Tuesday, 28 May 2024

State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Harriet Shing:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (16:38): I rise to speak on the State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024. Here we are again bringing to the chamber new taxes and charges on all Victorians because we have a government that wastes, mismanages and cannot manage money, so Victorians are paying the price through higher taxes. It is targeted at people in my electorate that can least afford to pay, in particular with regard to its jacking up of the waste levy. I was stating earlier that the government might not realise it, but my community certainly faces quite a crisis when it comes to the illegal dumping of rubbish. You only have to drive down Mount Ridley Road or drive up Craigieburn Road East or drive up to the northern end of Mickleham Road to find yourself dealing with quite a bit of illegally dumped rubbish on the side of the road. At times it can contain things like asbestos. But in some cases, where you have got a lot of hard waste material, that can possibly end up in our waterways.

When we have a cost-of-living crisis, I fail to understand why the government would put further barriers in place for people to legally – actually legally – dump rubbish. It does not do anything for the amenity of our growing communities – to make them a more attractive place to live or a more vibrant community. This government is clearly sitting idle, not realising that we have a cost-of-living crisis when it comes to our growing communities, and leaving them to pick up the tab for its massive, massive debt problem. It is scheduled to reach almost $190 billion of debt – more than Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania combined – yet they are passing it on to everyday Victorians. It is everyday Victorians that are paying the price for their waste and for their mismanagement.

I was at a great manufacturer, Sparkling Beverages, in Somerton up in the electorate of Greenvale, and spoke to Scott Edgley, the owner. They manufacture all sorts of beverages; in fact they do the home brand beverages for Woolworths. I went and visited him with the Shadow Treasurer Brad Rowswell and the Leader of the Opposition John Pesutto. Because of the government’s addiction to tax, whether it be land tax, the new increase in the waste levy or payroll tax, they are going to have to look at increasing prices, which of course does affect people at the check-out – it directly affects people at the check-out. When Labor wastes, as it has, with $40 billion of infrastructure blowouts and with $600 million down the toilet on the Commonwealth Games, it is Victorians that pay the price. When Labor wastes, Labor increases taxes, and it fails to realise that somebody has to pay for that, and that is the Victorian people. It is good people, like my constituents, that it is passed on to.

We did see a glimmer of common sense from this government. The one thing that we stated in our response to the budget that we really wanted to see was a backdown on the government’s insidious health tax. We have been out in the media quite a bit on this speaking to our communities. I know I have visited a number of health services and clinics in the northern suburbs talking about the impact of this and talking about its impact on bulk-billing. Even the federal Labor minister has shamed the state government on the health tax. But the health tax was pushed against and was advocated for by this government for a year. They said there was no change on the health tax and there was no change to how they were applying payroll tax, but all of a sudden there was. It does not make any sense. As I said, this is a result of financial mismanagement. When Labor wastes, when Labor mismanages money, Victorians pay the price. You had a situation where the government was charging payroll tax to GPs, which would have a massive impact on bulk-billing. I know it has had a massive impact in my community. But we have got a government that have now backflipped on an issue they said there was no change to, which shows their tiredness – how exhausted this government is.

After 10 years of Labor, Victorians have had enough. While there is a welcome backflip, it still applies to good allied health services, like In One Healthcare up in Roxburgh Park in the electorate of Greenvale. It still applies to them. They are still having increased costs because this government cannot manage money. It is a welcome backdown. I am glad the outgoing Treasurer, who first said there was no change to how they applied payroll tax, has now realised there is. And I just want to point out: for something that both Mary-Anne Thomas and Tim Pallas have said there is no change to, they certainly fought tooth and nail to keep it there. They used the day of my colleague Ms Crozier’s father’s condolence motion to brief out to the paper smears about her advocacy on this issue, smears about her intent on this issue, which shows how low this government are willing to go. I know many people on that side – good people on that side – were absolutely appalled that either the Premier’s office or the health minister’s office would stoop that low. The people responsible for that, both the Premier’s office media team and the health minister’s office, should be absolutely ashamed. Imagine having to deal with that – having to deal with a parent’s death and then having the Labor Party spread grubby smears on the same day as the condolence motion. I am glad after something that they fought so hard for they are now cleaning up after themselves, and shame on them for doing so in the first place and the grubby way in which they have decided to defend this shameful tax on people trying to visit a doctor.

I also wanted to talk about another issue the government has been all over the place on, and that is the payroll tax that applies to schools. I know originally the government had set a much lower threshold in regard to schools for its schools tax, making parents who value choice pay payroll tax, something that has not existed before – making the barriers harder for choice in terms of our great independent and faith-based schools. We have seen this government flip-flop. We saw, after a campaign from the Liberals and Nationals, the government back down, and I have to thank great independent schools like those in my electorate.

I want to shout out to Aitken College, a really great independent school in Greenvale, and thank the advocacy of its principal Josie Crisara, who advocated really strongly to me. I certainly listened to her, but she also advocated really strongly to parents. One of the things that she did which I think spooked quite a few Labor MPs in the north but was helpful for the parents was include all of the email addresses of all of the local representatives in the area, both lower house and upper house. After she did that I received hundreds of emails and calls to my office from parents at Aitken College concerned about this government’s schools tax, about how the government wanted to paint this as a Scotch College tax. You could see it by the way they were briefing out about it, but they have clearly never visited the northern suburbs. I know they are in a flurry to get ministers to visit now, even though they have never done so before. Aitken College is a growth area school. It is a growth area school with modest fees of about $7000, $8000 or $9000, and they wanted to include Aitken College in the new schools tax. That was their intent. You had the previous minister, who bungled it up and got booted out of the portfolio. The government then had to clean it up and raise the threshold. But you have still got Labor members that are very concerned about it, and I would say Labor members in my electorate are quite concerned about it.

Penleigh and Essendon Grammar School is a great school in my electorate that is quite upset about the schools tax. As you can imagine, they have written to every MP in our area, both in my electorate, in Essendon but also in Niddrie, and surrounding upper house MPs as well. I know that many MPs have advocated on their behalf to the education minister in regard to this schools tax, and you would hate to be, say, an education minister and have advocated in the past against a policy which you are pursuing. Imagine advocating against a policy you are now having to defend. You have got people in this government on every issue – arguing against the SRL behind closed doors, arguing against the schools tax behind closed doors, arguing on behalf of Melbourne Airport behind closed doors, because this government is a rabble. It wastes, it mismanages, it taxes Victorians, and it is Victorians who pay the price for their incompetence.

They are probably not the only ones surrounding Penleigh and Essendon Grammar School, again a great school in my electorate, which I visited recently. The principal did pass on her concerns about the schools tax and the impact it will have on that school. Particularly around the Essendon area but even further north, the cost-of-living crisis is real, and for parents that do make that choice to send their kids to an independent school, we absolutely want to support them in doing so. We also have an interesting story that came out recently on the old schools tax, I think it was yesterday, that:

A Victorian Labor MP … privately argued that a policy change stripping private schools of a payroll tax exemption, introduced by his own government, would have “detrimental consequences” for a school in his electorate, despite voting for it in parliament.

I did not vote for it in Parliament, and Mr Luu did not vote for it in Parliament, because we know in our communities that this is having a detrimental impact. Mr Tim Richardson thinks it is having a detrimental impact, but he argued that it would be extremely difficult for a school in his community and it could lead to high fees and job cuts, which is correct. Several sources have said that this tax has caused ‘considerable unease’ within Labor – ‘considerable unease’. I think, by and large, the whole tax should be repealed. We need to get rid of the schools tax. It is a tax on choice. It is saying to parents, ‘If you send your child to an independent school, we’re going to tax you for that, we’re going to punish you for that,’ which is not an approach we want to see in Victoria. We want to see a state that values choice. That being said, I will ask for my amendment to be circulated, which has the effect of getting rid of the schools tax, and I encourage all of my colleagues to join us in doing so.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Evan MULHOLLAND: But I also make this commitment: the Liberals and Nationals, if elected in 2026, will repeal the schools tax, because we think it is a tax on choice. We think if you are a parent and you are wanting to send your kid to an independent school – and I know many parents that do and they save and save and save, they read the Barefoot Investor back to front, they save all their money together to send their kids to independent schools, and we should not be punishing them for it because Labor has mismanaged the budget and Labor has wasted $40 billion on infrastructure project overspend, $600 million on the Commonwealth Games and $1.1 billion not to build the east–west link. We should not be taxing parents and families because of Labor’s inability to manage money.

But we have got people like Tim Richardson who have basically disagreed with the government’s policy. We have other members who I know have disagreed with the government’s policy in regard to the schools tax. It is an insidious tax. It is a terrible tax. We know, when Labor cannot manage money, it is Victorians really that pay the price. Now is the time to reconsider imposing payroll tax on non-government schools. We would urge government MPs to perhaps listen to Mr Tim Richardson, the member for Mordialloc. They should maybe listen to him in regard to that or maybe listen to someone who, on a whole bunch of issues, is starting to set a different tone to the government – the Deputy Premier. I know he advocates on behalf of his community, and there might be more to come on that one. We are seeing it, whether it be the schools tax, whether it be the health tax, whether it be the increase in the fire services levy or whether it be the increase in the waste levy, and as I said, that has had a massive impact in my electorate, both on manufacturing businesses and on adding to the crisis with the illegal dumping of rubbish.

This government when it was elected in 2014 promised no new or increased taxes. No new or increased taxes was supposedly the line we were getting – no new or increased taxes. Do you think we got no new or increased taxes? No, we have had 55 new or increased taxes and charges since that October. We have seen year after year after year new taxes introduced in regard to this government. There is not a week gone by you do not open up the Age to find the government floating a new tax, all the while with critical projects failing to be funded properly – critical projects like the Melton and Wyndham Vale rail electrification in Mr Luu’s electorate, which the Labor Party has promised at two separate elections – not one, two separate elections. It is now an evolving promise. You would think if they were going to increase taxes it would go to worthwhile projects – no, because it is going to the Suburban Rail Loop, which is going to cost $216 billion for stages 1and 2. It is not going to get to Broadmeadows until 2052. It is a dog of a project, and the Victorian people have figured this government out. They have figured this government out, because they have been promised that they could have both.

They were promised before the election they could have both health and infrastructure, and now they can have neither, because we know the government is planning to make multiple hospitals into fewer hospitals. So they cannot have health and they cannot have infrastructure, because the government is plunging all its money into the money sink that is the Suburban Rail Loop that it is going to affect the people of Cheltenham and Box Hill. But you would think if there was any equity about the Victorian government – remember how they said equality was non-negotiable? – and if there was any equality in the budget, even if you thought Suburban Rail Loop was a good project, surely it should be starting in Werribee, which is massively infrastructure starved and still on a V/Line service. But no, the west has missed out again today in the scrapping, putting on ice of the proposed outer metropolitan ring-road and no freight terminal for Truganina, because the government, after spending years prioritising Truganina in the west over Beveridge in the north, instead of pursuing both, has now backflipped and cancelled the outer metropolitan ring-road, so you are going to have all these trucks from Beveridge going onto the Hume and it is going to create an enormous amount of traffic.

