): There is far too much noise in the chamber.

James NEWBURY: Acting Speaker, if you would like me to speak up, I am only too happy to oblige. I understand the direction from the Acting Speaker.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): The volume in the chamber is too high.

James NEWBURY: I hope the Speaker and Deputy Speaker are listening. I have just been advised I do not speak loudly enough.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Is that a reflection on the Chair?

James NEWBURY: No.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): I was asking the chamber to reduce the volume. It is actually quite hard to hear in this seat.

James NEWBURY: I completely understand, Acting Speaker, and appreciate your help in shielding.

What this government has done today is try to sneak in changes to this bill without common courtesy. The Leader of the House advised me herself that these changes would not be brought in at the start of the day. It is only common courtesy. Of course I am here ready to speak, because we are ready to defend Victorians from this shocking great big new tax that is going to be thrown across car parks across Melbourne.

Steve Dimopoulos interjected.

James NEWBURY: That is right, Minister for Environment, thrown across car parks across Melbourne. Victorians are going to see this great big new tax, and they are going to be absolutely disgusted to find this tax out of nowhere – and so they should be.

Let me speak specifically to an element of the amendments. What the amendments do in no uncertain terms is buy the Greens vote. That is what they do, nothing else. These amendments do nothing other than buy the Greens vote in the Council. I am not reflecting on anybody by saying that. I think it is fair and reasonable for the house to acknowledge it. What these amendments do simply is ensure that there is a memorandum of understanding between the government and councils on how these new taxes are spent and that they be applied to active transport. What the Greens have gone to the government and said is, ‘We don’t support this state tax bill, so what we want is a clip of the ticket on the way through.’ I am not reflecting in any way in saying that. I think that is transparent; I think it is quite obvious. I would hope that the Greens would confirm that, because that is what it is. They have said, ‘If you want to collect a great big swathe of new taxes’ – and I think we all accept it is a great big swathe of new taxes, as the minister agreed, throwing a blanket of new taxes across parts of metro Melbourne’s car parks – ‘we want a clip of the ticket on the way through. We want to be able to go to our base and say, “We’ve clipped that tax ticket on the way through.”’ That is what these amendments are; they are a clip of the ticket, a clip of the great big new tax take, and the amendments do just that.

We tried in the other place to move a series of amendments to make sure that, obviously, these taxes were not imposed, because we do not support them. I think we have said that since day one. We do not support them, and we will not support them today. We do not support what is somewhere in the vicinity of $100 million of new tax. This is not a couple of cents; this is not some loose change. This is $100 million of new taxes.

The Greens, for their support in the other place, have said, ‘We want to clip the ticket and we want councils to receive a proportion for active transport.’ In no way am I reflecting on active transport. As an avid bike rider myself, I am always interested in making sure that I do not get hit by cars, as has unfortunately been the case in the past. So in no way am I reflecting on active transport. But what this amendment does is it says, ‘On this great big $100 million of new tax, we want to take some and we want to push it in through active transport.’ I hope that in the debate there is an up-front conversation about what these amendments are about – ensuring that the vote was there for the government in the Council.

At its core, though, this bill is appalling. It is appalling because it is $100 million, but it is $100 million built onto the billions and billions of dollars that this government collects in tax – billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions in taxes that this government collects. This bill, which brings about $100 million into our –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Order!

James NEWBURY: The government benches are laughing at the billions they collect. The fat cats over there are laughing at the billions they collect. Can you believe it? Can you believe they are laughing about the billions they collect? The coalition is not ashamed to be opposing this.

Tim Richardson interjected.

James NEWBURY: Do not test me. The coalition is absolutely strong in opposing this; we are not ashamed of it. So every time, as I have said earlier, the government gets up and says, ‘You should be called out for your plans to cut taxes and the way that you oppose taxes,’ I laugh and I think to myself, ‘Sell our policy, baby. Sell our policy.’ Victorians know that they are being taxed too much. They say it; they know it. Every time they open a bill, they find a new tax on their bill. This year when they opened their rates notice, they found the emergency services tax. ‘Where’d that come from?’ they said. In many cases that tax was more than their rates notice – extraordinary. So Victorians know that they are being taxed way, way, way too much.