For years it was proposed that the Camerons Lane interchange in Beveridge would be a 50–50 split between the federal government and the state government. How much has the state government contributed to that project? Nothing, because it does not deliver for growth area communities. We see that in my electorate. For years I have been speaking – I have done countless adjournments and constituency questions – on the Wallan diamond project. The good people of Wallan need southern-facing ramps onto the Hume, which I am a great advocate for, and this is a long and sorry saga. I know the Labor Party have taken it to several state and federal elections. The former federal government budgeted $50 million for the construction of the Wallan diamond; that is acknowledged in Major Road Projects Victoria (MRPV) documents. That was a budgeted 2019 contribution. Now, Jacinta Allan before the election made her way up to Wallan to announce $130 million for the Wallan diamond ramps, yet after the election deep in an MRPV document we discovered that it is not a $130 million commitment; it is actually an $80 million commitment, because it is inclusive of the former Liberal government’s $50 million contribution. So they went to the election with a bald-faced lie that their contribution was $130 million when it was not. So again they penny-pinched back their commitment to $80 million and then failed to include it in this year’s budget.

If you open up the MRPV website and look at the document for the Watson Street interchange, you will find that planning works and a business case are due to be completed by early 2024. Is it early 2024? I do not think it is. We have not seen it, but we also have not seen any construction or any start date, finish date or construction schedule for the Wallan diamond. Is it going to cost $130 million? Is it going to cost more? Is it just like the Upfield level crossings and the outer metropolitan ring road, which have been put on ice? How many elections do think the Labor Party are going to get away with saying, ‘We’re going to build the Wallan diamond’? Because they are not. They have put it off again, because they are sinking $216 billion into the Suburban Rail Loop that the federal government have only committed $2 billion to. The people of Wallan have been taken for granted.

They are not getting the construction started on the Wallan diamond any time soon, which they have been promised over and over again. In fact because there is no money in the budget for it, the only real, serious money contributed towards the Wallan diamond is the $50 million the former federal Liberal government have put in. Despite the member for McEwen’s lies to the community – Major Roads Projects Victoria have actually contradicted the outgoing Labor member for McEwen in regard to his lies to the community that it was somehow not funded by the federal government. The only people that it has not been funded by are the Victorian state Labor government, because they have put all of their eggs into one basket – the Suburban Rail Loop. The people of Wallan have had enough. If they can get around all the potholes, they then have to drive all the way down the Northern Highway instead of having southern-facing ramps on to the Hume in this growing community.

Likewise the second stage of the Mickleham Road project. The government has been saying it has been looking into planning for stage 2, but so far it has not released a thing. I know my communities in the north, my growth areas in the north, do feel like they are being left behind. I get people coming up to me all the time at the regular listening post that I do in my community talking about how they do not get any funding up there, they do not get anything up there.

I know there were many in my community disappointed because of a mental health local that was supposed to be planned for Craigieburn. That has not happened. We know from stakeholders that funding needed to be included in this budget for that to eventuate, but that has not happened, so Craigieburn will miss out on its promised mental health local. That was promised after the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. So once again they have had their community hospital delayed for a year, the mental health local is not happening, roads are massively congested and the Craigieburn Road duplication is $80 million dollars over budget.

The people of Craigieburn are getting left behind once again by this government. People in growth areas – I know people in growth areas in the west as well – are being left behind by this government. In the city of Wyndham Vale you cannot even get maternal and child health services beyond eight weeks because of the cost shifting that is going on at the local government. While you have got infrastructure-rich suburbs getting a train connection from existing stations that have much greater frequency than those in the north and the west, you have the north and the west neglected – a deliberate decision to neglect the north and the west. This government, which makes decisions within the tram tracks, has made deliberate decisions to neglect the west and to neglect the north, because they are putting all of their eggs into one basket: the Suburban Rail Loop. It is not good enough. When they do tax – and we know they do tax, because there are 55 new or increased taxes. They have wasted $40 billion on infrastructure blowouts and $600 million on the Commonwealth Games – down the toilet, a disgraceful decision, and just a sorry tale that Jacinta Allan was responsible for. The Premier was responsible for $40 billion of infrastructure blowouts. The Premier was responsible for the Commonwealth Games – $600 million down the toilet. For every major decision, the Premier has a reverse Midas touch. I think it is clear the Premier is out of touch with the community, because the decisions they have made are now having a consequential impact on the Victorian people. They are starting to hurt. You have just rank incompetence by this government, wasteful spending and infrastructure blowouts now over $40 billion. Who is proud of that?

It is all because this government cannot stand up to the CFMEU bosses, who are now trying to get into local government as well. Are you serious? They are not very happy about this Senate vacancy that is happening tomorrow – I know that – but this is going to have a massive impact on local government as well. In regard to the infrastructure portfolio, the government has not been able to get on top of cost blowouts because it is not prepared to stand up to the union bosses. It has not, and if it had, we would not have $40 billion of infrastructure blowouts. We know from several industry sources, even Labor sources themselves, quoted in newspapers, that since the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Fair Work Building and Construction costs have gone up. Who pays for that? The Victorian taxpayer. When you have got stop–go sign holders earning $206,000 a year while nurses cannot even get a fair pay deal, that shows the choices of this – (Time expired)

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (17:08): I am very pleased to speak on the State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024, which is implementing three tax-related changes that were made as part of the 2024–25 budget. It is a budget which, if I can say at the outset, continues to deliver what Victorians expect of this Labor government, which is investment in high-quality services and investment in building infrastructure our state needs, supported, as this bill does, by a responsible revenue base that allows us to fund the services and build the infrastructure that Victorians expect their state government to deliver. That is the fundamental reason why we on this side of the house do support having a revenue base that is appropriately targeted and that provides revenues to the state government to enable it to do the things that Victorians want, need and expect: funding our hospitals, funding our schools, funding our emergency services and our police and building the infrastructure that they rely on to get to work and to travel around the city. That underpins the economic growth that this state is clearly delivering – the economic growth, the economic progress, that this state is delivering – that is underpinning exceptional jobs growth. The Treasurer has been at pains to talk about just how significant this budget is in terms of delivering jobs growth in Victoria, our record in which is unsurpassed, particularly when it comes to the record of jobs growth under those opposite when they were last in government. I will not go into all of those details now because there are other forums to do that, but in the context of a bill that is implementing tax arrangements from the budget, it is important to put this bill in that context.

Primarily this legislation seeks to implement three tax-related changes as part of the recent budget. They are to exempt social and emergency housing from land tax, and I will speak at length on this in my contribution today. Secondly, it will harmonise the Victorian waste levy rates with those in New South Wales and South Australia. Thirdly, it will establish a trust to support the Trust for Nature to set up more conservation covenants on privately owned land in metropolitan Melbourne, again a very important measure.

The area of the bill I want to spend the most time talking about today is at its core a tax measure designed to promote fairness, to support housing for some of the most in need members of the Victorian community and a central mission which this government believes strongly in, which is making sure that Victorians have a place to call home. The amendments that are being made to the Land Tax Act 2005 will provide standalone exemptions from land tax for land used for or available for use for social or emergency housing. The change will provide further certainty to the social and emergency housing sector, provide a broader range of social and emergency housing with a land tax exemption and better support improvements and innovation in service delivery with the assurance that social and emergency housing that satisfies the parameters will continue to receive a land tax exemption. It is a measure that will also incentivise owners of land which is suitable for social and emergency housing to make their land available to that purpose, fundamentally supporting the social housing sector.

Supporting landholders to facilitate their land being used by the social and emergency housing sector will lead to significant benefits to right across the Victorian community. Sarah Toohey, the chief executive of the Community Housing Industry Association of Victoria, said in response to the announcements in the budget that:

Securing a land tax exemption for social housing locks in the right system settings to grow the community housing sector and deliver more homes …

I will just repeat that last bit: deliver more homes. The community housing sector says these are the sorts of changes that are going to deliver more homes. When you think about the importance that housing has right across the community, the importance that delivering more homes has right across the community, this government, this budget, this legislation, is helping to deliver more homes. It is just one example, setting aside the range of other initiatives that are contained in this and prior budgets, of how the Allan Labor government is investing in housing. The Big Housing Build, the biggest ever investment in public and community housing in this nation, is happening right here right now in Victoria under Labor. We are building more than 12,000 new homes under the Big Housing Build right throughout metropolitan and regional Victoria.

As I have done on previous occasions, I will spend a little bit of time talking about just how significant these new projects are in the Southern Metropolitan Region. I have had the absolute privilege of being at a number of these new social and community housing developments in the Southern Metropolitan Region. Recently I was in Cheltenham, where there are now 39 new affordable apartments near the train station in Cheltenham, refurbished modern apartments with outdoor spaces, filling the need for affordable housing in Melbourne. You go not far up the road to New Street in Brighton where, as part of our push to redevelop old walk-up flats, there is a new development of housing. The previous housing that was there has been demolished and rebuilt. Now there are 291 new homes on this site in New Street, Brighton, right next to the Yalukit Willam Nature Reserve near Elsternwick Park, minutes from the Elsternwick train station, which include 151 social homes and a further 140 market rental homes. We were there recently with the Minister for Housing talking to the new residents that had just moved in. Debbie in particular – we spoke to her on her balcony that looked out over the parkland through the trees. She could not believe how lucky she was to be in such high-quality accommodation – accommodation that is not only providing her with a roof over her head but lowering her power bills. All of these new pieces of social and affordable housing that are being built as part of the Big Housing Build in this complex in Brighton, but also in other places, now have a 7-star Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme energy efficiency rating. They are highly energy efficient homes, which means that the power bills in these homes are going to be lower for the residents, delivering untold benefits.

I know, Acting President Berger, that in the other parts of Southern Metropolitan Region that you spend time in, up in Bangs Street, wonderful new homes have been built in Prahran. There is huge development as part of the Big Housing Build going on in parts of Prahran, in South Yarra, building lots and lots of new homes for Victorians. This government is absolutely committed to building more social and affordable housing as part of our broader plan to build more homes for Victorians. We can see in Southern Metropolitan Region developments like the ones in New Street; like the ones in Cheltenham; like the ones in Centre Road, Brighton, built in partnership with the Commonwealth; and the ones in Balaclava next to the train station, which have recently been opened, again built in partnership with the Commonwealth. Then there are the ones that are coming at Barak Beacon in Port Melbourne, on Bluff Road in Hampton East, on various sites in Prahran and on various sites in South Yarra as well as over in Ashburton at the Markham estate and at Bills Street in Hawthorn.

There is so much rebuilding of housing going on, particularly social and affordable housing, in Southern Metropolitan Region that it is an absolutely incredibly exciting time for those of us who are passionate about building more homes for those in our community that need support the most. I am absolutely proud to be part of a government that is delivering so much new social and affordable housing in Southern Metropolitan Melbourne. This legislation, the State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024, is putting in place the taxation settings that are going to help support that into the future both by providing, as I said, broader ranges of land tax exemptions for social and emergency housing but also by incentivising landholders who wish to make their land available for social and emergency housing to make their land available for that purpose, because the more land we have got available for social and emergency housing, the more we can build, and the government has an absolutely demonstrated track record in building more social and emergency housing.

The other part of the bill, which I will come to now, is the harmonisation of the waste levy rates with New South Wales and Victoria. One of the things that has developed is that the levies that the government has on waste going into landfill are out of line with what happens with our neighbouring states. Our landfill levies are an important part of protecting our environment by providing an economic incentive through additional costs to dispose of rubbish in landfill to try and help incentivise rubbish being diverted out of landfill. It is one of the reasons why we see so many innovative, nation-leading programs here in Victoria to make sure that materials that would otherwise go into landfill are being diverted into other purposes – reuse, recycling, repurposing – all part of our efforts to ensure that instead of ending up as waste in landfill, what can be reused, what can be recycled, is in fact being diverted. We do that in part by providing an economic incentive to undertake that diversion by way of landfill charges. But one of the things that has evolved is that our rates have been out of whack with those of New South Wales and South Australia. What the legislation will do is harmonise those waste levies so that there is no cross-border incentive for making Victoria a cheaper place to put landfill. We think it is important that there is consistency so that those things which would otherwise have been disposed of in other jurisdictions do not find their way into Victoria, where the costs of putting them into landfill are lower. If we can harmonise those arrangements, we will remove that cross-border incentive to have that waste located in Victoria.

The changes, with a similar sort of economic logic, will also change the arrangements between metropolitan and rural landfills so that, again, there is consistency across the state, so that no matter where it comes from or where it is going, waste levy rates are consistent across the board. We want to see less waste dumped in landfill, and these changes are about getting the incentives in the right space so that we do not have incentives created in the system to move waste into places where it is easier and cheaper to put waste into landfill. One hundred per cent of the revenue that is generated from the waste levy will go towards creating a cleaner Victoria. The revenue raised from the waste levy will first goes to fund the Environment Protection Authority Victoria, Sustainability Victoria and Recycling Victoria, so that these important agencies – which not only do the important work of environmental protection but also promote ways to better use, reuse and recycle waste here in Victoria – are funded. Also, any remaining funds go into the Sustainability Fund to be used to support climate change action and waste reduction programs. We think there is significant support for these changes across the board from waste and recycling industries.

The last part that I will mention briefly, the last measure in the bill, is to establish a trust to support Trust for Nature to set up more conservation covenants on privately owned land in metropolitan Melbourne. Trust for Nature acquires, conserves and maintains areas within Victoria that are ecologically significant or of natural interest, beauty or scientific interest to encourage and assist in the preservation of wildlife and native plants for public scientific and public educational purposes. The changes in here will help support those efforts by the Trust for Nature and, along with the provisions on waste and social housing, are important changes for a community.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:23): I also rise to speak on the State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024. We had a good run. Last sitting week there was a government tax bill that I did not oppose, but unfortunately I am not in that position again today and I will be opposing this bill. I am glad there has been talk about incentives around this bill. I will start with one of the good things that the bill does, which, as was mentioned by Mr Batchelor, is the exemption for social and emergency housing from land tax. I agree with Mr Batchelor that that will incentivise that to exist and to be produced, but what is not said is the disincentive for other housing caused by the recent increases in land tax for all other houses that are liable for that. Nevertheless I am concerned a lot about this increase in the waste levy. I will tell you why.

Many people may be familiar with an economic concept called the Laffer curve, and if you are not familiar with it, it is very simple to understand: at 0 per cent tax the government raises zero tax and at a 100 per cent tax rate they also raise zero tax. Therefore the maximum revenue raised is a curve, and it sits somewhere in between this zero and 100 per cent rate. This manifests itself in real life when government taxes are raised too high; they incentivise activities which effectively avoid the tax. The federal government recently, in their budget, had an interesting manifestation of the Laffer curve. They raised tobacco excise so high that they ended up losing money on revenue raised, and they are projecting a lower tobacco excise raised. The reason is because organised crime have taken over the market and they are avoiding the tax that way. And now we have, by some estimates, half of the tobacco market being run by organised crime in Victoria, with something in the order of 73 fire bombings and another attempted assassination last week; it is totally out of control in this state. Organised crime effectively regulates tobacco and vaping in this state, not the government.

Another manifestation of the Laffer curve which this state government experienced last year was when it tried to raise taxes on berthing fees and, to the government’s surprise, the cruise liners that would otherwise dock in Melbourne said, ‘We don’t want to dock there anymore.’ Of course they do not get the revenue if they do not dock, and then they lose.

What is more concerning is this waste levy. I hate it when I hear the term ‘harmonisation’: ‘We’re just raising our taxes because it’s at the rate that everyone else is raising it.’ I agree with Mr Batchelor and his assertion that it will disincentivise people bringing waste across the state to dump in our landfill because it would be cheaper – that would make sense – but again what the government is not acknowledging is the other incentive that it is causing, which is again for organised crime to get involved in waste dumping. I recently had a constituent bring to my attention an exact example of this. We believe, and I am not sure whether it is organised crime or just one-off crime or whatever, that someone was dumping barrels – three of them in fact – of unknown materials. It was brought to my attention by a constituent. I went out and checked out the barrels, and there will be more to say about this soon I imagine. But nevertheless my constituent contacted me and said he contacted the EPA, the local council and the police and no-one did anything. The barrels are still there – so much for that! The higher the waste levy goes, the more that this illegal dumping is incentivised and the more incentives that we create for organised crime to take over yet another market in Victoria all due to government taxes. This is a bad thing.

What I wish the government had have done with this bill and with the budget was take the opportunity to look at what it does, and the government does far too much – in fact it has grown to such a point now that it tries to do everything and does not do much of it very well. What I would love to see is the government focusing on the things that are important – you know, like courts and police and schools and things like that – and get out of everything else: start to downsize the size of the state, reduce the amount of taxes and regulations, make us competitive with other states and make us competitive with other countries so that people want to live here and want to work here and that sort of thing.

Another potential problem, again relating to the Laffer curve and land taxes, is unfortunately commercial properties and industrial properties may make the decision that they do not want to run a factory in Victoria anymore. I have spoken to many factory owners and operators who are very concerned about land tax. But they are not just concerned about land tax, they are concerned about electricity prices and they are concerned about gas. Many of them use gas; they need gas for their operations either as a feedstock or they need it as a heat source for their production processes. We are in a situation now where – although the government says we have got no gas, I note that in the last term of Parliament we banned fracking technology which would allow higher gas production – we have sort of tied our hands behind our backs again. Then we say, ‘Well, there’s no energy there because we’ve decided not to use this technology,’ which seems to be a habit of this government.

Nevertheless the Libertarian Party will not be supporting this bill. I hope that some of these unintended consequences of high taxes will not come to pass, but I fear they will.

Trung LUU (Western Metropolitan) (17:30): I rise today to make my contribution addressing the State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024. As a Liberal I firmly believe that lower taxes pave the way to success, particularly for small business and working families. Regrettably, the provisions outlined in this bill fail to deliver the tax relief that my constituents require. Without immediate relief, I cannot in good faith and conscience lend my support to this bill. This legislation proposes several changes, including an increase in the waste levy and land tax. While it does include a modest exemption for social and emergency housing from land tax, this measure falls short of providing the immediate relief that working families need, especially during a cost-of-living crisis.

Sir Robert Menzies, the founder of the Liberal Party, devised the term ‘forgotten people’ to describe working families and small businesses. Forgotten people make up most of my electorate. They are hardworking families, suburban families, hardworking, self-reliant and driven by aspiration for a better future. Families of the west over decades have been marginalised and overlooked by this Labor government. Despite their pivotal role in our society and economy, they find themselves neglected by policies that fail to address their needs and concerns. Again and again the west is put on the backburner under this Labor government. The Labor government has forgotten the hardworking Victorian families of the western suburbs. Only a Liberal government will ensure that all Victorians have a level playing field, and only under a Liberal government will the west get electrified railway lines to Melton and Wyndham. Only under a Liberal government will we see the Melbourne Airport rail line come to fruition. On this side of the chamber we stand apart from the party of the inner-city elites and activists who have forgotten the struggle of middle-class families in the suburbs. We have small business owners, educators, medical professionals and law enforcement officers, just to name a few. We are the party of ordinary Victorians, offering real solutions for the long-forgotten people in the western suburbs and the whole of the state of Victoria.

I remember when a former Premier went on national TV not so long ago and said there would be no new taxes. I remember the promise of the 2014 campaign. I ask: is our life better now than 10 years ago? Are the rent or mortgage payments easier to handle now? Do you feel more confident about your job security now than 10 years ago? Are the utility bills more reasonable than 10 years ago? Is accessing quality health care easier and more affordable than 10 years ago? Do we feel that our children’s education is better supported now than 10 years ago? For most of the families in my electorate, the answer is simply no. Victorians cannot take any more. The 55 new taxes introduced by the then Andrews and now Allan government over their years in government are squeezing the life out of the household budgets of working families in my electorate.

As Benjamin Franklin, an advocate for liberty and one of the founding fathers of the United States, famously said, there are only two things certain in life: death and taxes. Under this Allan government nothing seems to be more certain than debt and higher taxes. These increases in tax have led to the closure of 8000 businesses in Victoria alone over the last 18 months, in a troubling trend threatening the livelihoods of many hardworking individuals and families.

Making things even harder now is the waste levy scheme, or the bin tax. The government says it makes families and small businesses more aware of the environment, but this is far from the truth. When taxes increase, families pay the price. When people are struggling to put bread on the table, people will do odd things to survive. The higher the tax, the more illegal dumping you will see, which will make the environment even worse than the current situation. The waste levy, often called the bin tax, is tough on small businesses and families. Yes, big supermarkets will eventually transfer the bin tax to product prices and then families will notice this at the check-out. However, mum-and-dad businesses and local stores like the IGA will find it hard to manage the 31 tax increases.

The only acceptable part of this bill is the exemption for social emergency housing from land tax. We must strive for tax regulation systems that are straightforward to navigate. However, upon close examination of this bill provision, one notable aspect of the vacant residential land tax is that the measure mandates home owners must utilise the holiday property for 30 days a year or face tax as a penalty. The latest property tax hike proposed by the Labor government will be a tipping point for most home owners, especially those in my electorate. It threatens to place a financial burden on families that may have no choice but to sell their own holiday homes. These holiday homes are often modest dwellings acquired over years of hard work for the family to enjoy. The increase in taxation would lead to high tax, with families forced to sell if they have to cough up tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional tax and fees. The situation echoes the Chinese punishment lingchi, death by a thousand cuts – slow and painful by this government. The recent introduction of 27 property taxes by Labor is death by a thousand taxes. It is tax slicing, slice by slice, home owners’ financial wellbeing. This new tax smothers aspiration, punishes job creation and makes Victorians poorer each day. Higher tax undermines free markets and restricts Victorians’ ability to buy property. Increased tax of property, in combination with excessive regulations, constricts property rights. These heavy-handed burdens will adversely impact property owners and the broader economy.

To give you an example from my electorate, rent has surged 15 per cent over past years, impairing housing affordability in the region. This data reflects a significant hike in Werribee, highlighting the broader implications of tax policy on the housing market. The property sector is struggling because of $21.5 billion in taxes – the cost to Victorians is $3175 per annum: $7.8 billion from land tax, $10 billion from stamp tax, $1.34 billion from the COVID levy tax, $1 billion from the fire levy tax, $127 million from the congestion tax and $221 million from the metropolitan improvement levy. It goes on. Let me make it clear: 27 of 55 new taxes introduced by Labor target the property sector. The more you tax property the more it will rise in rent and the more you will make it impossible for generations to own a new home.

Additionally, Labor scrapped $24 million for the Melton South Primary School upgrade to recover its debt and make the cut service Victoria’s debts. Not only did Labor scrap the major school upgrade, but they also added a school tax. The school tax is pricing middle-class families out of private school education for their children. There are 54 schools on Labor’s hit list; government schools are excluded. However, Labor’s backbenchers have now seen the light. They are revolting, with Labor’s member for Mordialloc in the other place lobbying the senior minister to axe the tax. The member also warned Labor the school tax would have detrimental consequences. So I welcome my colleague Evan Mulholland’s amendment to remove the payroll tax from schools. Furthermore, the member also notes the payroll tax would make it extremely difficult for schools and could lead to higher school fees and job cuts. The number of liable schools will rise to 50 within the next five years, with high fees for Catholic schools expected to be charged under this new tax.

Education is too important and should not be a tool to divide a community. Education should be equal for all students, all Victorians, and education at a Catholic school is something many families strive for for their children, whether they are rich, poor or struggling to make ends meet. They want a better life for their kids. Labor’s tax on schools will make it almost impossible for aspirational, hardworking families, especially those families in the west who come from a migrant background and want the best for their children. The more debt there is, the more tax Victorians must pay, reducing choices in how to spend their money and live their lives. As a Liberal, I believe Victorians should have the freedom to decide how to spend their hard-earned money rather than having it dictated by a big-government, socialist agenda restricting family choices.

I note across the chamber they mentioned that this government is building new homes. If I could just refer to their statement in relation to building new homes, in their 2024–25 ‘Department Performance Statement’ the target for 2023–24 was 91,248 social housing dwellings. That was the target. And guess what, the 2024–25 target is 91,148 for building new homes. It does not add up. They say they are building new homes, but next year the target is 100 less than this year’s target. I am not sure whether they are saying it or actually their statement is true, or what is right and what is wrong – whether you can trust this Labor government. Are they building new homes, or are they just telling you they are building new homes and hoping for the best?

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (17:41): I rise to speak on the State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024. This bill looks at the issues facing Victoria today and takes decisive action on how we will help tackle the big problems of the 21st century, whether it be building more homes – and I have seen it firsthand – as you know, my colleague in this place Minister Shing, in her capacity as Minister for Housing, has seen it as well. We have seen the work the Allan Labor government has done to build modern housing in my community of Prahran at Bangs Street, just a couple of hundred metres down from my electoral office.

This bill also tackles climate change and helps protect our environment and makes the appropriate changes to our taxation system to ensure we are best equipped to address these problems. The purpose of this bill is to implement three tax-related changes that were made as part of the 2024–25 Allan Labor government budget. They are (1) exempt social and emergency housing from land tax, (2) harmonise our laws with our friends in New South Wales and across the border in South Australia and (3) establish a trust to support Trust for Nature to set up more conservation covenants on privately owned land in metro.

Despite what those on the other side say, we want the people of Victoria to think this bill delivers sound economic reforms to Victorians, as I have said many times in this chamber. I am sure by this time the hardworking Hansard staff who work day in, day out diligently recording my words have memorised what I say about this, but I will say it again anyway – the Allan Labor government has cut or reduced taxes in this state around 64 times since coming into office, which is more than I can say about the opposition when they were in power. But thankfully for Victoria’s sake it was only four years in the past 25. Nevertheless the opposition increased taxes or fees in this state 24 times in the four years they were in charge, but still they sit here and complain about any changes to the tax system, even though they did it.

Have a look through this bill. People will see just what the opposition is voting against here. For example, there are clear provisions for social and emergency housing to be exempted from the vacant residential land tax. The opposition love talking about taxes in Victoria, but when the opportunity comes to cut them for something as basic as social housing, they sit here with their arms folded. They love raising taxes. I hope you tell your rank-and-file members what you have been up to.

These commonsense changes to land tax, on close inspection, are a recognition of what needs to be done to ease the cost-of-living pressures on Victorians and particularly on housing. Boosting the state’s housing supply is essential to making sure more Victorians can have access to a home. Boosting the numbers of social and affordable housing is a key to fixing these problems, which is why the Allan Labor government is building more of them under the Big Build as outlined in the housing statement. The Big Housing Build is Australia’s biggest ever investment in public and community housing. with $5.3 billion going directly to these projects. It is all happening here in Victoria. That is 12,000 more social and affordable homes for Victorians doing it tough under these plans, with over 700 more on the way with the Commonwealth’s social housing accelerator.

There are more serious investments happening right now. It only makes sense that we exempt these types of properties from the vacant residency land tax to help encourage the construction of more housing in this state to house people in need at an affordable price. Just down my road in my electorate, on Bangs Street, the state government built 445 social and affordable homes – we got it done. Only Labor governments are committed to supporting projects like the Bangs Street housing by ensuring social and emergency housing projects are exempt from the vacant residency tax. We should expect more social housing to be built in this state, supported by a dedicated community ready to invest and a government that backs them in.

Ultimately, we are a government that is building social housing, and those opposite are the ones who want to tax it. We all know Victoria needs more homes to fit our growing population. By some estimates Melbourne alone should expect to have a population of 8 million by 2050. If you were sitting opposite, I reckon you could take this to the bank, because we were all saying just last sitting week that the Victorian Liberals would rather those new homes be built in New South Wales or Queensland. I have never seen a bigger bunch of cheerleaders for another state, selling Victorians out like they did last sitting week, attacking our tourism industry.

It is not a question of if we need more housing, it is undeniably the reality. Building more social housing is essential to our growing city, and we are making these investments in Victoria’s future. Melbourne’s population will grow to 8 million in the next few decades regardless of what the opposition says, and we will need more affordable homes to meet that. But it is not just social housing the opposition are standing against, they are opposing this bill which will also exclude emergency housing from the tax. Again, these are commonsense reforms which will spur investment in housing, especially in emergency housing, for the people that need it the most. But after all that, the opposition in the other place decided that they would vote against lifting the 1 per cent levy off emergency housing and social housing, after a debate in which they droned on about how high taxes are.

We need to build more homes in Victoria, especially emergency and social housing. Lifting the tax off these projects by exempting them from the levy will incentivise more investment into those homes in Victoria and ensure more people can rely on emergency housing when they need it. Those opposite are not interested in building more social and affordable homes in Victoria, because they are not about backing in Victorians; they are just about saying no.

This bill also includes changes to the waste levy across the state, making modest changes to the metropolitan and regional rates to help encourage more environmentally friendly practices by the state’s largest waste producers. It is a good measure which will help protect our environment and help meet our emissions targets by encouraging changes in waste disposal behaviour. And as I have said before, the proposal will also harmonise our waste levy with our border states. This is about protecting our environment. It is about fighting climate change. The chamber knows that the Allan Labor government has one of the most ambitious climate targets in the world. We have a goal of cutting our emissions by up to 50 per cent by 2030 and reaching net zero by 2045, meaning we will be meeting our targets alongside world leaders like Germany and California. We are serious about using measures to reduce waste by promoting recycling and reuse through the change in the waste levy. Coupled with our investment in our waste management system, we can meet our targets and protect our environment. We have a target of diverting up to 80 per cent of Victoria’s waste product away from landfill by 2030 to complement those targets, and this change in the waste levy will help the state move towards that greener future.

While some of those opposite might protest the levy, it is worth remembering what this levy is for and why it is in place. The levy in its original form came into the picture in the early 1990s as a way of discouraging landfill waste. By attaching a price to the dumping practices of these large waste producing companies, we encourage companies to invest and innovate in how they manage their waste. We encourage Victorians to find a new way to recycle and reuse and to improve disposal practices. Despite this, nearly two-thirds of Victoria’s waste-related emissions today come from landfill, primarily in the form of methane and carbon dioxide. This illustrates how important the management of our waste is, as landfills just omit more and more emissions and harm our environment more as we dump it away into these sites. While the amount of waste we produce has significantly fallen since the 1990s, when we introduced the levy, we need to do more if we want to fight climate change and protect our natural environment from damage at the hands of the waste that we could be avoiding producing. That is why the then Andrews Labor government invested $515 million into delivering reform after reform, including the reform of our state’s waste management system – helping us move towards a circular economy on recycling, as laid out in our Recycling Victoria plan. To help our transition along we issued $84 million worth of grants and improved waste management, supported by the Commonwealth government’s $40 million investment. We thank them for that as well.

The Allan Labor government is committed to meeting our climate targets of net zero carbon emissions by 2045, and it is important that in our push towards that we include changes to waste management – such as this levy increase. Changes in the waste levy will help encourage Victorians to waste less and recycle more by encouraging our state’s largest waste producers to do more when it comes to re-using, recycling and reducing waste and so forth. By harmonising our metropolitan levy and proportionally raising the regional levy we can make sure that we are not leaving any Victorians behind as we push towards a greener future which protects our environment and tackles climate change through these changes. We can help the state meet the landfill waste reduction target of 80 per cent and our goal of cutting per capita waste generation across Victoria by 15 per cent by 2030.

This is a rational and reasoned measure that will deliver better protections for our environment. It will cut our emissions and better manage our waste disposal system. It is a modest increase in the waste levy to ensure that we are doing our part to fight climate change by reducing our waste output, and we will be doing it over time. We will increase it from 1 July 2025, giving partners and businesses, local council and the community time to adjust. The waste levy will increase category C and category D to $169.79 per tonne on 1 July 2025, and the rates for all other categories of priority waste will be unchanged. We are doing this all after consultation, because we want to encourage the continued safe disposal of hazardous waste materials.

Overall, we want less waste dumped at landfill, and that is what the changes help us achieve. It is about behaviour, so that the big waste producers can create less waste and do more. We want communities to reduce, reuse and recycle. This government’s efforts to cut emissions and reduce waste in favour of recycling has gained wide interest and support. Our investments in waste management reform itself are estimated to have as of last year attracted over $254 million from the private sector to help our economy pivot towards a circular economy that works hard to cut waste and recycle materials as much as possible. This proposed change to the waste levy fits in that tradition. It will encourage these big waste producers to not just dump their waste into landfill after landfill but instead encourage them to invest in innovative solutions to lower their waste. They will be incentivised to focus on how they can recycle more, how they can reuse whatever waste they are dumping and reduce their waste throughput – and we are investing in that.

Take the revenue drawn from the landfill levy. It will go directly into Victoria’s environmental agencies. Environment Protection Authority Victoria, Sustainability Victoria and Recycling Victoria will all feel the benefit of this increased levy, helping build a greener and more sustainable Victoria.

We are a government that is serious about climate change, serious about waste management reform and serious about reducing pollution and protecting our environment. We will hear lots, I am sure, from the opposition about tax rises, tax reform and taxes, but let me just point out that every time this government has proposed an amendment to the state’s taxation arrangements, no matter how positive that change, it blocks. It happened last year; it happens every year. They know the exemption for social and emergency housing from vacant residential land tax will help build more homes – something only a Labor government will achieve. They know it will have to go onto those who need it most, but they will still oppose it. They know that this government is doing the right thing, they know that we are making the right calls on waste management and they know that this government has encouraged private investment, but they still they oppose it. It is about making sure that we encourage more investment, so more interest into social and affordable housing on top of the $5.3 billion investment from this side of the chamber.

Before I wrap up today, this bill will also make a variety of changes that I will not have the time to go into more detail on, but I wanted to highlight a few in particular. It amends the Duties Act 2000 to add new classes of business insurance to the insurance duty provisions which will be eligible for a gradual reduction in duties to provide future a change to the classes of business insurance. It also amends the Gambling Taxation Act 2023 to provide the commissioner with the power to compel a casino operator to produce a document or information on a prospective basis for a period of up to six months, and we know how important that reform in gambling is.

It also tidies up the Payroll Tax Act 2007, the Land Tax Act 2005, the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the Taxation Administration Act 1997. With that last one, I will note its importance in adding further criminal liabilities on the officers of the casino operator.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (17:55): I rise to speak to the government’s State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024. This bill is putting more taxes on hardworking Victorians and Victorian businesses. I have just been listening to Mr Berger, who made some pretty extraordinary claims in his contribution. He clearly is not listening to his electorate, who are absolutely screaming about the increased taxes this government is applying on their businesses and on their families in relation to what this government has done. He just said in his final few remarks to the house, and I quote, ‘It’s about encouraging more investment.’ I do not know where you have been, Mr Berger, but investors and business are very concerned about your government’s economic performance and what these taxes are doing to confidence to attract business and retain business here in Victoria.

I mentioned the Arden medical precinct earlier, the scrapping of that promise that you gave Victorians in 2022. You went to the election, as I said, and conned Victorians that you were going to have the biggest health precinct in Australia. You have scrapped that, and I note that the biomedical sector who were investing there, that foreign investment has flooded out of the state – not just tens of millions of dollars but several hundreds of millions of dollars. They are very worried about the message this government is sending about scrapping projects and the increased taxes that are being applied.

This does a number of things in relation to minor and technical changes around the Gambling Taxation Act 2023, the Duties Act 2000 and a few other things, but there are some real stinkers in this bill. The education tax – amending the payroll tax around schools – is a shocking tax, and I know that we will be moving an amendment to that to scrap that tax. I am really delighted, talking of scrapping taxes, that the government has seen sense in scrapping the health tax that was being applied onto GPs, and that was after the considerable campaign that the Liberals and Nationals and GPs combined on to champion why this was such an insidious tax, a retrospective bad tax that was going to end bulk-billing and drive up costs for patients during a cost-of-living crisis and in a health crisis as well, driving patients into already overburdened emergency departments – I mean, give me a break. These people have got no idea.

Evan Mulholland interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: And they said, Mr Mulholland, nothing has changed. In fact they said it on 20-odd occasions. On 21 March 2023 the Treasurer said:

… the payroll tax regime has not changed …

He went on again:

… there was no intention to change the tax liability of GPs …

On 29 August 2023 the Minister for Health said:

… there has been no change to the way in which payroll tax …

She said:

… when it comes to payroll tax absolutely nothing has changed.

On the 30th, the day after:

But let me be clear: there has been no change.

The day after that, again from the health minister:

… when it comes to payroll tax legislation in this state, nothing has changed.

She said:

… again: there have been no changes made to the arrangements that are in place for the collection of payroll tax …

Again she said:

… this tax – we have been through this ad infinitum – there has been no change to the way in which payroll tax legislation operates in this state.

Again:

… there has been no change to the legislation as it pertains to payroll tax and how it is applied to medical practices.

And then the Premier said two months later:

There is no change to these arrangements …

She said:

The Treasurer’s letter to the GP community was simply putting in place information of existing arrangements.

She said:

… there has been no change …

And it goes on – month after month, excuse after excuse, saying there has been no change. But there was, and they backflipped last week. So there was a change, and you know what – it was a bad, unfair tax, and it was going to hurt Victorians and it was going hurt primary health care givers in this state. I will be waiting to see what else the government does, because dentists, physios and other allied health practitioners are now watching and saying, ‘Well, why are we getting taxed when we are providing these services to Victorians who need our care and support as well?’

This government is addicted to taxes. All they know is to spend and to tax, to drive up debt to record levels and to tax us – 55 new or increased taxes. Now, Mr Berger, when I was listening to him, was talking about housing and home ownership and carrying on about how the opposition does not understand social housing and housing, but what he does not understand is –

Michael Galea interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: Yes, I am not reflecting on the Acting President, on the Chair. But I will say on the contribution the issue is that the literally dozens of property taxes that have been applied over the course of the last 10 years since Labor has taken charge of the budget have caused huge issues within our housing market. Of course those costs get passed on to the consumer, the renter, and now we are seeing land tax where people are selling their homes, and that is going to make the situation worse for renters. They are not going to be able to buy those homes, but they have now got nowhere to live, because they are going to be out of that rental market. I mean, this is what Labor do not understand – the impacts of the economic policies that they apply to Victorians. And it is a very simple tax grab, like I just described with the health tax – that was a tax grab to plug the bottom line after the most gross mismanagement, the waste and mismanagement of projects, the billions of dollars that have been wasted. The government have to get that money somehow, and they are going after hardworking Victorians. As we all know, when socialists run out of money, they come after yours, and that is exactly what this socialist government are doing – they are coming after your money, and they are taxing hardworking businesses and hardworking Victorians. It is literally driving confidence out of this state, investment out of this state and aspiration out of this state. That is not a good thing for Victoria.

There have been 55 new or increased taxes since Labor came to government in Victoria, and in the last few taxes we have had a new school tax on independent schools – the schools tax; a holiday and tourism tax; the expanded land tax on vacant residential land, or holiday house tax; expanded land tax on unimproved residential land; a new health tax on GPs and allied health professionals – well, they have sacked the GP bit, but allied health professionals are still getting taxed; an increase to the fire services property levy; and an increase in municipal and industrial waste levies. There are so many here. They increased the fire services property levy in 2015 and 2016, increased it in 2019 and 2020 and have again increased it in this latest budget. And where is that money going to? It is not going into our fire services; it is going into the government’s big black debt hole.

This government is a failure. It is a failure in managing taxpayers money. It is a failure in administering taxpayers money in a responsible and prudent manner. This bill does nothing to advance causes for Victoria as a whole. It is taxing Victorians, as Labor love to do – they love to tax, they love to spend – and Victorians cannot take any more. They are waking up to the impacts of the government’s huge taxation grabs across the board and the mismanagement. They can see it, they understand it, and with the increased debt and the increased taxes they know that is going to be hard to do business here. It is going to be harder to have choice, whether it is around sending your kids to a school of your choice or whether it is supporting our public health system and supporting our private health system in a way that we can manage it and continue to deliver excellent health care in this state. It is getting harder, and when they amalgamate hospitals across the state it is going to be harder to access care. The minister says it is closer to home – no, it will not be. It is not now. People in Horsham who are going to Ballarat and who cannot get an appointment in Ballarat are not getting good quality health care closer to home. It is a furphy from the minister, and she knows it.

On this state taxation bill, there are just a couple of last things I would like to say. With the independent schools tax, they are taking away the choice, which I mentioned, for hardworking parents who want to have choice about where they send their children to school. The socialists do not agree with that, but a couple of their backbenchers do. Mr Richardson is very on it. He has been appointed. They have given him a bit of a shut-up job today and given him a nice little parliamentary position. I wish him all well in that, but he has been outspoken on this. As the Age wrote, he is not happy about the government’s schools tax. I will read from the Age:

Leaked letters, obtained by The Age, reveal that Tim Richardson, member for Mordialloc, lobbied senior ministers to exempt a high-fee private school from the payroll tax, arguing that the tax would be “extremely difficult” for the school and could lead to higher school fees and job cuts.

He actually gets it. That is exactly what it will do. That is what taxes do: they drive up costs, so jobs go. I do not know why the rest of them do not, but he does, and he is obviously unhappy. But there you go, they have given him a little job to keep him busy for the time being and to say, ‘Don’t talk out about the schools tax.’ There is the leaked letter. It is a bit like the Deputy Premier. He is saying one thing about the airport rail link and not supporting the suburban rail link, and the government is all over the place. They have got an unhappy backbench and they have got an unhappy front bench because they know the damage of the mismanagement and the economic ruin that this government is setting Victorians up for.

This state taxation bill is another bad bill introduced by this bad government, both in terms of economic management and how they are plying hardworking taxpayer funds into services that are not being delivered where they should be.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (18:07): I rise to share a few words on the State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024. This is obviously one of a suite of bills that we are debating this week in relation to the state budget this year. Indeed it was our Treasurer’s 10th budget, which was very, very good to see. Indeed we have just had a robust week and a half of budget estimate hearings in the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee as well. It has been good to get a cross-section view of the budget across many different portfolios as well as of course from the Treasurer himself and the Premier herself too, which was very good see. Indeed we even had a few shadow ministers come along and grace us with their presence. Ms Crozier came along to watch the PAEC. She was one of a minority. I am not sure if many of them are actually interested enough in their portfolios to come out and watch it, but we did at least have Ms Crozier making herself very much known in the room in PAEC last week, which was good to see.

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Michael GALEA: Only once – it was a memorable impression that you left anyway, Ms Crozier. It would have been nice if some more of your shadow ministers had turned up.

But this is an important bill discussing state taxation. There are a number of things that this will cover, including various land tax exemptions, which will make things easier for community and social housing providers. Of course that is something that this government is very focused on, providing that social and community housing. I heard, I believe, Mr Luu finding a great big scandal. I know the Liberals were very excited that they thought they were onto something. They had not quite worked out that 800,000 divided by 10 is 80,000, and they think that doing 800,000 in 10 years means you are going to do an exact number every single year. They think they are onto something – good for them – but this government is resolutely committed to the 800,000 new homes in 10 years time. I note the incredible work and advocacy of obviously Minister Shing in this place and Minister Kilkenny in the other place as well, as the government works towards that commitment. This initiative, which is going to have a blanket rule affecting social and community housing providers, is going to be a real benefit to that sector.

There are of course various exemptions already in place, but this is a single holistic measure that will actually give them the certainty that they need, whether it is in housing that they own themselves or indeed whether it is privately owned housing that is then managed through a proper arrangement by a community or social housing provider, which will actually mean that the land tax they are exempted from will be guaranteed. It will also cover them for vacant sites for up to two years to allow for appropriate things such as renovations and other such things as they need to take place. That is a very important measure, and it is one that has been welcomed by the sector. Indeed Sarah Toohey, the chief executive of the Community Housing Industry Association Victoria, welcomed this exemption, stating that:

Securing a land tax exemption for social housing locks in the right system settings to grow the community housing sector and deliver more homes …

Another measure in this budget is the harmonisation of the waste levy scheme with our neighbouring states of New South Wales and South Australia. This is a measure that will change the waste levy for metropolitan municipal and industrial waste from $129.27 per tonne to $169.79 per tonne. As I say, that is in large part to harmonise with other states. It is also to encourage better recycling. We have also seen other measures such as the container deposit scheme, which has had a huge uptake from Victorians. Just the other day I was hearing from a constituent who was talking about how many containers she has put into the container deposit scheme, and frankly I was very, very impressed. It was a figure something like 10,000 containers that she has already deposited from going around to various construction sites and happily offering to take bottles from the workers and augmenting her other income in that way as well, which is good to see. It is what the scheme is for – obviously to support Victorians, but more importantly to really support that circular recycling economy, and we have seen those very encouraging early numbers. This adjustment to the waste levy will adjust what we expect to see coming into landfill, which is obviously going to help our environment as well, but it will match it with those other two states. We already subsidise South Australia with our GST and New South Wales with our federal infrastructure funding; we do not need to take their rubbish as well.

Another measure in this bill is to provide for a vacant land conservation covenants account for Trust for Nature. Trust for Nature is a wonderful non-profit that does great work in protecting Victoria’s natural landscape. This new VLCC account, as it is called, will give them the financial certainty that they need to enter into various conservation covenants with private landowners in and across metropolitan Melbourne – these covenants of course being entirely voluntary on the part of the landowner – but also binding agreements that will lock in and really protect natural beauty and natural land with significant cultural, scientific or other environmental value. I actually have an acquaintance with one of these particular sites not too far from my region, the Harbury Trust for Nature site in Pakenham Upper. When I was in I believe grade 5 we had a family friend who was working for Trust for Nature at the time, and I was commandeered for an unpaid photo shoot on the site. I was looking up at the trees and pointing up at a big I think it was a gum tree – I am not sure what it was; I am not very botanical – in this covenant, and it ended up on the brochure for this park. I did just have a look earlier today, and the brochure has been updated, which is probably for the best. But it is a connection I do have to Trust for Nature. It is very good to see them getting this support as well, and certainly given the incredible work that they do.

We will also be making some adjustments to the vacant residential land tax, which is an important thing to improve the situation for those with a holiday house in metropolitan Melbourne where you are looking at multiple blocks that are actually one property but are titled as separate blocks. That will ensure that the exemptions, when and where they do apply, are applied evenly and consistently. This is a state budget which, through the state taxation bill as well, is continuing to support businesses, particularly small businesses, in the state of Victoria.

We have of course seen that through having the lowest unemployment rate almost on record in regional Victoria, and indeed one of the lowest payroll tax rates, if not anywhere in the country, then very close to, in regional Victoria, that being just a quarter of the rate it was when we came into government. We are continuing to invest as much as we can into businesses, and you are seeing the result of that. You have seen the result that since September 2020 one in every three jobs that has been created in Australia has been created in Victoria. We have always kicked above our weight in this state, and in this measure we are clearly away and ahead in doing that as well. For a quarter of the population, one in every three jobs that has been created in this country has been in the state of Victoria, and that is across all sectors, including medical research of course which also continues to boom under this Allan Labor government. Melbourne is one of the top three cities in the world for medical research. We have achieved all of this despite being continually undermined by our GST allocations as well, although it is very good to see the Commonwealth Grants Commission afford a more fair and reasonable distribution to Victoria this year with 97 cents in the dollar as opposed to 84 cents in the dollar, I believe it was previously, taking into account the fact that we do not have mines. I do not think we had many more mines in the previous years either, but it is good to see that imbalance at least going some way towards being redressed, notwithstanding the fact that over a significant period from the 1950s when you take into account GST and other measures as well, the state of Victoria has been underfunded by our federal friends to the tune of well in excess of $110 billion. It is very good to see that news from the Commonwealth Grants Commission as well, and I will continue to obviously, in this place and outside, advocate for this state to receive its fair share of GST income as well.

There will be much more to say on this budget, and much more I could go into on the matter of state taxation, but as I said, the measures outlined will significantly support a number of people in our community. Most particularly, though, the one to really emphasise for me I think is that community and social housing sector that this government is supporting and continues to support, and this tax change in the state taxation act is an example of that. I commend the bill to the house.

Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (18:17): I am pleased to rise and speak on this bill. First, let us note that the revenue over forward estimates is up 22 per cent, and that is bizarrely the same 22 per cent of the project overruns that we had as well. Coincidence? I think not. This government has found it necessary to raise revenue because it cannot spend it fast enough, frankly. In a time when we have inflationary pressures and record debt, it is another spending budget. Let me be absolutely clear: it takes absolutely no talent to spend other people’s money, and it takes even less talent to spend money that you have borrowed, but it takes a very particular kind of talent to spend money that you cannot even access. That takes a kind of magician. It is a kind of fantasy. In the words of the Attorney-General just prior, it is speculation; the budget is speculation from a revenue and spending point of view. This chamber should take note now and into the future that every time the government says it is investing in something or it is funding something, it is in practice saying, ‘We are borrowing for something,’ though it is worse than that, because every time it is borrowing it also incorporates significant components that it cannot even borrow on. It is relying on property speculation and other measures to raise the money.

We will have to be ultimately bailed out by the federal government, and if not, then projects will fail, such as the western interstate freight terminal (WIFT), until very recently the Beveridge interstate freight terminal (BIFT) and certainly things like Yan Yean Road and Camerons Lane and Wallan diamond – all of these things that the state has not been able to fund. The fact is that this government could use Monopoly money – if it could, it would; if it could print its own money, it would. It would call it investment when it is borrowing and when in reality it is fantasy money. It is fantasy money, like all of its projects. Their housing target is a fantasy, their offshore wind generation is a fantasy, the social housing targets are a fantasy, ramping targets are a fantasy, elective surgery is a fantasy, school and educational performance is a fantasy and cost-of-living measures are a fantasy. It is a fantasy like this budget because the money does not really exist. It is a fantasy with a bow on top, especially this insulting $400 crumb to public schools, which is an excellent example. Independent schools now pay more in tax than they receive in funding – that is, independent schools are funding the government’s debt program for the privilege of educating the state’s children. Our schools are funding the government, and the cost? The cost goes back to parents, to families and ultimately to children. But you know who did get cost –

Jaclyn Symes interjected.

Richard WELCH: Don’t trivialise it. It’s true. You borrow –

Jaclyn Symes interjected.

Richard WELCH: Debt – debt means it. You have got to pay $26 million to service the debt, and if we lose another credit rating, I have it on good authority that the interest payment will not be $26 million. If we go from AAA down to AA or lower, it will be $76 million a day. That means frontline services are cut. That means all these fantasy projects around school performance and around school trips for kids and things get cut. It means ramping gets worse. It means the emergency services and first responders get less. It means our regions get less. To pretend that this does not have an effect on the standard of living, that this does not have an effect on families, is absurd.

You had an opportunity to do some budget repair; you did not do it. You could not do it because you are intellectually and ideologically locked into projects that create no wealth. The SRL is a project that is a housing development speculation exercise. It will not create wealth for the next generation. In fact all of this generation’s capital and all of our children’s capital is being locked into contracts to fund a project that will not generate wealth. It will indebt us. This budget is a tragedy written in black and white. The community may not know the worst of it, because they did not know the worst of it before the last election. Before the last election they were not told, for instance, on the Suburban Rail Loop about 40-storey buildings. They were not told that the open space in their communities would be shrunk from 36 square metres to just 6 square metres in order to pay for a project.

This is an absurd budget, and it will have an effect on people’s lives. We should not forget that, and we should not trivialise it here. It is a fantasy. This totally reckless approach to spending money and this reckless approach to borrowing have simply put our credit rating under further pressure, and major agencies have us under review. A 22 per cent increase in revenue is 22 per cent less in the hands of businesses. It is 22 per cent taken from the bottom line of those who create wealth to fund fantasy projects – headlines that will never be delivered.

I draw particular attention to the fact that there is no funding for the WIFT. The WIFT would have been an investment of capital that generated wealth. It would have improved the efficiency of our freight system through Victoria. It would have connected up our ports to the west. It would have taken 40 per cent off the cost of freight, as will the BIFT, along with all the other benefits. But we did not invest in that because we had to quarantine nonproductive projects.

I will simply reiterate: the wealth of the state is determined by our ability to direct capital to its most productive purposes. The welfare of the state is generated by our ability to take that wealth and apportion it where it is most needed. We are doing neither of those things in this budget. Therefore I think, as many others have already said, this is possibly the worst budget in Victoria’s history.

Jaclyn Symes: You know we are doing the state tax bill, right?

Richard WELCH: Appropriation.

Jaclyn Symes: No, we’re doing the state tax bill. Your speech is clearly your budget speech.

Richard WELCH: Okay. Well, however you want to take it, the message would be the same.

Sitting suspended 6:25 pm until 7:33 pm.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (19:32): Thank you, everyone, for your contributions on the State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024. One of the amendments in relation to this bill amends section 88A of the Land Tax Act 2005 to extend the vacant residential land tax holiday home exemption to property owners by a trust or company as of 28 November 2023. I want to take the opportunity, following conversations with stakeholders, to provide some information just to make sure that this section is clarified, because a few questions have been asked, so I just wanted to put a few things on the record.

This is in relation to two matters in connection to the administration of the exemption that, as I said, may require just a little bit of further clarification: (1) it is intended that the principal place of residency requirement would be satisfied if at least 50 per cent of the shares or beneficial interest in a landholding company or trust is held by a natural person or persons, either directly or indirectly, who use and occupy other land in Australia as their principal place of residence – that is, indirect interests held by a natural person can satisfy the requirement and (2) the term ‘a natural person’ for the definition of a specified person allows the four-week test to be satisfied by aggregating the periods of use of land by multiple specified persons, provided the periods of use are not simultaneous. For example, two people separately using the property as a holiday home for two weeks each in each relevant year would satisfy the test.

We believe that those words of clarification should satisfy the concerns that have been raised or more the questions that have been asked. However, we will continue to engage further with stakeholders, and if there is any further clarification required, we would have an opportunity to put any further information into the spring tax bill, which will indeed come into effect before the operation, which is on 1 January 2025. With that I am very happy to go into committee and address any questions that members may have.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (19:36)

Evan MULHOLLAND: I have a question on clause 1 – a few actually. Just on the vacant residential land tax expansion, what is the rationale behind extending the holiday home exemption to properties held in family trusts?

Jaclyn SYMES: The main intention, Mr Mulholland, is that it is intended to apply to holiday homes. That is the intention of that amendment.

Evan MULHOLLAND: How will the expansion of the holiday home exemption impact revenue from vacant residential land tax?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, the government has not been able to determine the number of companies or trusts that will be affected by the change as there is no data available regarding the number of companies and trusts which own holiday-home land in Victoria. But the measure is expected to result in less revenue being collected from the vacant residential and land tax than if holiday homes owned by companies or trusts did not receive the exemption. As I said, we have not been able to accurately forecast that. However, I can put on the record that in total the expansion of the vacant residential land tax to outer Melbourne and regional Victoria legislated in 2023 was estimated to raise $6 million per year once it came into effect. We might be able to provide information once it comes into effect, but we do not have that data today.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Would you be able to provide that data on notice?

Jaclyn SYMES: Well, it does not currently exist.

Evan MULHOLLAND: What are the specific criteria that must be met for a property held in a family trust to qualify for the exemption?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, I think that you will find that is currently in the legislation. I know that we are on clause 1, but the holiday home exemption sections are outlined in clause 13 of the bill.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I am happy to ask the question there, Attorney, but –

Jaclyn SYMES: To clarify, it would mean me reading out clause 13 to answer your question.

Evan MULHOLLAND: What measures are in place to prevent misuse or exploitation of the holiday home exemption, especially concerning family trusts?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, again, it specifies the requirements in the legislation. However, compliance would be a matter for the State Revenue Office (SRO) under the Taxation Administration Act 1997, and there is no change to that.

Evan MULHOLLAND: How do these changes align with the government’s stated plans that are still on the housing statement website to build 80,000 homes per year?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, any homes that fall into the definition of the amendments could be captured, and the vacant residential land tax aims to bring more homes onto the market as well. That is part of the benefit of ensuring that we are promoting home owners that are not living in their homes to make them available, particularly for rental accommodation. That is hopefully an outcome of this measure. That is indeed what we would like to see. When we have so many people looking for residential properties to rent and finding that difficult, knowing that there is a vacant home in the street is pretty despairing for those that would like to rent it out on a full-time basis.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I am not sure that adequate reasoning has been given to the investment side of that.

Can I ask on the land tax assessment changes: what prompted the retrospective adjustment to land tax assessments for joint-owned land and certain trusts?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, the amendment that you refer to is a technical amendment, and amendments that are being made in relation to that matter address an unintended consequence of the introduction of the temporary land tax surcharge, which is that certain joint owners and beneficiaries of trusts may incur a land tax liability in particular circumstances which is unintended, and the changes will ensure that land tax is not assessed in these circumstances.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Given your comments on the vacant land tax in response to my question on the 80,000 homes, how many homes of the 80,000 does the government expect will eventuate as a result of this change?

Jaclyn SYMES: Which change are you referring to?

Evan MULHOLLAND: The vacant residential land tax exemption.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, I think you are conflating two different policies of the government. This is about getting more homes into the market – more homes into particularly the residential market. This is not about generating construction.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I will put it a different way. You have acknowledged that the intent of these changes, particularly the vacant residential land tax expansion, is to get more people out of those rental queues and into homes. How many more people, as a result of this change, does the government expect to be in those homes?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, that is why I want to make it clear that conflating this policy with the housing statement commitment in relation to additional new homes – they are separate policies but obviously have similar policy intent. We do not know how many vacant homes are necessarily out there. That is the point of ensuring that we can help identify them and help incentivise. If they are vacant and unused, putting them into the market is certainly something that is going to be beneficial because it means that particularly those seeking in the rental market have more choices and it puts downward pressure on rental prices, which we know are at extreme levels at the moment.

Evan MULHOLLAND: On the land tax assessment changes, we spoke before about the retrospective adjustment to land tax assessment for jointly owned and certain trusts. How will this change impact the administration of land tax assessments in Victoria moving forward?

Jaclyn SYMES: You are talking about the retrospectivity element, is that it?

Evan MULHOLLAND: Yes, the land tax assessment changes.

Jaclyn SYMES: The amendment commences retrospectively to apply to 2024 land tax assessment notices, being the first year in which the temporary land tax surcharge applies. So it will not adversely affect anyone paying land tax, because the amendment is to stop an additional unintended liability from being assessed. It is about ensuring that for anybody that was impacted we can amend that, and then going forward it will apply as intended.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Just on the payroll tax changes for non-government schools, what prompted this change to ensure that undeclared schools classed as not-for-profit or religious institutions are ineligible for the payroll tax exemption?

Jaclyn SYMES: In relation to the amendments in this bill and the questions that you have raised, obviously we did spend a fair bit of time in last year’s state tax bill debate talking about the removal of the tax exemption for undeclared schools. To ensure that these schools pay payroll tax as per the government’s announcement last year, undeclared schools will be unable to avoid payroll tax by claiming an exemption as a religious institution from 1 July 2024. We are also making sure that it operates as intended and there is no incentive to seek to structure organisations to avoid paying payroll tax by outsourcing to another organisation to provide educational services, for example, because we will ensure that other organisations will be unable to claim payroll tax exemption for services provided to an undeclared school.

Evan MULHOLLAND: If this change was not being legislated, how many schools would have fallen into this category and otherwise been eligible for a payroll tax exemption?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, we do not know if any schools are currently doing this, and many would not seek to bring about changes in their structure as a way to avoid this payroll tax responsibility. We just want to make sure that it is clear, that the intended purpose is met and that there are not ways to get around it effectively. That is not to presume that schools would do that, but we want to make sure that it is very clear. Therefore it is a relatively technical amendment not designed to target anyone in particular. We have not identified poor practices or people that are gearing up to try and avoid the tax obligations.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Has the government consulted with schools that will be impacted by these changes?

Jaclyn SYMES: Can you just be more specific considering we were just talking about schools that potentially contract out – or are you talking about all schools? I am a little bit unclear about your question.

Evan MULHOLLAND: It is about schools that would have been otherwise affected by the current changes on undeclared schools classed as not-for-profits.

Jaclyn SYMES: Consulted on what?

Evan MULHOLLAND: On the changes in this state tax bill.

Jaclyn SYMES: Broadly?

Evan MULHOLLAND: Yes.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, as you would appreciate, the changes in this bill build on – basically, they are predominantly around ensuring the policy intent of the changes that we announced last year. And yes, there has been consultation with affected schools.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Will the government guarantee that more schools will not be added to the government’s schools tax hit list?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, as I have articulated on many occasions, this is about removing an exemption that was a privilege to non-government schools. They are now coming to align with state government schools. It is removing an exemption, as I have indicated. Government schools across the state have long been required to pay payroll tax, and these new changes are now ensuring that some of our wealthiest private schools will also contribute their fair share. You have asked about certainty and changes, and I can provide the information that the threshold that has been set will remain in place until at least 1 January 2029, when it will be reviewed ahead of the 2029 school year. All non-government schools will be assessed on an annual basis against the $15,000 threshold. If a school’s total income per student exceeds the threshold at any time, the school will become subject to payroll, and obviously the reverse – if a school’s total income per student falls below the threshold, at that time the school will no longer be subject to the tax.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Has the government sought any advice or done any modelling on whether there is either any intent or ability for schools to fall under or over that $15,000 threshold within a school year to avoid the tax, or not go over it?

Jaclyn SYMES: It is not a specific matter for this bill, Mr Mulholland, but obviously the Minister for Education has been in conversations, particularly with schools that are abutting the threshold in relation to their obligations or otherwise.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I am very aware of the Minister for Education’s conversations with schools. Will the government adopt the Liberals and Nationals policy to scrap payroll tax obligations for Victorian schools, including public schools?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, that is not a matter for the bill at hand, nor is it a matter for me as Attorney-General or Minister for Emergency Services to provide a lot of commentary around in relation to a commitment that you have given today. Therefore I will refrain from any commentary that is outside my lane.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I just want to talk about the contiguous exempt land expansion. Why is it necessary to extend the holiday home exemption to contiguous land?

Jaclyn SYMES: In relation to the contiguous-land-to-a-holiday-home issue, from 1 January 2026 vacant residential land tax will apply to unimproved land in metropolitan Melbourne that has remained undeveloped for at least five years. In metro Melbourne situations may arise where land used and occupied as a holiday home is exempt from the vacant residential land tax under existing exemption provisions but the adjoining contiguous unimproved land, such as land used for a tennis court, a garden or a bush block preserved for conservation purposes, on a separate title is subject to vacant residential land tax from January 2026 due to it being residential land that has been unimproved for five years or more. This is an unintended consequence and results in inconsistent treatment of land that is used as a holiday home and land that is contiguous to that holiday home which enhances the use of the occupation of the holiday home, and so we are proposing to remove that inconsistency through that amendment.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Would you be able to expand on – I know you briefly touched on them – the types of land use that will qualify for the contiguous exempt land expansion and provide some examples?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, I have given you three, and I will repeat them because I did speak quickly, I acknowledge that. The examples that I have been provided are things like a tennis court, a bush block or a garden, or you could have – I do not know, what is another sport that people have – a bowling green or you could have a basketball court. I am out of examples off the top of my head, but you get the vibe of it. But what I do want to say is that we have not been able to determine the number of affected landowners as there is no data available regarding holiday homes with contiguous unimproved land. We do not think there are heaps and heaps, but we wanted to make sure that the inconsistencies were rectified – better laws when they are consistent – so that is why we are fixing it. If people benefit from it, along the lines that I have said, for their adjoining land, then that is a good outcome.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Would the Attorney be able to advise the reasons and outline why the government has made this change?

Jaclyn SYMES: I thought I answered that in the previous question. Do you want me to repeat the answer?

Evan MULHOLLAND: If you like.

Jaclyn SYMES: It is if you like, because I am just going to say exactly what I said to you two questions ago.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Yes, please.

Jaclyn SYMES: All right. What we have identified is that there may be situations where land used and occupied as a holiday home is exempt from the vacant residential land tax under the existing exemption provisions but the adjoining tennis court, bush block – whatever the block is used for – is unimproved land on a separate title so it can be subject to vacant residential land tax due to it being residential land that has been unimproved for five years or more. We want you in one or the other, not both. I am just butchering it now. The first answer was better. I am trying to help. I will go back to my previous answer. It was an unintended consequence to have inconsistent treatment of land, and without this change, there is the ability for the one parcel of land to have two treatments, and we want to make sure it has only got one, kind of.

Richard WELCH: Attorney, just turning to the waste levy scheme, what factors drove the decision to increase metropolitan municipal and industrial waste levy rates?

Jaclyn SYMES: I thank Mr Welch for the question. I do believe that the rationale has been well canvassed throughout the debate, particularly the second-reading speech, but for the purposes of today’s committee I want to put on the record that the government is committed to protecting and improving Victoria’s environment. Our waste levy has for a long time been out of step with our neighbouring states and not reflective of the true environmental cost of diverting stuff to landfill.

It is about driving behavioural change. We want to encourage business and households to create less waste that has to be dumped into landfill. We want people to reduce, reuse and recycle, and there is a lot of appetite for this in the community. Certainly my local container deposit scheme depot is well utilised – in fact it has had a waiting line every time that my kids have wanted to bring their bottles down there – so we know that this type of behavioural change is happening, but we want to put some more oomph behind that. One hundred per cent of waste levy revenue goes towards creating better environmental outcomes for Victoria, and the changes to the waste levy from July 2025, as I said, will bring us into line with our neighbouring jurisdictions.

Richard WELCH: How much waste per year does the government expect will be reduced?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, we do not have those figures to hand. As I identified in the answer to your previous question, this is about behavioural change. This is about motivating businesses, councils and householders to reduce, reuse and recycle. The less waste the better, which means that there would be less revenue coming in, and we would be happy with that.

Richard WELCH: Are there any plans to accompany the levy increase with additional measures to support waste reduction and recycling initiatives?

Jaclyn SYMES: Policy positions that are outside the remit of this bill are matters that the Minister for Climate Action and the Minister for Environment would be well placed to provide you with further information on, but the government is always open to policies that are about recycling and reusing – we have got the circular economy strategy – so therefore it is always a work in progress. We have got obviously our emissions targets and the like, so there are always environmental policies that are coming out of various parts of government, predominantly the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action. But as I said before, in terms of the revenue raised, 100 per cent of it will go back into creating a cleaner, greener Victoria, and therefore there will be opportunities for initiatives that come out of the EPA, for example, who will be beneficiaries of any of the funding. It will also top up the Sustainability Fund, which has pretty clear criteria for eligibility for the types of programs that it would fund, but it would meet the definition of how you characterised your question.

Richard WELCH: Are there any plans for, or has consideration been given to, the unintended and undesirable outcome of an increased levy, that there is likely to be increased dumping as a consequence of the increase?

Jaclyn SYMES: Look, I heard Mr Mulholland’s contribution, and he certainly mentioned areas of the state that I am familiar with as well. There are existing problems with people dumping. We certainly take this seriously, and we want to work towards preventing and responding to illegal dumping. Action that is doing that includes increased monitoring, investigation and prosecution of illegal waste disposal; enhanced capability of the EPA to combat waste crime using surveillance intelligence and special investigative teams; improved intelligence-sharing coordination between regulatory and emergency management agencies for effective action on unsafe or illegal waste management; and more disposal points for asbestos across the state through development and implementation of an asbestos disposal management plan. Obviously we have regular conversations with councils, who are often at the forefront of dealing with the consequences or having to respond to concerns from community about illegal dumping.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Based on the premise that is the justification for the waste levy, that Victoria is out of step with other states, why is Victoria so out of step on other tax measures, having the highest taxed citizens in the nation?

Jaclyn SYMES: Thank you for asking about the harmonisation with New South Wales and South Australia as it connects to this bill. I am more than happy to provide you a response to that, because the waste levy is out of step with neighbouring states and does not reflect the true environmental cost of dumping stuff in landfill. If we do not make any changes, it could encourage big waste producers across the border to send their waste to Victorian landfills, so we want to make sure that that is not an incentive. We want less waste dumped at landfill. Changes to the waste levy, as I said, are about changing behaviour so that big waste producers create less waste and do more to reduce, reuse and recycle. As I said, this is about generating revenue that goes towards creating better environmental outcomes for the state of Victoria.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I want to jump around a little bit. Just on the new exemption for social and emerging housing, reference part 4, division 2: what motivated the introduction of a new land tax exemption for social and emergency housing?

Jaclyn SYMES: The motivation is to provide certainty to the sector, to provide a broader range of social and emergency housing with a land tax exemption and to encourage innovation in service delivery with the assurance that social and emergency housing that satisfies these parameters will receive a land tax exemption. So a good policy outcome is what is driving that decision.

Evan MULHOLLAND: How will the exemption be implemented and monitored to ensure it benefits those in need?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, as I said, this is good government policy; I think that you would agree. There is expected minimal revenue impact – we have been up-front about that – because social and emergency housing is typically already land-exempt under existing exemptions, but this is ensuring that it can be slightly more broadly applied. In relation to compliance activities, that still remains standard SRO activity. Hopefully that answers your question.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Were there any cases that motivated this exemption, this change?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, as I said, it is to provide further certainty to the sector, and we certainly want to see increased innovation and provision of social emergency housing, so that is some of the motivation. But we did have advocacy from the Community Housing Industry Association in relation to these changes.

Evan MULHOLLAND: So I assume that is a yes. What is the anticipated cost of providing this exemption?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I think I indicated in one of my previous responses, Mr Mulholland, the change is expected to have minimal revenue impact, as social and emergency housing are typically already exempt. But we do want to send a strong message that innovation and provision of social and emergency housing is something that we support. We want to make sure that we give certainty and comfort that these exemptions are there. That is why making standalone exemptions really calls that out, and there is a real call to arms to the sector.

Evan MULHOLLAND: What oversight mechanisms will be in place regarding this new exemption?

Jaclyn SYMES: Just the standard State Revenue Office compliance activities, and Homes Victoria already watch closely the provision of social and emergency housing, so there will be a crossover between the agencies.

Richard WELCH: Just turning to stamp duty amendments for business insurance, Attorney, what is the rationale behind the phased elimination of business insurance duty?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, you might have to be a bit more specific than clause 1 to draw my attention to the specific measure of the bill you are referring to.

Richard WELCH: Clause 2.1

Jaclyn SYMES: Clause 2.1? Okay. There is nothing new in relation to that, Mr Welch. That is in last year’s budget, and the change in this bill is a technical change to carry through the intention of the change in last year’s budget, so no change, just making sure that it is carried through.

Richard WELCH: How would the Treasurer’s discretionary power to declare or exclude classes of business insurance be exercised, and what safeguards are in place to prevent misuse of this power?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I indicated in my previous answer, Mr Welch, there is not a specific matter for this bill, but let me seek some advice from the box.

I am just seeking some further information from the box, but in the meantime, I can give you some high-level information when I find the right page. You were asking about the discretion to make a declaration in relation to business insurance. The Treasurer does have the ability to exercise a discretion. Once the bill is passed, the Treasurer intends to declare public liability cover attaching to household insurance, which is otherwise part of the public and product liability class of business, to be excluded from the definition of business insurance as it was never intended to be business insurance, which goes to my former answer about the fact that this was about the implementation of changes last year. The declaration that the Treasurer intends to make will be effective from 1 July 2024. In relation to some of your questions about his ability and declaration, he only has the ability to add classes of business insurance or take out certain classes of business insurance. Subordinate legislation requirements will govern any such changes to that.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Just to jump you around again, I am going to compelling casino operators. What necessitated the amendment to grant the commissioner the power to compel casino operators to produce documents or information?

Jaclyn SYMES: The existing investigative powers of the commissioner of state revenue are not suited to requiring a casino operator to produce records or information on a regular and ongoing basis. For example, records of casinos are generally daily as appropriate. The change enables the commissioner to issue notices to a casino operator to require it to produce information on an ongoing basis for a prospective period of up to six months. This is about strengthening casino tax compliance, and that has been a key area of reform as part of the government’s ongoing response to the Royal Commission into the Casino Operator and Licence.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Just a follow-up from that, can you explain the significance of extending this power for periods of up to six months?

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes. I can certainly add some information as to why we believe that the existing legislative powers are not adequate. The commissioner of state revenue can only issue notices under the Taxation Administration Act 1997, which requires a person to produce information, documents or things for investigative purposes. The power is used by the commissioner to compel the production of a document or information that is already in existence. The notice covers information, documents or a thing that is of a class specified in the notice, and the information, document or a thing must either be in the possession or be going to come into the possession of a casino operator during the period specified in the notice. That is where the ‘up to six months’ comes in. Furthermore, there must be an additional record that a casino operator has been required to keep in accordance with the notice that the commissioner has issued under the Taxation Administration Act 1997.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Are there any safeguards in place to ensure that the power to compel information is exercised appropriately and fairly?

Jaclyn SYMES: In response to your question, I have got more information about if the casino operator does not comply. But in terms of the specifics of your question, I think what I would point to is the fact that a casino operator does not commit an offence if they have a reasonable excuse for not providing the required information or document within the timeframe specified in the notice. You were looking for some safeguards; there is some flexibility in that regard.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Just moving on to Trust for Nature.

Jaclyn SYMES: Is there anything you’re not going to touch on?

Evan MULHOLLAND: Maybe. I will think about it. I might be nice. What drove the establishment of the vacant land conservation covenants account?

Jaclyn SYMES: I would hope that a lot of these questions about why we are doing things were covered off by previous speakers, namely, the Treasurer in his second-reading speech, but I am more than happy to clarify for the purposes of the committee, and I think that is an important process. Therefore in relation to your question, from 1 January 2026 vacant residential land tax will apply to unimproved land in metropolitan Melbourne that has remained undeveloped for at least five years. This provision is the opportunity to better protect land of high conservation value. Land with a conservation covenant is exempt from land tax and from the vacant residential land tax. The new trust account is being set up to provide more transparency about how the funding for the new vacant land conservation covenants is being applied. Money paid to the new trust account will facilitate and enable Trust for Nature to enter into conservation covenants.

Evan MULHOLLAND: How will the vacant land conservation covenants account support Trust for Nature’s efforts to enter into conservation covenants with landowners?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, we anticipate that $2 million will be available to Trust for Nature to establish vacant land conservation covenants, because that is money that was allocated as part of the budget and therefore is available, and we will be seeking take-up of that. The conservation covenant is a voluntary, legally binding agreement made between private landholders and Trust for Nature to permanently protect and conserve private land with natural, cultural or scientific value. We certainly know that there is a lot of interest in this area of government intervention, and therefore I can go further, in that the money paid out to the new trust account will facilitate and enable Trust for Nature to enter into conservation covenants – for example, registration fees and assessment and documentation costs – with funding provided on a per-property basis. We are expecting that this $2 million will be spread across up to 50 properties depending on demand, but as I said, there is a fair bit of interest in this funding availability.

Evan MULHOLLAND: How will the reimbursement process for Trust for Nature’s costs be managed and overseen?

Jaclyn SYMES: The Secretary of the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action will administer the fund and authorise payments for the Trust for Nature, providing a mechanism for oversight of the fund and reimbursement of the trust’s reasonable costs in line with that intent.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Has it always been government policy to include land of cultural value?

Jaclyn SYMES: In relation to when conservation covenants came into existence?

Evan MULHOLLAND: Yes. What I mean is ‘or has it been expanded from environmental value’, and if so, when did this change occur?

Jaclyn SYMES: I am not aware of any change to definition. It is obviously outside the remit of this bill, and from my experience in dealing with this policy area, which is not extensive, I must say I just know of the interest and the different people that have got these types of properties. As far as I am aware it has always included those definitions. It would be best to seek advice from the Minister for Environment about the timing of definitions, whether they evolved et cetera, but certainly in relation to where it stands today, it picks up natural, cultural and scientific values.

Evan MULHOLLAND: What outcomes are expected from these amendments in terms of conservation and biodiversity protection?

Jaclyn SYMES: Well, it is kind of in the name. I think just coming back to the Trust for Nature and its aim, it is a non-profit organisation with a specific focus on private land. It is established under the act, and what they do is acquire, conserve and maintain areas within Victoria that are ecologically significant or of natural interest or beauty or scientific interest. It also encourages and assists in the preservation of wildlife and native plants for public, scientific and public educational purposes. We would like more properties to fall into this remit. We want more people to be encouraged to ensure that land is put aside for permanent conservation. It is a good, balanced outcome to ensure that there is incentive for landowners to produce that outcome. As I said, I have met a couple of these landowners, and they are pretty passionate people. I think they are a growing community.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I have got another page, but I will be nice and finish there.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Mulholland, I invite you to move your amendment 1, which tests all of your remaining amendments. Just before I do so, I remind members that under sections 62 to 64 of the Constitution Act 1975, the Council does not have the power to make amendments to parts of this bill. No question will be put on the affected clauses, and any proposed amendments to those clauses must be in the form of a suggested amendment to the Assembly. Standing order 14.16 sets out the procedure for dealing with suggested amendments. The proposed amendments are tested by Mr Mulholland’s amendment 1 to clause 1, but we will deal with his first amendment, which tests all of the others anyway.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I move my amendment:

1. Clause 1, page 2, lines 14 to 16, omit “and non-profit organisations providing educational services to those schools”.

It seeks to remove payroll tax changes from schools. As the Deputy President has made members aware, it is a suggested amendment to the Assembly.

Jaclyn SYMES: I think the government’s position on this matter is well versed, and we will not be supporting the suggested amendment.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (15): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (19): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Adem Somyurek, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Sheena Watt

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 5 agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 17 – no question put pursuant to standing order 14.16(2).

Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.

Clauses 20 and 21 – no question put pursuant to standing order 14.16(2).

Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.

Clause 24 – no question put pursuant to standing order 14.16(2).

Clauses 25 to 27 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (20:36): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (20:36): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

The PRESIDENT: The question is:

That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.

Council divided on question:

Ayes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Adem Somyurek, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Sheena Watt

Noes (14): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Question agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.