What this new bill will do and these amendments will bring about is taxes on people’s car parks. Not in the centre of the city, as the minister claimed. This new tax will apply across suburban Melbourne in a way that will shock people. The minister talked about needing to impose this new tax because it was the responsible thing to do. I mean, it is only responsible for this government in its mind to be imposing taxes at every available opportunity. But to bring about a tax, which in theory was designed for the centre of the city, and now expand upon that as far as they can go – I am sure this government will not rule out expanding this further. I am absolutely sure they are looking for an opportunity to expand it further and further and further, because as the minister just said, the government’s plan is to grow Melbourne from 5 million to 9 million people. That is what the minister just said. So there is no doubt that the minister wants to expand these taxes across all of Melbourne, where those 9 million people live. That is what the minister was implying. The minister can correct himself, but that is what he was implying.

When you bring about these taxes in a sneaky way – when you bring your amendments into the chamber without telling anybody and you just scuttle up to the dispatch box and say, ‘We’re going to move these amendments now,’ in contrast to the absolute commitment that was given to me that the amendments would be dealt with later in the day – all you can take from that is an absolute assurance that this government is behaving sneakily when it comes to these amendments.

In terms of the management of the Parliament more broadly, if the Leader of the House’s word to me is not worth anything, then I would say it will make for a very disruptive place moving forward, because it is only reasonable to expect that when your word is given about management of this place it will be kept, and in this case it was not.

But it does not surprise us on this side of the chamber. It does not surprise us that when it comes to a $100 million tax the minister would scuttle up to the dispatch box sneakily and bring about these amendments to try and make them law as soon as possible while no-one is looking – $100 million in taxes, sneakily. It is shocking. Every Victorian should be aware of it – just out of the blue bringing about this package of amendments and trying to pass it while no-one is looking. Well, we were watching, and we are here to say no, absolutely no. We do not support what the government is proposing. We will vote against what the government is proposing. This is $100 million in new taxes. It is not responsible, as the government would claim and as the minister would claim. So we will be voting against this; we will be calling this out. What they have done is disgraceful.

 Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (11:41): Ladies and gentlemen, what a performance from the next Leader of the Opposition. Give him a hand. Or is he the next next? To sit here and hear about underhanded actions and sneakiness – where was the member for Bulleen in the plans yesterday? There are a lot of people that feel left out about that, and I feel for them.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this debate is on the amendments before the house. It is not on any other matters outside this chamber; it is on the amendments before the house.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Member for Frankston, I will bring you back to the bill.

Dylan Wight interjected.

Paul EDBROOKE: I will remind the member that we just –

Nicole Werner: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member interjecting is not in his seat.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Member for Tarneit, you are not in your seat. Well noted.

Paul EDBROOKE: I will come back to the amendments to the bill, but I will remind the member opposite that we just spent 20 minutes with him calling his baby and having to go through him talking about riding a bike. I very much resent having to have the vision in my head of the member for Brighton in lycra. However, we will proceed.

To hear from members opposite that they would oppose these amendments is very disappointing. Perhaps it is worthwhile giving, with the six years of experience between the Deputy Leader and the new Leader of the Opposition, a bit of a history lesson. It was the Bracks government that introduced this original levy, the congestion levy, that they are talking about, but it was the Liberals that tripled this levy. They stand here today and talk about how they are the party of fiscal responsibility, and it is really a matter of history. We know – it is a documented fact – that in 2006 this levy was introduced by the Bracks government. The original levy was about $400 a space. When the Liberals were given government, they tripled this levy, so to hear those opposite today talking about how disappointed they are when they tripled this levy is very ironic; it is thick to the walls with irony.

They cannot get a clear position on a congestion levy across the aisle. On one hand they say it does not work, while at the same time they are saying it will stop people driving in the CBD. For the party that are talking about their opposition to this, I think they need to get their facts straight. They need to get their heads clear on what this actually is.

We heard those opposite also speaking and verballing ministers about what the minister was implying. Let us just stick to the facts here. That was not what the minister was implying at all. People on this side of the house heard loud and clear what the minister actually said. He was very black and white. He was very clear about that, member for Brighton.

The divided Victorian Liberals have now elected their sixth leader in seven years.

James Newbury: On a point of order on relevance, Acting Speaker, this is a debate on amendments, not an opportunity for the government members to sledge, and I would ask you to bring the member back to the amendments that are before the chamber.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Member for Brighton, the contributions thus far – and from you – have been a little bit broader than just the amendments. I will allow some latitude. I have ruled on the point of order.

James Newbury: On a further point of order, Acting Speaker, the leadership of any particular party is not in the scope of these amendments, and that would be a direct breach of the standing orders and years of rulings from the Chair. I would ask you to reconsider the ruling.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): I will rule on the point of order. Member for Brighton, I did not hear that part, as I was conferring for a moment there about another matter. I missed hearing that, so I did not hear that stray into that territory. Unfortunately, if that is the case, I will bring the member for Frankston back to the bill before the house.

Paul EDBROOKE: I thought talking about the bike riding of the member opposite – the lycra –was relevant. I have been speaking about the bill. I believe in the member for Brighton. My money is on him; I believe he can perform. I believe he has got the intellect to carry us through. And when he was speaking on these amendments I was listening –

Tim Bull: Acting Speaker, my point of order is on relevance. You just ruled that the leadership of any particular party was not relevant to the bill, and within 30 seconds the honourable member was straight back onto that topic. I would encourage you to reinforce your ruling and bring him back to the topic that we are meant to be discussing.

Paul EDBROOKE: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, I did not mention leadership. I said I believed in the member for Brighton, and wholeheartedly I do.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): On the point of order, member for Frankston, please come back to the bill.

Paul EDBROOKE: I do not want the cheese to slide off the cracker for the member for Brighton. I think that he makes some excellent points, but I think they are very, very misguided on this particular amendment. We definitely want to know, when we are talking about taxes, how the Liberals are going to fill their $11.1 billion black hole. On one side you can have the argument that they will oppose these amendments, and I understand that. But when history shows that you were the government that tripled this congestion levy and now you are opposing the government indexing it, well, that is very, very rich. I look forward to hearing those on the other side of the chamber mount a successful argument to that effect as well.

I think the Minister for Finance outlined our position on these amendments. I support these amendments. We know that in their 2020 report titled Good Move: Fixing Transport Congestion, Infrastructure Victoria further recommended that the congestion levy charge be increased and that it be expanded to include Richmond, South Yarra, Windsor and Prahran to tackle congestion, and I know from personal experience that when you speak to local councils, when you speak to community members in those areas, they are actually concerned about this too. The Grattan Institute also has consistently called for the Victorian government to increase Melbourne’s parking levy to match Sydney’s, and I note that congestion is forecast to cost the Victorian economy $10 billion by 2030. I ask those opposite: if we are standing still and not moving forward, what are we actually doing? What are we here for?

I want to thank the parties that have worked with the government on these amendments to make sure that we are actually governing for the future, not the past. Thank you to them for working with us in a pragmatic and proactive manner. I will leave it there, because I understand other people want to speak, but I commend these amendments to the house.

 Ellen SANDELL (Melbourne) (11:50): The Greens of course will be supporting these amendments, as they are amendments that the Greens brought before the upper house which have now made their way down to the lower house. I want to say up-front that we are very proud to have worked to get an extra $150 million over the next 10 years for active and sustainable transport to make it safer, easier and cheaper for people to ride, walk and catch public transport around the city. That is something that we are very proud of.

I was a bit confused by the contribution by the member for Brighton, who seemed to suggest that somehow this money is coming to the Greens. This money is going to local councils, to the community. This money – $15 million guaranteed every single year, year on year – is an incredible boost for our local communities. It is going directly to councils to be spent on active transport projects that those communities desperately need funded. I come from a community where we have had several cyclist deaths in the last few years. We have had deaths of young people – 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds – who had their lives cut short because of a lack of safe bike infrastructure. They were just trying to get to uni, just trying to get to work, just trying to get home, and if there had been safer bike infrastructure in my electorate, those young people might still be alive today. I think that safe transport infrastructure is actually an urgent, urgent priority in my electorate, in all the inner-city electorates and right across our city, and we should be proud to be supporting that infrastructure.

Getting this $15 million year on year was something that the Greens negotiated. It is an outcome of having Greens in the Parliament, and I think that is actually what the community expects. They expect their local MPs to get up and fight for the projects that their local communities need. It is a little bit sad to see the Liberal Party and the National Party will not be supporting this amendment, which is an amendment that simply says that a portion of the levy should go to councils for active transport projects. I think the communities represented by the Liberal Party – the member for Prahran is a Liberal Party member who represents a community that is crying out for active transport infrastructure, and I think her community will be very interested to know that she and her party have voted against an amendment that requires the state government to share some of that revenue with her local council and with her local community, and we will be making sure that her community is very well aware that she has voted against this amendment.

This vote that we are having today is not on the bill, it is not on the tax; it is on the amendment. And what this amendment does is really important, and it is quite historic. What it does is require for the very first time in law, thanks to the Greens, that a significant portion of the congestion levy be given by the state government to the five local council areas that are covered by the congestion levy to be directly spent on active and sustainable transport – that is, safer bike lanes, safer footpaths and safer and more accessible links to public transport like our train stations. That is an excellent thing for our community, and it shows the power of having Greens in our Parliament, that we can get outcomes like this. This was not on the table initially, but we were able to sit down and negotiate and talk to the government about what our communities needed, and because the Greens fought for this, we will now have $15 million a year, year on year, which is a guaranteed pipeline of funding to local councils for safer bike infrastructure and for more accessible transport.

Modern cities are reducing congestion and pollution in their inner cities. Look at London, look at Singapore; modern cities are doing this. They are reducing dependence on car use. They are reducing pollution. They are reducing air pollution, which is a huge cost to our communities. It results in increased deaths. Look at all of the reports that have come out over the last few years about how dangerous air pollution is for kids, for example, in our cities. Reducing pollution, reducing congestion and making our streets more livable, more safe, are all good things, and it is a surprise to see the Liberal Party does not want those things, but I guess that is what you get with the Liberal Party. With the Greens, what you get are MPs who are willing to stand up and fight and actually get outcomes for our community, like this $150 million over the next 10 years for safer bike lanes, footpaths and accessible transport. That is an excellent, excellent outcome.

Modern cities are reducing congestion and pollution, and Melbourne should be absolutely proud to be doing the same. I want to thank the Treasurer and her office for the constructive engagement on this issue and the willingness to sit down with the Greens to get this excellent outcome, which is good for local councils, good for local communities, good for the climate and good for our health. It is good for all of us, and I am very, very proud to be supporting the amendments that have come before us today.

 Tim BULL (Gippsland East) (11:55): I rise to make a few short comments on the amendments, which we do not support. It is interesting to hear the Greens member say that they have achieved great outcomes for their community. The great outcomes are increased taxes. I always thought the Greens tried to go in to bat for the battlers, but when you are celebrating increased taxes, that is very interesting.

It is concerning that we did not have a period of time to be notified as to when these amendments were coming back into the house. That is very, very disappointing. The reason why we oppose these taxes – and I pick up on some of the commentary from the other side – is that not many periods go by in this house when we come in here and we are not hearing about legislation or we are not hearing about speeches that are related to increased taxes, and we ask why we are getting these. When you sit back – I still struggle to get my head around this – and consider that the interest bill that we are paying at the moment as a state is $1.2 million per hour, $28 million per day and $1 billion every six weeks, they are incredible figures. I have heard on the other side over the last couple of weeks some references being made to those on this side in their costings having an $11 billion black hole. That has been the claim from those on the other side, which I do not agree with. What I want to point out is this: just for a moment imagine that that is the horrendous, horrible, terrible figure that those on the other side refer to; that is 12 months of their own interest bill. If it is such a horrible figure, consider it is a little over 12 months of their own interest bill that they are screaming about. We do not give that any kudos. We do not believe that is true, but that is the figure. Is it a massive figure or not? Because if it is, you are racking that up every single year, and that is what needs to be taken into account.

The reason why we do not oppose these amendments – and people have asked the rhetorical question of why we are opposing them – is because we are sick and tired of this government raiding the pockets of Victorian families; we are just sick and tired of it. This is another $100 million grab straight out of the pockets of Victorians. I do not know if those on that side or those sitting up the back here follow the media, but quite clearly we have had a number of cases of families coming forward time and time and time again saying how tough it is at the moment. We have families struggling to put food on the table. We have families struggling to pay soaring electricity bills. We have families that are battling to put their kids through education. And what do we have here? A $100 million cash grab, and we have the Greens saying they have achieved an outcome for their communities. It is just staggering that you can draw that conclusion from yet another tax grab.

I promised I would not talk for too long on this. We know why the government is doing this and we know why the government is implementing these new taxes, and it is to pay the debt. Our debt in this state is far, far higher than any other jurisdiction in this country, and it continues to head north at an alarming rate, forecast by the government’s own budget papers, not on this side, to hit a state debt level of $192 billion. It is just staggering that we have got ourselves into a financial situation where we are staring that in the eyes – it is just not right. That is why we will not support these amendments, and that is why we will not support this bill. We are sick and tired of government raiding the pockets and the coffers of everyday, hardworking Victorian families. You cannot paint this up any other way. You cannot put lipstick on a pig. That is what it is, and that is why we will not support it.

Assembly divided on motion: