Thursday, 15 May 2025

Bills

Fire Services Property Amendment (Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund) Bill 2025

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (12:50): I rise to speak on the Fire Services Property Amendment (Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund) Bill 2025, and let me be absolutely clear from the outset, this bill is an absolute shocker – it is a doozy in the worst sense of the word. It represents an enormous, unprecedented cash grab, a financial hit to every household, every small business, every farm, every property owner in this state – every industrial property owner in this state and commercial property owner in this state. And make no mistake, this is not just a levy, it is a tax – a big fat new, indiscriminate tax.

Let us talk about numbers. The government’s own budget papers lay bare the reality. If you look at table A.1 in the most recent end-of-year budget papers, the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund is expected to collect $610.9 million in 2025–26, $765 million in 2026–27 and another $765 million in 2027–28; that is $2.14 billion in just three years. Let that sink in: more than $2.1 billion is being hauled in from hardworking Victorians under the guise of emergency services funding. This tax is a killer, plain and simple. Let us not forget the context. This is a government that brought in nearly 60 new and expanded taxes since it came to office, and this one dwarfs most of them. This one goes further, wider, deeper and nastier than all of the rest. It hits families struggling with the cost of living. It hits businesses trying to recover costs post pandemic. It hits farmers who already shoulder enormous financial and environmental burden. It is cruel, it is unfair and it is unnecessary.

This government has always wanted to charge farmers land tax – let us make that clear. It has always been a pipedream on that side of the chamber that is disconnected from regional Victoria. They have always wanted to charge farmers land tax; they are doing it under another name. You know what happens when you charge farmers land tax? People pay more at the check-out. People in my electorate, in a community like Craigieburn – who are usually checking their bank apps as they go through the check-out to see if they have got enough to pay for their groceries – are going to be paying more, because this government cannot manage money. It is communities like mine in the northern suburbs that are also going to be paying the price, because this government cannot manage money. It hits families struggling through a cost-of-living crisis.

And don’t you dare pretend or give mealy-mouthed words to say that you are supporting farmers through the drought that they are going through at the moment. You have not just stabbed them in the back; you have stabbed them in the front during a drought. We heard from Dr Heath before about what constituents in her electorate and farmers in her electorate are going through in regard to the drought.

The government wants to pretend this is all about supporting volunteers and emergency services; they have wrapped this tax in the warm glow of community spirit and altruism. But if you scratch the surface, if you even just dig a little bit, you will see what is truly a desperate tax grab by a government that has mismanaged public funds, has run out of money and is now scrambling to plug the holes with taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars. Victorians are angry. Ordinary people are angry, confused and deeply concerned about this legislation. We have heard from farmers, CFA volunteers, small business owners, professional firefighters and local councillors. The member for Ripon even spoke to farmers and said that she had spoken to the Premier and Treasurer and was advocating for changes – well, they never really came – and only voted for it because she had to, not because she supported it. She voted for it because she had to. Well, I think the people of Ripon now know that by voting Labor in Ripon, you just get a rubber stamp to betray regional Victoria, and that is what all regional and peri-urban members should know. We are going to make it clear, and I am telling you now: as a result of these changes, we are coming after you, and so are your communities.

Let us talk about those communities. Communities like Eureka are coming after the Labor Party, as are Wendouree, Bendigo East, Bass, Hastings, Yan Yean, Macedon and the last Labor spot in the Eastern Victoria Region. Unfortunately, Mr McIntosh, who is not here, is likely to be safe in his number one spot from my electorate of the northern suburbs of the inner city, but there is that spot as well. And the Greens have done a dirty deal with the Labor Party after supposed consultation. They bragged after the last election that they had won their first regional seat in the western region. Well, I can tell you, you can kiss that goodbye, the Greens, because as many people discovered recently, you cannot vote for the Greens, not this time. And for the people in Western Victoria Region: you cannot vote the Greens – never again – because they have turned their backs on regional and rural communities for a grubby deal with the Labor Party, because just like the Labor Party, the Greens political party have never seen a tax increase they did not like. You cannot trust them that they are serious about emergency services or volunteer firefighters or professional firefighters or standing up with the UFU, because they are not. They have never seen a tax increase they did not like. So my message to regional and peri-urban Labor MPs is that there will be political consequences for this. Do not think your communities will forget about this.

On Tuesday I had the privilege of joining many of my colleagues and hundreds of farmers and firefighters, volunteer and professional alike, from across the state on the front steps of Parliament who were there and who made their voices heard. Their message was consistent and loud and clear: ‘We are being punished.’ And they were right. Agricultural land is going to be hit hard by this bill, and everyone is affected; this tax does not discriminate. Their message was loud and clear that there will be political consequences for those who support this grubby new tax.

What the government is proposing to do is to replace the existing fire services property levy, which has been in place to fund the Country Fire Authority and Fire Rescue Victoria, with a much broader and much more expensive structure. Under this bill the new Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund will not only support the CFA and FRV but also extend to Triple Zero Victoria, the State Emergency Service, Emergency Management Victoria and even the Department of Justice and Community Safety and the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action. That is right – it is not just about trucks and brigades anymore; it is about funding public services, departments, bureaucrats and core government services that should be already financed by the state’s general revenue. But this government are addicted to pouring concrete instead of funding our essential services, and we saw that with their nasty $2.4 billion cut to public schools this week. That was in leaked cabinet subcommittee documents. It is an absolute disgrace.

This new Treasurer has shown her stripes. I thought we were going to get a bit of a change from this government when the former Treasurer last year in August admitted that we might have reached our limit on new taxes. That is what Mr Pallas said: we might have reached our limit on new taxes. So what does the new Treasurer Ms Symes do? She says, ‘No, we can definitely do more.’ That is the response from this government: ‘We can definitely do more taxes.’ Indeed we heard her say today or yesterday, ‘They can afford to pay.’ Our farmers, who are going up against the wall during a drought, can afford to pay more. They can afford to pay more, just like the business community can afford to pay more. Just when we are seeing investment run up against the wall, when you have got aggressive, competent Premiers like Mr Malinauskas and Mr Crisafulli going to Victorian businesses and poaching them out of Victoria, our Treasurer and our Premier say, ‘They can afford to pay more. We’re just going to increase your land tax, your property services levy.’ We know their hidden agenda. They do not care about regional and rural communities, and we know they have secretly, ideologically and prospectively always wanted to put a land tax on our farmers. And it is all Victorians who will pay the price for that.

The real problem here is Labor’s fiscal mismanagement. We have all seen how this government’s major projects have spiralled out of control. Remember when the North East Link was a $10 billion project, and then it was a $16 billion project, and then it was a $26.9 billion project? I am tipping and I have been told quite widely it will probably end up at over $30 billion when it is all said and done. The Metro Tunnel – almost $5 billion in blowouts. We are seeing a pricing reset for even the early works for the Suburban Rail Loop. We saw the Auditor-General’s report of major projects performance showing huge blowouts across all major projects – none left out. They basically all have blown out consistently. The West Gate Tunnel – another blowout there. This is what happens because Labor cannot manage money. They do nasty cuts to public schools – $2.4 billion – and they find new people to tax.

The previous Treasurer said we might have reached our limit. This Premier, Jacinta Allan, says, ‘No, there is more to do. There are more people to tax.’ Victorians will be feeling this at the check-out. Absolutely, make no mistake, Victorians will be paying for this at the check-out because this government cannot manage money. We have got debt that is out of control. We are looking at debt levels rising from 6 per cent of gross state product in 2014–15 to more than 24 per cent today. The government’s response is not to rein in spending, it is to hit Victorians with another tax. That is what this bill is. It is not emergency reform; it is budget repair at the community’s expense.

Let us be absolutely clear: we support emergency services. We support our firefighters, our SES volunteers and all those who work on the frontlines during floods, fires, storms. They deserve to be properly resourced. But funding emergency services should not come at the cost of fairness, and it should not be used as a smokescreen for broader taxation. The state government has always traditionally funded Triple Zero Victoria. The state government has traditionally funded most other emergency services to a greater or lesser extent. The truth is that the state government is now looking to scoop in all this money, and I have to say the spending on a number of emergency services has not really been well scoped or managed well by this state government.

Despite promises for exemptions of volunteers, the government will implement a rebate system that will be administered by a yet to be named agency. As my colleague Mrs McArthur pointed out, it will put massive pressure on local government. I have recently met with a number of local governments within my community, like Hume City Council, Mitchell Shire Council and the outer suburban councils, who are very concerned about this levy. They are going to be the ones that have to administer this great big new tax. They are going to be copping the backlash, and all Victorians should remember when they receive this on their rates notice: it was the Labor Party and the Greens that put it there. This government has done this in a way that they want you to think it is your local council. It is the Victorian Labor Party.

I say to the member for Ripon, the member for Eureka, the member for Bass, the member for Hastings, the members for the Eastern Victoria Region, the Greens member for the Western Victoria Region: Victorian communities in regional and rural Victoria will not forget this grubby deal with the Labor Party and the Greens and this grubby tax increase that will be paid for at the check-out by every single Victorian. Shame.

Sitting suspended 1:05 pm until 2:06 pm.

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (14:06): I rise, very sadly actually, to speak on the Fire Services Property Amendment (Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund) Bill 2025. My colleague Ms Crozier said they would have blood on their hands on that side of the chamber. I am here to tell you that you have blood on your hands. There were two suicides last week as a result of what you are imposing on farmers, and I have also been informed that a stock agent has had to go and make 35 calls for clients who he feels are under severe stress and strain. Suicides in rural communities are incredibly sad. We live in small communities, we live in close-knit communities, and the CFA volunteers are often the first on the ground when these things occur. The victims are often known to the CFA volunteers. They are not trained to do this but they do it, and it is incredibly hard and difficult. Our sympathies on this side of the chamber go out to the families who are now in distress as a result of the absolutely callous move of this government to impose a tax when farmers in regional communities are at their lowest.

We have a drought that is the worst, in many cases, since 1900, and you are sitting over there – very few of you, I might add. You have hardly ever been here to listen to the debate today. Nor have the crossbench in that corner been around. You clearly do not care. I want to say, for the members on the other side who are from the rural electorates – Ms Ermacora is from my electorate, and she is there now. You spoke about the difficulties that our communities are having at the moment with drought, absolutely. Mr McIntosh, who is in a rural electorate, Ms Shing, Minister Tierney, Minister Symes: you are all from rural electorates, and for you to do this to rural communities is unbelievable. I want to point out that Dr Mansfield is from my electorate as well and Ms Purcell is from the northern region, both apparently voting for this incredibly callous piece of legislation. You all ought to be ashamed of yourselves, and you do have blood on your hands.

In opposing this bill and this new tax, it makes sense to ask the most basic question: why? Why would you be doing this? The answer is frankly damning. This tax is not about prudent planning or sustainable funding, it is an indictment of economic mismanagement. It is a $2 billion patch-up job for a broken budget, yet another cash grab from a government that has run out of options. It is a measure born of desperation, not of principle or policy foresight. The truth is simple: this government are not doing it because it is a good idea; they are doing it because they have to. Wasteful spending has caught up with them. Economic mismanagement has stymied growth, and now they raid regional Victoria to clean up the mess. And worse still, this tax is just the beginning. Who knows what other concessions have been handed out to the Greens and others behind closed doors to get this across the line? A Greens party that was roundly rejected by the people at the recent federal election is now holding a weak Allan government to ransom.

Of course the trickery of the bill’s title should be no surprise. It would not be a Victorian Labor government tax without a carefully misleading name. I am not just referring to the semantic trickery of calling it a levy; this government has made an art of using every word under the sun except ‘tax’. But what is worse is the cruel irony of the branding: the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund. You would think it might be a help to volunteers, to support these brave men and women who donate their time, their energy, their own safety and often their own farm equipment – often they leave their farms and then they are burnt down – to protect others, but the opposite is true. The very people who are hit hardest by this tax are our emergency services volunteers – farmers, landholders, the backbone of our CFA brigades.

It is even worse than that, because even as they pay more, the money they contribute will not come back to their communities. While fire trucks in regional towns are outdated, while volunteers ride into danger on ancient equipment, millions of dollars are being siphoned away from their areas. And we know why: the funds are being absorbed into general government revenue, not quarantined for the services they claim to support. They will fund backroom staffers in Melbourne, not frontline services in our regions. This is not a volunteers fund, as the bill title has it: it is to fund the Treasurer. That is why we are proposing amendments to this legislation – amendments that would stop the government from spending this money on unrelated public service costs and instead require that funds be directed to volunteer emergency services organisations. If and only if this tax is to pass, then the bare minimum this government owes our volunteers is that the contribution is used for them, not against them.

Now let me speak to the real impact this tax is already having on Victorian families. I have been inundated with correspondence from constituents, and I have taken the time to go out and meet with people at rallies across the state. I have been at communities in Beaufort, Ascot and Barunah. Not one Labor MP was there, not one Green, not one Legalise Cannabis Party member, not the Animal Justice Party. My colleague Joe McCracken and my colleague Richard Riordan have been with me. I have been on the steps of Parliament House on two occasions – again, not one Labor MP, not one Greens MP, not one Legalise Cannabis Party MP, not the Animal Justice Party. You will not front the constituents of Victoria, especially the people that feed you, inside the tram tracks. I want to share with you just a few of the voices I have heard. They speak far more eloquently than I ever could about what this tax means in real terms. I will start with this letter from a farming family in the Pyrenees:

Our farm is already facing severe economic challenges, We are buying in Grain, Hay and Water to feed our livestock …

I might tell you people are spending $1000 a day on water. Some of us are spending $20,000 a week on fodder. It goes on:

… Farm insurances have doubled, Agricultural input costs have increased, Cost of living has increased, Bank Interest rates have increased …

and council rates have increased. Remember, this levy is based on the rateable value of your property.

This massive increase in the ESVF Levy, will be another financial burden, which our farm realistically cannot afford.

We urge you to reconsider this tax, especially towards the farmers, who volunteer their time to become CFA members, and help fight the fires …

free of charge to the government, I might add. Here is another story sent to me by a concerned constituent. So often farmers do not want to make a public spectacle and complain, so in this case it is a neighbour who has seen the enormous injustice and wanted to speak out to help his friend. He wrote:

The true story of a local farmer and his family highlights the profound impact the state government’s proposed projects and levies have on their lives.

I am now paraphrasing his story. John Drife is a fifth-generation farmer north-west of Ballarat. His family has been deeply involved with the CFA since the brigade formed in 1951. John was active early and formally signed up in 1971. He became a brigade captain in 1977, then Ballarat group officer in 1989, serving for over a decade. He later chaired the brigade for eight years and received both the National Medal and CFA life membership. Over four decades John has fought nearly every major fire in western Victoria, from Ash Wednesday and Black Saturday to the 2024 Pomonal and Bayindeen fires. He remains chair of his local brigade and mentors young members. In 2023 he was named Hepburn shire Citizen of the Year. John’s sons now represent the sixth generation of Drife farmers continuing the family’s legacy of services. But despite their contribution, the Drifes are under pressure. Their land is at the centre of state government projects – the Western Renewables Link and the proposed Nyaninyuk wind farm – bringing disruption and uncertainty. They have also been hit with higher land taxes, worsening drought and now this 189 per cent increase in the emergency services levy, ironically funding the very service they volunteer for. My correspondent concluded:

Across rural communities, farmers are struggling as government projects reshape their lands and livelihoods. Their concerns often go unheard, leaving them to fight battles in silence. Is it any wonder the farming community experiences such alarmingly high suicide rates?

And I have just referred to two.

With immense external pressures and little acknowledgement of their plight, many feel abandoned by the very system meant to support them.

Another farmer sends the numbers. He wrote:

As a CFA member with over 20 years service, the new levy is an insult to my service. The levy is unproportionally taxing the very people who do the greatest service as volunteers.

My total income from this farm in the last 12 months is $3,700. Of that I currently pay $1,900 in Rates. That leaves $1,800 of which I still have to pay shearing costs, animal health & welfare costs and fencing repairs and maintenance.

I might tell you that at the moment in the drought-stricken areas kangaroos are out of control. They are wrecking everybody’s fences. They are drinking the water. They are eating the fodder. That is a major issue as well.

This is from another concerned constituent:

Our business (family) paid $3214.50 last year the Fire Services levy, the expected rise of 189% for primary producers will see the new Emergency Services Levy increase to $9289.9. Why do we have to pay so much for a service that we volunteer for (and would not exist without us)?

From another part of my electorate, Donald, a farmer wrote:

As a volunteer CFA firefighter, and landholder in central Victoria, I’m feeling somewhat ripped off at the proposed increase in levy’s. I spend many hours every year, breathing in smoke, in hot horrible conditions, to help fight fires. We often take our personal appliances, and get the job done. We give up productivity on our farm, mostly at the time of year when we make our money, and now we’re going to be slugged with another tax in the vicinity of $15,000.

Another person wrote:

At this time most farmers across Victoria, particularly in the west of the state are enduring … the worst dry periods …

that he has seen in 50-plus years of farming.

This is leading to enormous mental health pressures on farmers. This new tax will be the final straw for many of them.

It is very easy to dismiss individual stories like these as anecdotes even when the figures are alarmingly high, but the fact is even the collection authorities have done their sums. They know it is not just the odd individual farm which will see a rise; they know that whole areas will see a massive rise. We talk about the $2.1 billion to be extracted, how it has risen by hundreds of millions from the existing tax and the way the vast scale of that makes it harder to really understand. Joseph Stalin is said to have remarked, ‘A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic.’ In the same way a $15,000 tax on a struggling farm is a tragedy, a $2.1 billion statewide levy is just a statistic for this government.

At a community meeting I attended in Beaufort, Pyrenees shire mayor Cr Tanya Kahoe revealed that her shire currently collects $2.1 million annually through the fire services property levy but the new levy will require them to take twice that amount – $4.2 million – from their residents, out of their economy. This is a criminal tax. It should be defeated. It is disgusting that the Greens, the Legalise Cannabis Party and probably the Animal Justice Party have agreed to put this through, slaughtering country Victorians. It is unfair, punitive, mismanaged and fundamentally unjust. It forces local councils to act as unpaid tax collectors for a scheme they did not design, do not control and often oppose, while wearing all the political fallout. And perhaps the worst part of all of this is what we do not know. We do not know what the government has promised the Greens. Let us reject this bill today outright. It is a crime.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Regional Development) (14:22): At the outset I would like to start by acknowledging the many volunteers and emergency services workers who will benefit from this bill. It is an important piece of policy work that began with them, particularly those in the SES. I would particularly like to call out Goldie Pergl and Mike Bagnall, who many, many, many months ago came and spoke to me about the feelings of SES volunteers in particular about not having a sustainable funding model along the same lines as our fire services.

These reforms are about recognising that climate change and population growth are having real impacts here in the state of Victoria. We are seeing not only more floods, storms and fires but also the very real and lasting devastation that they bring to our communities. The bill, although obviously a Treasury bill, is about listening to emergency services. We have spent many hours in this place acknowledging the impact of these disasters. We have spoken about the many families who have lost homes or lost livelihoods, and we have spoken about the loss of our natural environment and farming land, which has been incomprehensible in recent times, and how we know that the communities that are impacted by these events are very much changed forever.

Support for this bill will send a strong message to those who respond on the fireground, in floodwaters and in storms that the work they do is valued. Support for this bill suggests that you support organisations and you know that they deserve more funding to assist them in their work. Support for this bill will show VICSES volunteers that they are as important and deserving of sustainable funding as those in our fire services. Support for this bill means more trucks, more training and more grants for volunteers through the volunteer emergency services equipment program and improved flow of advice during emergencies from the central database that communicates to responders.

There is a lot of politics at play in relation to this bill. I think that is unfortunate, but it is a playbook that I am not unfamiliar with. I have seen it before. How many times have we heard the Liberals and Nationals stand up and ask for more funding for new trucks, new stations and extra support for their communities following a disaster? The member for Eildon got up in the Legislative Assembly on Tuesday and asked for upgrades to infrastructure in her community for emergency services directly after the Premier had been attacked –

Members interjecting.

Ingrid Stitt: On a point of order, Acting President, I think that on this side of the chamber we have listened silently to everybody’s contributions since we came back from the lunchbreak, and it would be good if we could hear the Treasurer in silence.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): The Treasurer to continue unassisted.

Jaclyn SYMES: What I can say is that in relation to the funds that would be raised should this bill pass, these are the exact things that can be invested in more and over and above what we are already doing. I have not yet heard from the coalition their commitment to repeal this legislation, and I am wondering if that will come out, a commitment to repeal this legislation, because I am interested in how they would seek to deal with all of the requests for funding that they do try to put forward.

Here today we have a bill that is responding to many of those requests. It will be able to accommodate much more than we are already able to. To be clear, we are really interested in ensuring that for the amounts raised it can be demonstrated where they go. I know a lot of people have raised concerns about that. We will have more to say about that in committee, and I have got some amendments that will back that in.

The government, through this bill, is planning to futureproof funding. We are making sure that any future government cannot cut the funding to a local brigade – we have seen that before as well. The bill will ensure we can fund, as I said, new trucks, new pumpers, new tankers and new radios that have been asked for and are needed. The bill that is in the house today is about standing up for those Victorians who stand up for us – who keep us safe and who help us and our families – delivering what they need and what they have asked for. This is about being fiscally responsible and ensuring that we have the money we need to respond to increasing and overlapping disasters that are continuing to happen across the state.

The bill will deliver more than $250 million for CFA and VICSES. It includes an investment of $70 million to establish a rolling fleet replacement for VICSES and CFA so that they can get new and upgraded trucks, tankers and pumpers. The first round of these trucks will go out to various communities. The list for VICSES units includes Glen Eira, Geelong, Alexandra, Kinglake, Essendon, Chelsea, Otway, Beechworth, Kyabram and Murrayville. The CFA brigades who will be first in line in relation to this new funding and rolling fleet will be Darraweit Guim, Corop West, Barmah, Erica, Lubeck, Goroke, Crowlands, Modewarre, Kawarren and Moe South, and they will be getting medium tankers funded through the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund (ESVF). A lot of people are familiar with the volunteer emergency services equipment program. This fund will contribute to a doubling of that fund. This is a very popular fund across the emergency services sector.

We also know that timely, accurate and accessible information is critical during a natural disaster. That is why, through the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund, we will invest $53 million to modernise the VicEmergency app and central database for our emergency services – it is known as the EM-COP. This will mean VicEmergency can be translated into different languages as well. We will also provide VICSES with almost $30 million to deliver training and support programs for their volunteers. This is something, as the former minister, I heard was very much at the top of their wish list. We are also providing a new rolling fleet program for FRV, which will be $10 million to contribute to their trucks. This is in addition to obviously the many vehicles that are on order, underway or rolling out soon. I do note that regularly I see the new electric FRV fire truck, EVIE. I have seen that vehicle on occasion.

The bill, as we know, is an amendment to the current system, the fire services property levy. I will just give an overview. From 1 July 2025 the ESVF will continue to fund Fire Rescue Victoria and the Country Fire Authority and for the first time will include VICSES, the State Control Centre, Forest Fire Management Victoria, Emergency Recovery Victoria and Triple Zero Victoria. It will ensure that our agencies have the resources that they need to keep Victorians safe and help them recover from natural disasters. It will bring Victoria’s funding arrangements for emergency services into line with other Australian states and territories. It is expected to raise around $600 million more in 2025–26 and $765 million more in 2027–28, when fully implemented. As I said, I want to repeat and make it very, very clear that every dollar raised will go towards vital life-saving equipment, vehicles, staff, training for volunteers, community education and recovery support for when Victorians need it most.

I have been having a lot of conversations and consultations in relation to this bill. It was announced in December last year. I have met with farmers, firefighters, community members and councils, and I have heard a lot of feedback in relation to this. We have heard that the current variable rates and how they were set are a concern for farmers, and I understand that. That is why I have made a decision to revise the rates. Although the rates are not actually in this legislation, I did make it public today and informed particularly the Victorian Farmers Federation that following their advocacy and conversations with others we will be proposing a reduced rate for farmers from 83 cents per $1000 of capital improved value to 71.8 cents, and on this you will see some savings. This might be a good opportunity for me to circulate my amendments.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Jaclyn SYMES: Some of the commitments that I have articulated today are outside legislation, such as the farmer rate, but these ones are subject to consideration for the house: a guarantee that 95 per cent of the CFA and VICSES budgets and up to 90 per cent of FRV’s budget will be funded through the levy. To be clear, we obviously continue to fund 100 per cent of these agencies’ budgets, but the levy is used in that regard. We are introducing a clause to absolutely confirm that every dollar raised will be spent on emergency services. And I do not have a problem with the coalition’s suggestion; we have just crafted an amendment that is a little more workable.

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Jaclyn SYMES: No, honestly, it is not. I am not that petty. We are committing to annual reporting on how much we are collecting for each land use classification and how much has been allocated to each agency, just to be really sure that people can feel confident in relation to this fund. We are also making it really clear that the bill, in relation to the funding that is notionally allocated to the Department of Justice and Community Safety and the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, just how that will work, because I know people were concerned that it was funding bureaucrats and the like. It is just the way the government works. For example, the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety would be responsible for the contract for radios for volunteers and the like, so it is just making sure that we can explain that to people.

There will be some council implementation issues that I want to put on the record as well. The ESVF will still be collected as it always was through the former levy. That will be again on rates notices, but I do want to acknowledge the advocacy of the Municipal Association of Victoria. Following conversations, we have certainly been able to ensure that there is funding available for any implementation issues for councils. But also one of the big concerns they had was whether they would have to be responsible for administering the exemption rebate for volunteers, and I have made it very clear that a government entity will be responsible for that. That will be Service Victoria, similar to the app. The app already does rebates, so that is the platform that we will be using. We are estimating around 40,000 rebates in relation to volunteers accessing that to be processed.

On that volunteer exemption, I do want to acknowledge that through this process we really wanted to recognise our volunteers and ensure that we were providing an exemption from the levy for all active support and operational CFA and SES volunteers. We can talk through the definition of ‘volunteer’, but it is about striking a balance between operational and support volunteers and picking them up so that if you are on the back of the truck or you are responsible for the books or you do the fundraising, you will be eligible for an exemption. I would like to thank the CFA and SES for their constructive work on this. They will help to ensure that this is as smooth as possible and that volunteers can access the rebate.

Another question that I know was raised pretty early on – and I will just put it on record that I have said it from the very start: Shepparton search and rescue have an MOU with VICSES, so they will be treated the same in relation to the ability to access an exemption. We will also allow eligible volunteers to claim the rebate against a farm of which they are the owner, even if it is not their principal place of residence, so we are giving them the ability to make a choice and it is fairer for farmers who do not live on their farm. We will also allow the rebate to apply across a range of farm ownership structures, including trusts and companies and farm businesses with separately titled land, with a full exemption available for farms up to a value of $5 million – that is, the land value.

I appreciate the indulgence of the house. In summing up, I do want to reiterate that the bill is designed to make sure our emergency services have the sustainable funding and equipment they need to keep Victorians safe and to recover from natural disasters. It is tangible, real support for our emergency services, and I find it disappointing that we cannot come together in a bipartisan way to support this. It is the change that is fair. It is a fair thing to do, and it is what our emergency services have asked for. I commend the bill to the house.

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) incorporated the following:

I rise to make a brief contribution to the Fire Services Property Amendment (Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund) Bill 2025.

We are having yet another winter of unseasonably warm weather, predicted to be the warmest on record – off the back of our two previous warmest winters from last year and the year before. I’m not even sure if we can even keep describing these bizarre record-breaking temperatures as ‘unseasonable’. Climate change is making the word obsolete.

In this Parliament we have had two inquiries that have investigated the impacts of climate change: the inquiry into the 2022 flood event in Victoria – the report of which was tabled last year – and the inquiry into climate resilience, which is currently ongoing.

A key finding of the flood inquiry was that:

… the Victoria State Emergency Service is responding to an increasing number of events over time. Given the link between climate change and increased extreme weather events, this trend will continue.

And we are currently seeing the sort of persistent dry conditions across Victoria, particularly in the south-west, which lead to a greater risk of major bushfires.

The inquiry also found that:

Despite increased funding over time, the Victoria State Emergency Service lacks the appropriate resources to prepare and respond effectively to major emergencies such as flood events.

The flood inquiry recommended increased funding to bolster the state’s capacity to manage and respond to emergencies effectively.

Both inquiries made clear that we are under-resourced to meet the challenges of climate change – to staff our emergency response agencies, to upgrade and maintain equipment, to train our emergency services workers and volunteers.

Adapting to climate change – maintaining the resources needed to keep Victorians safe in the face of increasing natural disasters – is going to require funding, and it is no longer something we can kick down the road.

The bill before us replaces the Fire Services Property Levy, introduced in 2012, with the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund levy.

The ESVF will guarantee funding of 95 per cent of the annual budgets for the SES, Triple Zero Victoria, Emergency Management Victoria and Forest Fire Management Victoria. It will also provide $250 million in additional support for CFA and SES volunteers.

In the lead up to this debate, we received advocacy from our members, from our constituents and from people all over the state, expressing their objections to this bill. We have met with farmers, with unions and with members of the CFA and the SES and have listened to their concerns.

I will say we had broad misgivings about the levy and the increased financial burden it places on regional Victorians.

We draw some comfort from the house amendments the government has moved, which address some of the concerns of stakeholders.

These amendments clarify how the funding is distributed and used and specifically state that levy funds may only be used for emergency services purposes.

They clarify what funding the Department of Justice and Community Safety Victoria and the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action will receive and where it will be allocated. And they require annual reporting of the fund’s expenditure.

Changes to the levy will result in a reduction on the levy farmers pay from the initial government proposal and a consequential increase in the levy paid by people living in metropolitan Melbourne.

To further support farmers, the government is finalising a package of drought assistance, which kicks in after the current one expires on 30 June.

Following consultation with local councils, the government has simplified the administration of the fund for councils. Councils will not be required to manage the rebate for volunteers, and there will be support for councils in transitioning from the Fire Services Property Levy to the new Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund levy.

We are particularly pleased to see that a previous provision that might have resulted in council funding being reduced in situations where levy funds had not been fully collected has been removed.

There is also a commitment of $10 million per year over the forward estimates to fund a rolling truck fleet program for Fire Rescue Victoria, which matches the commitment made to CFA.

Look, we know that many, many Victorians are at the pointy end of the cost-of-living crisis, particularly in our regions. The very last thing anyone wants is a new tax.

But as climate change continues to bite, we will continue to experience more fires, floods and devastating storms, and we must have a sustainable framework for funding our emergency services into the future. This is a good start, but obviously much more needs to be done in the coming years.

We need to fund our emergency services, and, for that reason, Legalise Cannabis will support this bill.

As I said before, this is not something we can continue to kick down the road.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Noes (18): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Adem Somyurek, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Referral to committee

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (14:44): I move:

That this house requires the Economy and Infrastructure Committee to inquire into, consider and report, by 30 June 2025, on the Fire Services Property Amendment (Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund) Bill 2025.

It is true that this bill has a lot of discussion and currency in the community, but even today we have seen significant changes proposed by the government, deals done on the side and arrangements put in place that have not been scrutinised. I do not think anyone fully understands the impact of these changes on not just the services – this is of course about the emergency services and their ability to deliver what is a vital set of services for Victoria – but also our community. It is about our farmers, it is about our businesses and it is about the households across the state, all of which are going to face a massive increase in taxation.

Let us call it for what it is: it is a big bad new tax – that is what it is – and it is going to hit businesses, it is going to hit our families. Families that are doing it tough in a cost-of-living crisis have a right to have these bills scrutinised closely and have a right to see what the impact of these new taxes will be. There is no sign that the government has any modelling of what the impact will be, and if this referral occurs, that will be an opportunity to examine what the impact would be. The state’s competitiveness is being hit at every turn. We have now had more than 60 new and expanded taxes under this government since it came to power in 2014. The government, before it came to power – it was the opposition at the time – promised there would be no new taxes, and it has promised again, and even Labor’s financial statement released in 2022 also promised again there would be no new imposts and taxes. Well, this is a big bad new tax. It is a nasty tax. It hits every single family. If you are a renter, there is no doubt that over time rents will rise to cover the cost. If you are a home owner, there is no doubt that when you get your bill you will look to the bottom of it and you will see a fire services levy there now – you are going to see this emergency services tax, and it is a big bad new tax. It is going to be bigger – much, much bigger – depending on who you are and where you are. If you are on a farm, it is going to cost more. As Mrs Hermans said correctly, this will push up the cost of food and those shopping basket items that people would expect us to be looking to in a cost-of-living crisis. So we are going to push up the costs, push up the costs massively, and do that without proper examination. There has been no examination of what the outcome of this big bad new tax is. We want to refer it. We want to get it properly examined. We want to allow fire services and other emergency services to come and give evidence, we want to enable farmers and everyday households to come and give evidence to explain what the impact of this tax will be and we want to dig down to find the government’s modelling on this big new tax and to see what impact that is going to have on families.

Most of us are hearing from people across the state. This is not just a country issue. It is a country issue – it is a very serious country issue – but it is not just an issue for country Victoria. It is an issue for the city as well. Every single landowner and every single home owner is going to feel the impact of this massive expansion in taxation. And are we going to get good benefit for it? Are we going to get the outcomes that we want? Are we going to get better results? Or is it just a way to backfill the government’s financial problems – backfill them by funding these agencies and scooping the money out of the agencies and putting it into their big black holes elsewhere in the budget over there. Well, this is the opportunity to look at it. We say it should be referred, we say it is important to refer it and we say that this is some basic democracy that is occurring here. The government is too afraid to go out and meet the community on this. They would not go out on the steps the other day. I say that government members on the committee, the Economy and Infrastructure Committee, would have to hear from the community. They would have to hear the evidence that is put up, they would have to respond to it and they would have the opportunity to talk to the minister and the cabinet and the Premier and say, ‘This is wrong. What we’re doing here is wrong.’ The Labor Party are in their 11th year of government now. The financial mess is their responsibility.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Regional Development) (14:49): Acknowledging, Mr Davis, that you did indicate back in March a view that this should go to a committee, if you were serious about this amendment and referral to a committee, then you would have at least spoken to me or the crossbench.

David Davis: I did speak to the crossbench.

Jaclyn SYMES: Well, you did not speak to the government. I would put to you that if you were serious about this referral motion you probably would have come and spoken to me. You would have come and discussed it with me. I have been having lots of conversations with members of Parliament in particular about this bill. I will just put on record that you did not alert the government that this was your intention, which I would argue means that you actually are not seeking our support for it. There are many issues that you raised in your contribution that will be best dealt with during the committee stage of the bill.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:50): The Libertarian Party will be supporting this referral. I have heard from lots of stakeholders about this bill and their views on it, but with these amendments I have no idea what the community thinks about them. I think that they have a right to have an input into this and to tell us in a public forum like the committee, which is an appropriate forum to do that, what they think of it, because no-one has formed an opinion on these yet except for the government and the Greens, who are supporting them, as far as I can tell.

Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (14:51): I too will be supporting it. I am normally not a fan of the referrals we get from time to time, but these amendments of the government came down this morning. We have no idea what effect they have on the overall bill. We do not know if what they negotiated will work or not work, and I think this is a way to find out.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (14:51): Our job in this house is to be a house of review, and it should not be taken lightly and dismissed, as the Leader of the Government has just done in relation to this important referral to a parliamentary committee to overlook this very serious issue. As Mr Bourman and Mr Limbrick have said, these amendments from the government were provided just a few hours ago, but they do not know the impact and the community does not know the impact. The community have not had a great deal of consultation with the government. This is a serious issue. As Mrs McArthur said, people, sadly, are dying because of the impacts and the pressures that they are facing on their farms and their livelihoods, and their families and their communities are suffering. This is an incredibly important issue. It cannot be dismissed. It should not be dismissed. Ms Symes, I urge you to pull back, to consider the community and to support this referral.

Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (14:52): This is a bill of huge consequence. We have heard this morning that since the announcement that this bill is likely to go through there have already been two suicides in the western region. This is a bill of huge consequence. We have also heard that in our Eastern Victoria Region there are five farms that are completely out of water and there are another 30 farms that are about to be completely out of water. Our farmers are suffering, and our people are really, really suffering, and this is you, the Labor government, heaping coals on their heads. In the last week Mr McCracken started an online petition. It has had 14,000 signatures in less than a week; 14,000 people that you are meant to represent are desperately asking for this not to go through.

This is something that has to be looked at properly. We need to hear from the people that this is going to affect most. We cannot afford to have more lives lost, more businesses going under and more farms going broke, and I think it is responsible policymaking to look at all the angles, not to rush through a bill that is potentially going to change lives. We have heard that already, in less than one week, two families have been forever changed, and that will send ripple effects through the whole community. So I am asking members of this chamber, particularly the crossbench, to support this motion so we can look at it properly.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (14:54): We are the house of review, and we have legislative requirements to do the right thing, to actually review. We have the opportunity in this house. It is not rocket science. It sends legislation off to a committee for assessment. It is enabling various stakeholders to make submissions to the inquiry and present their arguments. There are thousands of questions. We have people from the Municipal Association of Victoria and the councils who are being the debt collectors and are going to be the horrendous bad guys in this scenario. We have Rural Councils Victoria saying that they have not had adequate consultation and conversation. Regional cities are saying to us that they have not had decent conversations about the plethora of questions that this piece of legislation, this new tax, this abomination, will cause to their staff, their regions, both country and city. They need answers, and they need to have a forum in which to expand on these concerns. We saw 500 people on the steps a couple of days ago and many speeches. They do not feel that this is a great tax. CFA does not feel it is a great tax at all. You have got VFBV, the Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria, kept in the dark. This is not fair. And the minister is standing there saying, ‘I’m speaking to people.’ Well, I think for every one person she may have spoken to there are a thousand who have more things to say and more questions to ask. This is the forum by which we can operate. We are members that are elected by the people of Victoria to do this work. The onus is on us to do the right thing. If it is going to be around, as this government wants, ad nauseam, forever, then let us do the investigation now. I fully support this referral to the committee.

Nick McGOWAN (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:56): What a dark day in this Parliament; what a despicable day in this Parliament. No-one should ever forget that this was dropped on us, dropped on the people of Victoria, on the eve of Christmas – never, ever let the other side forget that. On the eve of Christmas they overnight said they would double the tax, and as has been said in this place, inside this chamber and outside this chamber, this is all about a blatant, disgusting grab for money. It is all about cash, because they have so mishandled the money, they have spent that money so poorly, that they now must actually dip their hands yet again into the pockets of every Victorian in this state – the same Victorians who are in the middle of a cost-of living-crisis.

That is right – they cannot afford to pay the rent. The farmers cannot afford to pay for the hay, much less afford to pay for the extra water they have to have. This is not going to just affect farmers – farmers, in the order of 189 per cent. If any of those opposite understand what that meant for a second, they would not have the compunction, they would not have the shame, to come into this place. But instead they come into this place and they lecture us about climate change. They want to lecture us about policies. They want to lecture us about ethics. Well, I tell you what, there has been an important ethics lesson in this place today, and that is that there is no limit to the depths this government will go to to get what they want. They will bribe their way there; they will pay off whoever it takes to get what they want. It is a disgusting day in the history of Victoria – we should all remember this.

As for metropolitan Victorians, well, they can expect a doubling on every one of their rates notices – a doubling in the middle of a cost-of living-crisis. Every Victorian has now been slapped by this Labor government with a 100 per cent levy increase. The median charge at the moment is $171 – so that is nearly 400 bucks. Who has $400 to spare? Put your hand up if you do. Anyone have $400 to spare? No-one has $400 to spare, because to have $400 to spare, if you are living out in the burbs, if you live in Ringwood, if you live in Mitcham, if you live in Nunawading, if you live in Vermont, Forest Hill – you name it – wherever you live across metropolitan Melbourne, in order to have $400 you have got to earn $800. $800 spare – I do not have $800 spare. I do not know the constituents in my electorate who do have $800 spare. Those who want to sit in this chamber and talk about the improvements that are going to come and flow from this extra money – the only thing that is going to come and flow from this extra money is the money in the pockets of those opposite so they can continue to waste it and continue their mismanagement.

And all the while in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne there is not a single aerial appliance when it comes to fighting fires. Just last night they had to rely on an aerial appliance in Richmond to go to a fire – Richmond – and then the back-up appliance came from Oakleigh. So if there is a fire tomorrow in all these tall towers the other side want to build, they will not have the appliances. I also heard other speakers talk about the Grampians bushfires – the trucks broke down on the way. In my own electorate of Ringwood, when I came back from overseas, the United States – and we had the Palisades fire there – I went straight to my fire station in Ringwood, and guess what, their truck was 28 years old. It had no fire protection whatsoever.

We are here today because of the gross mismanagement of those opposite, and for those opposite to say that they have consulted, and to just snub their noses at this committee, is an absolute disgrace. You should all leave here tonight or tomorrow morning with your heads held low, because you have done no service to the people of Victoria, you have absolutely neglected your own communities year after year after year and subsequently you have now created a crisis. And not only are you creating a crisis in terms of the services we are delivering to the emergency services, you have turned your back on the firefighters. You did not want to meet them on the steps. You did not want to meet the farmers on the steps. You did not want to meet the SES on the steps. You did not want to meet anyone. You did not want to face them, meet them face to face, and explain how your management has so grossly, so poorly left Victorians dry of money and explain that they are now going to have to be taxed in the order of $400 for every household and 190 per cent for every farmer, sending them to the wall. As we have heard in this place already, this is not just about their livelihoods; this will send people to the wall. It will take them over the brink. If I hear those opposite ever lecturing us again and talking about mental health – there is no consideration for mental health. I will tell you what you are doing to the mental health of Victorians with this: yet again you are taking them to the brink, and some beyond. You will have blood on your hands. When the suicide rates go up, I will look to those opposite and I will look to each and every one of you to explain to me and my constituents what you have done to avert that, because this is not averting it; this is making it monstrously worse. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

I hope you think about what you are doing today, and I hope you take no pride in the fact of what you have done – much less the fact there is no transparency about what those opposite and those on the crossbench are going to receive in this, because we know how those opposite operate; they like to bribe their way there. So what are they getting? We know what they are saying publicly. But as David Davis said, the member here, we do not know. We have to have an inquiry to get to the bottom of this stench, because we know that in the darkness bacteria grows. Bacteria causes disease, and that is exactly what we have in this government – a diseased government – and there is no better typification of that disease than this fact today and this legislation that we are about to look at.

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (15:01): I rise to support the referral to a committee. Yesterday we supported a move by the Greens to refer an inquiry about electric vehicles to a committee – we all supported that – and the honest and obvious thing that the crossbench over there should do is actually support this referral to an inquiry. There is so much to be discovered in this that this is the only way we are going to do it. The minister had the gall to suggest that Mr Davis did not consult her about the referral. Well, when were we or the community consulted about these amendments? We have only just learned about them. Out there in voter land, in councils, nobody has any idea about any amendments. We still do not know what the agreement is that Dr Mansfield referred to this morning – no idea. The only way we are going to get to the bottom of this is to have a proper inquiry, as Mr Davis has suggested, which will present its report at the end of June, to make sure that we are doing the right thing by Victorians and that we are doing the right thing by volunteers and the professional firefighters. I thank Mr Marshall, who is in the gallery today, for his support for the farmers and the communities that are so afflicted by this egregious tax.

It is vitally important that we engage with the stakeholders, the councils, the farmers, the organisations – everybody that is involved in keeping us safe. Surely the one thing a government must do for its citizens – and be assured it should do it – is keep them safe. But what they are proposing is to tax individuals to keep themselves safe. That is what they are proposing here. This needs to be absolutely properly examined, every detail of it, to make sure that we are doing the right thing by the people of Victoria.

I implore the crossbench: we have supported your inquiries that you have demanded, whether it be on cannabis or roadkill, which we are doing one on, electric vehicles or any aspect of what you are interested in; you have been supported to have an inquiry. Mr Ettershank just chaired an inquiry, and it was important – you admitted, Mr Ettershank, how important that inquiry was. And, Dr Mansfield, you said this is what the role of this chamber and this government should be. It should be to carefully and closely examine legislation so that we are doing the right thing by our citizens. I urge you to think very carefully, to think for the people of Victoria, to think for those farmers, those people in rural and regional Victoria who are now so afflicted by the drought and the impending tax that they are taking their own lives. Think carefully about that, and please, I beg you, support this inquiry.

Wendy LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (15:05): I rise to support the referral of this bill to a committee for an inquiry as well. We need to remember that what we do here is we represent the Victorian community. Yes, we are elected to make decisions on their behalf, but it is usually done after a period where we have had time to go out and consult with our communities and where our communities have had time to look at a piece of legislation and come to us if they have any problems with it. It is also a time where we consult with stakeholders, and stakeholders will have a view on the changes to this legislation that we are going through today as well as the legislation itself. It is only right that we delay this bill by sending it to an inquiry to allow the community and the stakeholders to have their say.

It is not right to move amendments in the middle of the night, might I add. In the middle of the night you moved these amendments. At 7 o’clock last night the Greens were not supporting this bill, but by 10:30 they were. This is cloak-and-dagger stuff. It is absolutely appalling the way that the Greens and the government have behaved on this bill. We need to have more transparency. No-one has learned anything from the loss of the seat of Adam Bandt – I do not know why you are still sitting there, Greens. Go home, because none of you will have seats next time around if you do not learn. This is not green, this is extreme. And that is exactly what you have become: an extremist party, not a Greens Party. You need to think about what you are doing to the Victorian community here. The Victorian community want you to stand up for them. They want you to stand up for those who are most vulnerable, for the renters in this community, but this will only drive up the cost of rent for the most vulnerable people in Victoria. I urge all of the crossbench to please support this referral to an inquiry.

Joe McCRACKEN (Western Victoria) (15:07): I am not going to talk to those opposite, because they do not care. I want to talk to the crossbench. I know that the Greens and the Legalise Cannabis Party in particular campaign very hard on integrity. They campaign on this place being a place of scrutiny. There have been a number of times where we have been able to properly scrutinise legislation through the processes of this place. This is an opportunity for that to happen. This is an opportunity for you guys to enact your values. You have every opportunity with everyone else in here to hear from the community the full impacts that this legislation might actually have, which as we have heard throughout the debate have not fully been explored. I really, truly do urge you to support this bill inquiry because it will allow the scrutiny of this bill to occur for all to see, and you can be a part of it. I really do urge you to support integrity in government as you say that you do.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (15:09): I do not think this chamber fully realises the consequences of this. Mr McGowan spoke quite articulately about the doubling of the fire services levy for people in metropolitan Melbourne and huge increases for rural and regional people. When you introduce a land tax on farmers, which this government has always wanted to do, that means more people will pay more at the check-out. I know that Mr Puglielli – and we have different solutions on how to get there – has spoken a lot about people paying too much at the check-out. But what we will be voting for today is massive increases at the check-out – massive increases. That is what this bill will do. In my community in places like Craigieburn and Wallan when people line up at the check-out they tell me about how they are nervously checking their mobile banking app. It is a crisis out there – it is a massive crisis out there – and I do not think people voted for the Greens and I definitely do not think people voted for the Legalise Cannabis Party knowing that they were going to double their taxes and they were going to double their fire services levy. People might have thought voting for Legalise Cannabis was a bit of a laugh – ‘I’ll throw my number 1 vote there’ – or maybe they thought ‘I genuinely believe that we should legalise cannabis’, but they did not vote to double the taxes on their fire services levy. The Greens were quite excited about electing their first member in the upper house from a regional electorate. If this bill goes through as it is, I think it will be their last, because the people in Western Victoria Region will not forgive or forget what we are about to see.

I do think we need scrutiny on this bill. We have only just got amendments. The government had the gall to say to us, ‘We didn’t know about this inquiry.’ Well, we have only just got these amendments. We do not know what they mean, and we want to consult with stakeholders to see what they are about. I know some of the crossbench members have articulated that they want that opportunity as well. I think that is a really important point. I ask the chamber to reflect on whether this needs to be done now or we can work together, as we have multiple times this term, to scrutinise this bill, to scrutinise these amendments and to see what they mean for the people of Victoria.

We know this government have always wanted to charge a land tax on farmers – they have always wanted to do it. I thought we had reached a turning point in August last year when Treasurer Tim Pallas said, ‘We’ve reached our limit on new taxes.’ The response from the new Treasurer is, ‘We’re not done yet. They can afford to pay more. Businesses can afford to pay more, landholders can afford to pay more, people struggling during a cost-of-living crisis, struggling to pay their mortgage bill, can afford to pay double.’ Well, I do not think that is right. We need to examine this to give it the proper scrutiny it deserves.

Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:12): I also rise in the last 10 seconds to show my support for the importance of actually supporting this referral. I appeal to the crossbench: please – (Time expired)

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (15:12): It is very clear that it is a sensible step to refer this. This is a major change. It is a major new tax that is being introduced. It is going to have a very significant impact on country Victoria, but it is also going to have a very significant impact in the city. The importance of this is that the government has not thought through the consequences. They have not thought through what it is going to mean for those families that are doing it very, very tough in the city at the moment, and they certainly have not thought through what it is going to mean for farmers across country Victoria. Those farmers at the moment face terrible situations – a declining position on every turn. To clobber them with this sort of hit – unexamined, not thought through properly – I think is just reprehensible. I think that the simplest way at this point is to refer this to get some real light on what is happening and to see and to examine the impact on families, on businesses and on farms. If we do that, we will be in a position to make some very clear recommendations to the chamber in my humble view.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (18): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Adem Somyurek, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Motion negatived.

Committed.

Committee

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Before we begin debate on clause 1, I invite Mr Davis to circulate his amendments and suggested amendments on sheet DD173C to replace his amendments previously circulated on sheet DD169C.

David DAVIS: We will circulate those amendments now, if that is all right. In doing so I will just explain that on the advice of the Clerks, the Legislative Assembly clerks, as is their wont, became agitated about the concept that we might move amendments in the Council. None of the amendments on my sheet raise tax or lower tax; they deal with how the tax is spent. One, for example – and we will talk in detail about this later, no doubt – simply tries to stop the money that is raised being used to fund the department. We do not think this new tax should be used to fund the department itself, and I do not believe that is a taxation measure. Obviously the Council cannot raise taxes or stop taxes or whatever, but this is a measure that is stopping a spending action. The other amendments are reporting amendments and so forth, and in that sense I do not believe even the Assembly Clerks could argue that they are realistically funding or spending initiatives. All they require is that the government report in detail regularly.

I note the government amendments have run to the same issue, and to that extent I know they have been circulated much later in the piece, but I understand why the government had to bring a new set of amendments that were tweaked into the suggested format.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I now invite Mr Bourman to circulate his suggested amendments on sheet JB92C to replace his amendments previously circulated on sheet JB91C.

Jeff BOURMAN: It is much for the same reasons as Mr Davis: the substance does not change, the style does. Due to the nature of this bill it was felt that the amendments should be suggested amendments. Just a very brief recap on my consultation with the volunteers: it was about whether they did not want it to be construed that they had anything to do with the creation of this bill. My amendments do not change any of the rebates or anything like that. It is really just a change of headings, for the want of a better term.

Clause 1 (15:24)

David DAVIS: It may be convenient to deal with many and most questions on clause 1. Clearly some of these go to high-level matters. I would like to start with perhaps the highest level matter: the format of this tax is that it is collected by councils. It will go onto the bills of every notice that goes from council to individual landowners within the municipality. At the bottom of the form there will be an amount that will be linked to the value of the property and the style of property, the format of the land ownership and so forth. I just want to understand what consultation the government undertook with councils, because every council I have talked to has been pretty unhappy about that and it would be helpful to know what consultation occurred with the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV).

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, I can confirm that I have met with the Municipal Association of Victoria and exchanged various letters in relation to that. They have also been –

David Davis interjected.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, and individual councils as well on this. But there were a series of exchanges of letters with the MAV with some of the concerns that they raised and us responding to those concerns, and the department have also been engaged with them.

David DAVIS: Did any of the councils support this approach?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, as you would appreciate, the existing fire property services levy is already on rates notices. This is an expansion of the application of the levy. The collection of it being on rates is not proposed to be changed. I had Alpine shire write to me expressing their support. I would say that the correspondence I have received from other councils is that they support emergency services and they support sustainable funding for emergency services. Not all of them would like it to be on rates notices, no.

David DAVIS: The Herald Sun carried a story with the municipal association president Jennifer Anderson saying councils across the state had indicated they were:

… not able to reliably implement these proposed changes.

That would summarise the many conversations I have had with councils, and I am sure Mrs McArthur would have had very similar conversations with councils. I have actually not encountered a council that thinks this is a positive development. I ask from that: has the government modelled or worked through what will happen to councils as they try to collect these rates? They are much increased, some on different classes, but all of them are more than 40 per cent – and some are 100 per cent and some 190 per cent and so forth. This is going to make the collection a lot more difficult. Has the government looked at how that collection is going to operate?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, in relation to the administration, there are some changes, and we are supporting MAV through some administrative funding support that they will provide to councils that require any further assistance in relation to any of the changes. In relation to the mechanism, as you are aware, it is an existing mechanism. In relation to any matters relating to hardship, councils, as they already do with their rates, have a range of options in relation to waiving and deferring payment plans and the like, and this does not change that.

David DAVIS: With respect, I think the minister is wrong in suggesting it does not change that. I think it does change that. I think councils, whether they be in the city or in the country, are going to have many more bad debts. They are going to have much greater collection issues. Are they going to be required to carry that challenge?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, under the current fire services property levy and obviously the potential future Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund, the State Revenue Office does not and will not have any power to penalise councils if ratepayers do not pay their bill. The ESVF is not a taxation law under section 4 of the Taxation Administration Act 1997, meaning the commissioner and the SRO do not have the powers invested through that in collecting ESVF liability directly. So in response to your concern about carriage of unpaid amounts, that is not something that we would be seeking to change either.

David DAVIS: I think the minister is not quite engaging with what will actually happen. We will have much larger bills, with a much larger state government taxation component. This will push some people over the edge. There will be more bad debts, and councils will have to carry even their own component of that bill. So in that sense I am asking the Treasurer if she has examined how councils are going to be able to do that where the non-payment rate goes up and the difficulty of collection increases?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF) are hosting round tables with councils to discuss it. As I said, we are working on an implementation package that involves the MAV. As I indicated in one of my initial answers, most councils do have a policy to assist ratepayers in financial hardship, and they may offer options including payment plans or extensions of time. A lot of those can vary between councils, but to my knowledge most of them have them.

David DAVIS: I am pleased that DTF is actually beginning to engage. It seems like that is the first I have heard of that, but I am –

Jaclyn SYMES: No, they have been.

David DAVIS: Well, the councils have not been saying that. The councils have been indicating that they have not had much engagement. So there is going to be some engagement with DTF, but I think what you still have not really tackled is what happens where the non-payment rate – the arrears, if you want to call it that – grows. That is actually going to affect council revenue as well as state government revenue. So if it goes from 3 per cent to 6 per cent or 10 per cent, that is going to be a significant impact on council finances. I am interested to know whether you have looked at what the impact will be on council finances.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, I have answered your question. We will continue to work with councils. I will put on record that DTF have been engaging with councils and MAV for some time in relation to this, so any suggestion that that has not occurred is incorrect. I personally have met with MAV as well, I can confirm, and so has my office. In relation to the matters that you have outlined, I think I have responded in relation to the financial hardship provisions that would still apply. We are more than happy to continue to work with councils in the implementation and impact of the changes. Engagement will not stop once it is first implemented.

David DAVIS: As I said earlier, this is not just a matter for country councils. This is a representative letter. This is not the only letter. It is not the only council that is expressing concern. This is from the City of Port Phillip in my own area. Their letter is dated 14 May, so it is very recent: ‘Urgent concern for Emergency Services Volunteer Fund legislation’. I am going to quote some of this because I think it is instructive with what we face. It says:

I write to express concerns regarding the proposed changes to the Fire Services Property Levy … currently before Parliament as the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund … I support the advocacy campaign led by the Municipal Association … which has highlighted the administrative, financial, and reputational burdens on local councils and proposes state-administered rebates, simplified funding models, and a state-wide communication strategy to ensure a smooth transition by 1 July 2025. I urge the State Government to work collaboratively with MAV and its partners to find solutions that will protect the financial sustainability of councils and minimise the impact on ratepayers, including a public commitment to support this.

I am just wondering whether the Treasurer will respond to that – whether that model that is proposed there is something the government will support.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, as I have indicated, as a result of advocacy from MAV we were able to confirm that the councils would not be required to administer the exemption for volunteers. That will be done by the Department of Government Services (DGS) through our Service Victoria app. They also were concerned about individual councils’ ability to implement changes, so we have committed to a funding stream to work with MAV to ensure that all councils are given any additional support that they may need to implement any of the changes. As I indicated, there will be round tables with councils to discuss the implementation plan, and I am more than happy for the types of matters raised in the letter to be raised in those round tables or indeed with me directly. I think you said that was dated yesterday. I am not sure; I am just getting it sent to me. I must have got it as well. Of course I will respond.

David DAVIS: The letter goes on:

The levy will raise approximately $37.7 million in 2025/26, up from $24 million in 2024/25 –

this is in Port Phillip –

a $13.7 million increase (57%) …

Again, I think it is actually very important that people understand that this is not just a country hit there, it is a hit on everyone who lives in the City of Port Phillip and all the other municipalities in the city as well. The letter continues:

… much greater than the rates cap imposed by councils of 3 per cent. It is perverse that councils are being tasked with raising and explaining this drastic State government taxation increase when we are managing our own budgets within the cap despite ongoing cost shifting and our base costs rising much higher than this.

I put to the Treasurer directly: isn’t this just extraordinary hypocrisy – a rate cap on councils of 3 per cent, but in the case of the municipality, the City of Port Phillip, a 57 per cent increase in the tax clawed out of the municipality?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, the issue of rate capping would be a matter for the Minister for Local Government. But in relation to the City of Port Phillip, they obviously are very well serviced by FRV and indeed SES in relation to storms. So they have very good fire, storm and flood response available to those community members, and that is exactly what the investment that that community is making will go back towards.

David DAVIS: We all appreciate the services provided by our emergency services and support the funding of them, but this is far and beyond what has occurred historically, and I just want to put on record I think the Treasurer has not really engaged with that. The letter goes on:

If the Government does decide to go with the proposed scheme largely in its current form, councils are being set up for failure. Council received a letter from the Treasurer on 13 December 2024, indicating that from 1 July 2025, the FSPL will be replaced by the ESVF. We have received no further communication beyond this letter, leaving very little time for the Council to implement the significant changes required. Council urgently requires clarity on this process.

Treasurer, that is a long time between the communications. You have tried to say that some communications occurred, but this is not what I am hearing in hard print from my local council. So perhaps you would like to explain why the council would suggest you have not communicated since 13 December.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, there has certainly been engagement with councils. One of the specific requests I had of the MAV was in relation to the correspondence that I shared with them. I asked for a commitment that they would disseminate that to their members. I am not sure what might have happened in relation to that correspondence or that advice having potentially skipped this council, but as I have indicated, I have received that letter as well. I can confirm that I have announced support for local councils, and I will let them know about that if they do not know about that already. We will continue to engage and speak to councils, particularly through the MAV, but if people are needing additional information other than what they can obtain from the MAV I am more than happy to provide information direct.

David DAVIS: Mrs McArthur just has a matter on a comment the minister made earlier and its correction.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, can you confirm that you said the Alpine shire supported this tax and the collection of it?

Jaclyn SYMES: I received correspondence from Alpine shire to that effect, yes.

Bev McARTHUR: I have just had confirmation from the mayor, Sarah Nicholas, that they do not support this tax and they do not support the collection of it either. So, Minister, have you misled this Parliament?

Jaclyn SYMES: I am not inclined to single out a council.

Bev McARTHUR: But you just did.

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not want to get into a debate. I received correspondence, and that is what it said. If there is a change in position, then that is what it is. But I have not misled the house. I do not particularly intend to table that correspondence, because I do not think it would be helpful, but I will let you have a look at it, if you like. I am not misleading the house.

Bev McARTHUR: I would certainly like to have a look at the correspondence, because it is in complete contrast to what I have just been informed by the mayor.

David DAVIS: I just want to continue on here. The council goes on:

Furthermore, Council needs confirmation of support to implement this change. Council’s financial and rating systems will need extensive reconfiguration to align with the new requirements. Without immediate certainty, we risk missing the deadline to issue rates notices on time in August. The changes will affect all councils across Victoria, stretching system providers like TechnologyOne beyond their existing resource capacity, increasing the likelihood of non-compliance with legislative obligations. Staff training and operational adjustments cannot commence until system updates are completed, further delaying preparedness.

The mayor Cr Louise Crawford goes on to say:

… I urge the Government to reconsider its approach in consultation with the MAV. Should the levy proceed, I hold significant fears it will be impossible to implement successfully given the timeframes, lack of information, and absence of resources.

I ask: will the government reconsider its position? Are the councils being set up for failure?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, as I have explained, the existing fire services property levy that was brought in some time ago under – well, you would have been here – your government at the time is already facilitated via local councils. There will be an update to that should this legislation pass. We have committed to providing administrative and financial support for any of the implementation issues that may arise, acknowledging that the existing mechanism is already there.

David DAVIS: In preparation for this I spent some time going through a number of the annual reports and trying to understand how this new change is going to impact on a number of the agencies that are going to be directly impacted by the change. It seems to me that there are significant issues for a lot of the agencies. I looked at the organisational structure and tried to understand how the payments would be made and what controls there would be. The annual report of the CFA 2023–24 says on page 54:

The Board’s responsibilities include:

• approving the CFA’s Strategic Plan and Outcomes Framework, which sets out CFA’s goals for the medium to long-term and monitoring its implementation

• reviewing annual planning activities, including significant strategic initiatives, to meet the Statement of Expectations from the Minister, and monitoring implementation of these plans

• approving the CFA’s annual budget, including financial targets, and monitoring financial performance …

I am going to come to the remaining dot points in this list of board responsibilities. It seems, though, that the budget-setting process will change under this set of arrangements. The government is going to claw the money from councils through its collection processes, then it will come into some central pot and then the minister will disperse that money. I am going to ask the minister to explain this in a moment. How will that mesh with the board’s role, for example, in reviewing its planning activities and approving the CFA’s annual budget, including financial targets and monitoring financial performance? Isn’t a lot of this going to be taken out of the hands of these organisations through the arrangements that will involve the minister making determinations about what funding the agencies get in this way?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, the Country Fire Authority are already funded by a component of the fire services property levy, so they are quite familiar with that. There is no proposed change in the way of setting their budgets. The ratio will increase for the CFA to 95 per cent, but there will not be any changes to the settings and how they set their budget.

David DAVIS: When will they be told what the budget is? What is the time cycle there?

Jaclyn SYMES: The CFA’s budget? I can give you an indication of what their forecasts are. What have I got in front of me here? So in 2023–24 it was $370 million, 2024–25 was $436 million, 2025–‍26 was $379 million. Their base funding continues to go up each and every year, and then obviously what changes for the CFA is based on emergencies and things that they have to respond to and the bills that they have got to pay as a result of those. That is information that is, as I understand it, already publicly available, but their budgets are set as part of the normal budget-setting process.

David DAVIS: I am just trying to understand this as I look through the annual reports and try to understand the process for each of these agencies. The money that is collected will then come across, you are saying, to 95 per cent in the case of the CFA. What happens if there are shortfalls in collection?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, at the outset it is important to note that currently and under the proposed changes it is not just this fund that funds emergency services. Consolidated revenue always contributes over and above the levy. The proposal as we have set it out will be 90 per cent of FRV, 95 per cent of CFA and SES, but the others do not have guaranteed minimum funding – the other agencies such as Triple Zero Victoria (TZV) and the like. So what we would do is guarantee the 90 and 95 per cents for those three agencies. You can move it around with the other agencies in relation to the levy, and you would top it up with consolidated revenue.

David DAVIS: Let me try and understand this. So the money has been collected over here and held at Treasury, and then the minister makes a determination that the money will go to these agencies in some formula?

Jaclyn SYMES: Well, it goes through the normal budget process.

David DAVIS: The normal budget process. And there is no issue if there is a shortfall on the collection side, is what you have said?

Jaclyn SYMES: What I am saying is that a shortfall in the levy would not impact the amount going to FRV, CFA or SES, because the proposal in the legislation is to provide a minimum.

David DAVIS: In this case let us just stick with the CFA, for example; we will come to the others in a moment. But at the CFA the money comes across, 95 per cent of it, from the levy. The other 5 per cent is comprised of what?

Jaclyn SYMES: Consolidated revenue.

David DAVIS: Is there any role for charitable contributions? And how is that enmeshed in this process?

Jaclyn SYMES: Charitable donations for the CFA are generally held by individual brigades.

David DAVIS: So there is no central contribution. Okay, I am just understanding that. Then for the expenditure side at the CFA, the board might make decisions, and the levy coming through would pay for some of these things, I would imagine. I look at the consultancy expenditure of the CFA to 30 June: Ernst & Young, provision of financial management advice, $144,000; Ernst & Young business process improvement project, $467,000; Ernst & Young procurement support package, $1.84 million; Cube, operating model, organisational design, $227,000; Aither Pty Ltd, develop framework for capability and capacity review, $12,000, nearly $13,000; Grosvenor Management Consulting, infrastructure services program review, $200,000; Davidson Executive and Boards, property register development, $175,000; Summit Consulting Solutions, development of infrastructure services cost-based model, $156,000; Finity consulting services, actuarial valuation assessment, $132,000 – I am rounding those figures. All of this adds up to about $3.356 million. Would the CFA still be able to fund these sorts of consultancy services, or would there be some sort of cap to try and control consultancy expenditure, given it is being raised through a big new tax?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, you are conflating a few issues in relation to how the current system works, and the future proposed system is much the same. The percentage of the total budget of the CFA can be funded directly from the fund. How CFA spend their budget is not a matter for this bill. You have referred to consultancy reductions and the like, and I think I am certainly on the record as indicating that, across government, work is underway to ensure reduced spend on these types of expenses. That is something that I am looking at as Treasurer, as I did in the Department of Justice and Community Safety as lead minister. There will be no restrictions on how the organisations spend their budget just because it is connected by a levy. It is just connected to the amount of their budget.

David DAVIS: Let us just stick with this example here of the CFA. So the money has come into Treasury, or the minister has made a determination about how much is coming across.

Jaclyn SYMES: She does not, but sure, she asks for it.

David DAVIS: The cabinet subcommittee will make that determination, then. But let us understand what this means compared to the current arrangements. You are going to have a much bigger flow of money into Treasury on this. In the case of Port Phillip you are going to have 57 per cent more flooding in, and it will be similar around the state; it might be bigger in some other places. So you will have a big pool. Then you are going to fund the CFA over here. Previously there would have been more consolidated revenue in that tranche of money moving to the CFA, so you are actually getting a windfall here – more money coming in. So you will able to transfer it to the CFA without touching, as I would call it, general consolidated revenue from other tax bases. You have actually made a bit of a windfall here as Treasurer, as I see it.

Jaclyn SYMES: That is the intent of the legislation – to raise more money to spend on emergency services.

David DAVIS: Will the money be actually spent on emergency services?

Jaclyn SYMES: Every dollar.

David DAVIS: Every dollar gets spent, but it actually frees up general consolidated revenue – non-fire levy money, non-ESV levy money – to be spent on other matters. That is the truth of the matter, isn’t it?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, as a former emergency services minister who would go to the budget and finance committee and seek funding for emergency services, this is what it is going to enable the current minister to do – come and ask for a range of matters that we will be able to fund. Every dollar is going into emergency services – every cent. And I have got an amendment that I will move –

David DAVIS: But it actually frees up non-levy consolidated revenue for other purposes.

Jaclyn SYMES: We will continue to spend consolidated revenue on emergency services.

David DAVIS: But less.

Jaclyn SYMES: The reason that we have the change in the levy is because we are having more severe, more frequent emergencies impacting communities and we want to be able to ensure that we have the funds to prepare, respond and indeed recover. The floods a couple of years ago cost over $2 billion in recovery. That pales into massive insignificance with what the fire services property levy raised. We use consolidated revenue on emergency services all the time and will continue to do so.

David DAVIS: Actually, in effect you are confirming my suspicion and concern. You are going to have a large revenue flow from this new tax and that is going to fund emergency services, but it is in fact going to free up a large chunk of non-levy consolidated revenue, which will not be spent on emergency services but will be used for other purposes. That is the truth of the matter. The fire services are not going to get their current consolidated revenue allocation plus the new levy, are they?

Jaclyn SYMES: Of course they will, because the legislation is limiting it to 90 per cent of their budgets.

David DAVIS: But in truth you might want to actually tell us the amount of expected windfall in non-levy consolidated revenue – how much will be freed up. How many hundreds of millions of dollars will be freed up?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I just explained, Mr Davis, the cost of emergencies is immense. We want to be able to ensure that when the worst happens, we can provide millions, sometimes billions, of dollars in recovery. To suggest that consolidated revenue will not be directed to emergency services is frankly wrong.

David DAVIS: Nobody is suggesting that none will, but what I am suggesting is a lesser amount will be because the backfill will have occurred from the new –

Jaclyn SYMES: Well, that will mean climate change has gone, won’t it?

David DAVIS: Sorry?

Jaclyn SYMES: That will mean that there will not be emergencies.

David DAVIS: No, it will mean you get a windfall to spend elsewhere in the budget to backfill your other problems. That is the truth, isn’t it?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, you are verballing me – you are putting back to me things that I am not saying – and I have answered your question.

David DAVIS: If we move to another agency for a moment and look at Triple Zero Victoria, this agency will also be a recipient of funding from this levy. Is that correct?

Jaclyn SYMES: That is the intention of the bill, yes.

David DAVIS: How much of the fire services levy has been used to fund emergency services or Triple Zero or its predecessors?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, the fire services property levy does not currently fund Triple Zero Victoria. That is despite the fact that there are professional firefighters that are located in Triple Zero Victoria. That is despite the fact that when we have to set up control centres, Triple Zero Victoria set up mobile support services at those control centres. But they are currently not funded by the fire services property levy. That is part of the reason that we are seeking to include them in the new levy.

David DAVIS: So in a similar way with Triple Zero Victoria, if the bill is passed, that will now be funded by the new levy, but that will also free up a big backfill of consolidated revenue that is not raised through this levy. That is the truth too, isn’t it?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, the cost of emergency services – investment is probably a better term. The investment in emergency services that the government makes far outstrips what is raised by the current levy or will be raised by the future levy.

David DAVIS: With respect, that is not really an exact answer to my question. That is a statement that is beside the point. The point is that, actually, this agency, Triple Zero Victoria, is not funded out of the current levy but will be funded out of the new levy, and that will free up a massive amount of consolidated revenue that is not raised by the levy. I will not labour it; I will just make the point.

The annual report for 2023–24 for Triple Zero says here on one of its early pages, page 4:

We’re the critical link between the Victorian community and Victoria’s Emergency Service Organisations (ESOs), which include:

– Ambulance Victoria (AV)

– Victoria Police (VP)

– Fire Rescue Victoria (FRV)

– Country Fire Authority (CFA)

– Victorian State Emergency Service (VICSES)

We work with our ESO partners, in particular the frontline emergency workers …

As you alluded to before, a number of the staff from those other agencies are embedded in Triple Zero – quite appropriately. That it is a matter of –

Jaclyn SYMES: Paramedics, police and fire.

David DAVIS: Yes, correct. Who will pay for them? Will they be paid for at the agency level, or will they be paid for via their parent organisation, if I can call it that?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, that is not part of this bill.

David DAVIS: I am trying to understand where the flows of the new money will go. How will they get to pay for those? Will they be paid –

Jaclyn SYMES: They will pay from out of their budget.

David DAVIS: Out of the Triple Zero budget, not out of their parent agency?

Jaclyn SYMES: I think that is different.

David DAVIS: I am not trying to be difficult; I am just trying to understand.

Jaclyn SYMES: No, you are asking a question that is more appropriate for the Minister for Emergency Services, but fortunately I have got some knowledge in that space. I think there are different arrangements depending on the role that they fill. But irrespective, the percentage of levy that would be going to Triple Zero Victoria is much less than the agencies that we were discussing earlier, so it would be a much smaller amount. So to start attributing it to individual roles when it is probably in the order of $100 million a year is probably not useful, because it does not really impact on the way that their budget operates. It will just be supplemented in relation to some guaranteed funding from the levy, which is a really good reflection of the value that we place on those Triple Zero call takers and dispatchers.

David DAVIS: I agree with you about the value that we all place on the Triple Zero call workers but also the embedded specialists who are there from a different agency. Perhaps if you do not know the answer now, I am happy, as the committee moves forward, to get an answer –

Jaclyn SYMES: It is not relevant to the bill.

David DAVIS: Well, is it going to come directly via Triple Zero Victoria, or is it going to come via their parent agency?

Jaclyn SYMES: It is not –

David DAVIS: Well, it is going to be funded. You are changing the funding; that is what is happening.

Jaclyn SYMES: No, Mr Davis. The levy does not dictate how agencies spend their money, it just contributes to their overall budget.

David DAVIS: That is actually precisely a line of questioning I want to pursue, and I might conveniently do it now. When the minister makes a determination, the minister could put controls around how that money is spent – the levy money that has come to Treasury and is coming across. This is a change in the funding that is arranged. It is a new source of funding. It is a larger source of funding. I imagine that the Treasurer and possibly the minister too will want to see good value for the money, and they may well put a whole series of requirements and conditions around that. That is precisely one of the things I am getting to here. Is it the intention that there be any change? The minister has a statement of expectations – that is one kind of control mechanism. But it could well be a much greater one when the applications are made to the relevant expenditure committee. There may well be additional requirements put on.

Jaclyn SYMES: No.

David DAVIS: I understand from what you are alluding to here that you are not intending to put in any additional requirements despite having a significant flow of additional money. Is that what you are saying?

Jaclyn SYMES: The bill does not confer any greater powers on the Minister for Emergency Services or indeed the Treasurer. My role is to set the rates. The emergency services minister supports the agencies in putting to government the required funding for their agencies, and we make decisions based on merit and need demonstrated in the budget bid. Never have we in the emergency services space, in the fire space, under the current arrangements, sat there and said, ‘You will do this with the levy and this with consolidated revenue.’ That is not how it works. The budget will be the budget, and then it will be supplemented by the fund. That does not then correlate to some power about how you can spend particular dollars depending on whether it was part of the 90 per cent or the 10 per cent. That is just not something that happens now, and it is just not an issue, Mr Davis.

What I would probably point to – and I think this might give you further clarity – is the amendment that I will move to clause 17, which will insert a new section saying that the proceeds of the levy collected under the act must not exceed the sum of the amounts applied to fund the funding recipients in accordance with the section and the administration costs incurred in the performance of functions under the act. That is somewhat relevant. But we will also be picking up on your amendments, making sure that the transparency and accountability of where the money goes will be made available. So that should allay any of your concerns about funding. I think you are trying to lean into it funding inappropriate things, but that is not my expectation.

David DAVIS: It is in part a concern that it might be funding inappropriate things. I might get Mr McGowan to ask his question in a moment, which he has usefully given to me, but I cannot quite read, so in a moment he should do that. I am also worried that there might be excessive control coming from Treasury or the cabinet committees over the agencies. You are assuring me that is not the case?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, what I can assure you is that the budgets will be developed exactly the same way as they are now.

David DAVIS: In the case of Triple Zero it seems to me in 2024 it made a loss – the comprehensive result was a negative one – so is the new funding going to backfill agencies that are making losses?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, you might appreciate that a lot of our emergency services often run at deficits, based on the fact that they are responding to more and more emergencies time and time again. But the levy allocation is in relation to their budget, not their deficits.

David DAVIS: So the answer is: it will backfill some of these deficits – or not? You did not actually quite answer it.

Jaclyn SYMES: I said the levy will reflect their budgets, not their deficits.

David DAVIS: And agencies that routinely run deficits will have the levy to fall back onto? No?

Jaclyn SYMES: A good example would be FRV, CFA, VICSES in relation to the 90 per cent and 95 per cent guarantee of their funding: that is based on their budget, not adding in their deficits.

David DAVIS: Again, with Triple Zero – and I have been through the annual report and looked at a number of issues that I see there – it seems an agency that is replete with consultancies and consultancy services that have been ordered in. For example, the Altus Advisory ICT assurance services; the Change Solutions ICT assurance services; Clayton Utz, you know, a $506,000 legal services bill; CyberCX, specialist ICT security services; Deloitte, with ICT and business services; Deloitte, specialist risk services; Ember Advisors; Manja, internal audit assurance services. Some of these I am sure are important, but there just seems a hell of a lot. There is Julius Roe, workforce design services, $105,000; KPMG, specialist financial services, $266,000; Lander and Rogers, legals; Maddocks, legals; MinterEllison, legals; Nova Systems, security services, $78,000; Norton Rose Fulbright, legal services – huge. It goes on: probity and compliance services, Pinnacle Group, Pitcher Partners. It goes for pages and pages: probity and compliance; PwC, internal audit, $693,000; RPS AAP Consulting, probity and compliance, $1.285 million; RSM Bird, $240,000.

Jaclyn SYMES: I get it, I get it.

David DAVIS: You have got the point I am making here. What controls are going to be in place with a new flow of money, a new source of funds coming into these organisations, to make sure that the money is spent on frontline services, on staff that actually deliver the services, on the vehicles but not on consultancies and a whole raft of wasteful services?

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, Mr Davis, you are conflating issues that are unrelated to the bill. As Treasurer, I would be looking at the annual funding requirements when I am setting the rates. For example, you and I, I think, both agree: despite the fact that your government spent $360 million on consultancies over four years et cetera, you and I, I think, both are of the view that the limiting of consultants and things within government is something that is good practice. But regarding some of the ones that you listed there in relation to ICT assurance and the like, I can tell you now, having lived through some significant issues at Triple Zero Victoria and having to help that organisation get back on track, they rely very heavily on their ICT systems. It is what enables them to answer the phone, dispatch to emergencies for people who call 000. So I do not think we should have a values judgement based on the types of money that this organisation is spending. When it comes to the responsible management of agencies, that is a matter for responsible ministers, and if that is where you are going with that line of questioning, it is just not relevant to this bill.

David DAVIS: I understand why the minister may get irritated with me asking this question, but let me just –

Jaclyn SYMES: No, I got bored. You kept on going on a bit. That was all.

David DAVIS: All right. I am sorry if I went on a bit. I was trying to make a point that there is a lot of expenditure there that I think you would want to look at pretty damn closely, and you might want to look at the remuneration of some layers of executives too. That would be another point.

Jaclyn SYMES: Why do you hate Triple Zero?

David DAVIS: Well, at some of these agencies; I am not particularly singling Triple Zero out on that. On the related party transactions I see in the annual report, what will change with respect to some of those related payments recognised as expenses – obviously receipts recognised as revenue, payments recognised as expenses, engagement in two directions with some of these agencies: the Department of Justice and Community Services, Ambulance Victoria, Country Fire Authority, Fire Rescue Victoria? How is that going to operate? Triple Zero has traditionally had its funding come from some of these agencies.

Jaclyn SYMES: Nothing will change as a result of this bill in relation to the relationships between our ESOs and how they interact with Triple Zero Victoria. You might want to have this discussion with the Minister for Emergency Services, but this bill will not make any changes.

David DAVIS: But the funding structure of Triple Zero will change somewhat, Minister. As I understand it, there will be direct flows from government. There will be direct flows, as I understand it, of the money from the levy, as opposed to payments from fire and ambulance and so forth.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, the bill only changes the source of the funding, not how it is spent.

David DAVIS: That is exactly the point. There is actually a change here, and it will change the relationship between Triple Zero and those emergency agencies that have traditionally worked closely with it but have been funders of it directly.

Jaclyn SYMES: That will continue.

David DAVIS: But the agency will also be funded primarily, as I understand it, by the money that comes from the levy.

Jaclyn SYMES: No.

David DAVIS: No? How much will come from –

Jaclyn SYMES: About 47 per cent would come from the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund. But, Mr Davis, you are taking me on a journey about how agencies spend their budgets. It is not about the ins and outs in relation to Triple Zero Victoria and how they interact with other agencies. There is not a change proposed here, but they propose an annual budget, and that is considered and funded, and part of that will now come from the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund.

David DAVIS: I understand that, but I put it to you that there will be a change in tone, where the lion’s share of the funding will now come from the levy, and the other agencies that have traditionally had a very significant stake in the way Triple Zero is funded or operates will actually have a diminished point of leverage.

Jaclyn SYMES: I take issue with that a little bit. They are partner agencies. I do not necessarily want anybody having leverage over each other in emergency services land. The contractual arrangements or the agreements that they make with emergency service agencies in relation to a range of things are a matter for Triple Zero Victoria in consultation with the minister. It is just not going to change. There is not going to be a change in relationship, and what in fact it does say to Triple Zero Victoria is, ‘We value you as an emergency service organisation, just in the way that we do FRV and CFA. You are on the frontline ensuring that our emergency services personnel can do what they need to do.’ They are part of the emergency services family, and to be included in the bill I think will not send a negative tone; I think it will send a positive tone.

David DAVIS: We will just leave that I think and note that there is a change, but whether it is a positive or negative will be resolved in the longer haul.

What I want to understand is some of the announcements made in the last few days. Again, I am looking at the 2023–24 annual report of Fire Rescue Victoria. I look at page 13 – it has ‘Employees, infrastructure and fleet’. As I understand it, there has been an announcement made about additional trucks. Perhaps if I can reconcile that announcement with the figures inside the annual report. Perhaps this is an instructive way to understand whether the changes will be real or not. In 2023–24 there were 3998 staff listed – firefighters, operations employees in the parlance of the document. Will that number change? Will there be more? Or less? Is there any intention to change that number?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, that is not relevant to the bill.

David DAVIS: So there is no intention to change the number?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, you can ask questions about agencies and their staff from the relevant minister. You are asking about the operation of FRV; this bill is about the funding model for FRV.

David DAVIS: It is about the funding, and I ask, for example, on pumping appliances, fire trucks, which the minister has mentioned herself, this says a hundred –

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, that will change.

David DAVIS: This is what I want to understand. It is okay to answer that bit of it but it not okay to answer the other bit. If I look at the pumping fire trucks – 151 in 2021–22, 156 in 2022–23, 156 in 2023–24. I am looking for a baseline figure now. Is there a time sequence that we can see? Do you have that?

Jaclyn SYMES: For trucks?

David DAVIS: On pumping vehicles. You have said you will get new trucks. How many will there be year by year into the future? Is that worked out, or is there –

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, what we have announced today is that there will be a $40 million rolling fleet replacement program for FRV to get new appliances. That is in addition to the fleet that is currently in various stages of delivery. There are a range that are already on the way, effectively. What this is is a minimum amount to ensure that FRV would be well placed to make rolling investment so that it is easier to get their contracts in place and the like, because they know that there is a minimum of $10 million each year to replace trucks. Different trucks cost different amounts, and the priorities of the fleet replacement would be a matter for FRV.

David DAVIS: Will there be more trucks?

Jaclyn SYMES: The funding is to ensure that there are new appliances added to the fleet.

David DAVIS: So it is purely replacement – there is no increase in the number of vehicles? I am just trying to understand how this money is going to be acquitted – $10 million a year times four years. That will come, I take it, from the levy too, will it? You might want to answer that. I am getting the impression that there will be not one new additional tanker in number. There might be new shiny ones, which will be very nice, but will there be additional tanker capacity?

Jaclyn SYMES: This is a matter that would be best put to FRV. It will be up to them.

David DAVIS: So some might not be replacements; there might be an additional number of vehicles, pumpers?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, we are funding a rolling fleet fund, effectively, for FRV to build new trucks, so there will be new trucks rolling out. What they do with existing fleet is a matter completely for them. We are adding additional trucks.

Nick McGOWAN: By virtue of its very name, it is a rolling replacement. It is not a rolling addition, it is a rolling replacement program, so it replaces another appliance. Mr Davis’s question was: will there be a net increase in the appliances, or will this rolling replacement program, as its name suggests, merely replace a number – albeit very small, given the amount involved – of the appliances currently in operation?

Jaclyn SYMES: This will be a matter for FRV, but Mr McGowan, the advocacy has been for a rolling fleet replacement fund. That is what I am saying was announced today. That will be $40 million of guaranteed funding which enables FRV to forward plan in relation to their contracts and the delivery of new fire trucks.

Nick McGOWAN: On what basis did you arrive at the $40 million figure?

Jaclyn SYMES: It matches the investment for CFA.

Nick McGOWAN: And on what basis did you arrive at the figure for the CFA, given the figure for the CFA is 70 or 75? I am not quite sure what is the latest.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr McGowan, these are guaranteed minimum amounts that have been agreed to in consultation with the Minister for Emergency Services and the chief fire officer.

David DAVIS: Just picking up further on the agencies and Fire Rescue Victoria in 2023–24, I just have a similar question about the deficit there in 2024. Will that be backfilled with this approach?

Jaclyn SYMES: I answered that.

David DAVIS: No, it is a different agency. I am wanting to know: will this money be acquitted to deal with the deficit?

Jaclyn SYMES: I answered this. I actually used FRV as the example when I explained this to you. The levy is calculated based on their annual budget. It does not include their deficit.

David DAVIS: See, the problem with that response is that the agency has an annual budget but it has exceeded its budget and it has gone into deficit, and that is what I am trying to understand. Will it be used –

Jaclyn SYMES: And it will most years, right? That is what is going to happen?

David DAVIS: Well, it will most years – I mean, that worries me. An agency should be able to have its budget set and run very close to budget. We all understand there can be an occasion, especially with a fire agency, where there could be something –

Jaclyn SYMES: Every year?

David DAVIS: No, not every year, but occasionally there can be a problem, I understand. I just note what you have said about the fact that they could get into some trouble on occasion. I have a number of other questions that relate to a number of specific agencies. The operational funding appears to be very narrowly construed in this bill. It does not, for example, in clause 6 list organisations, and I am going to include a number of names here: Shepparton Search and Rescue Squad, Echuca & Moama Search & Rescue Squad, Life Saving Victoria, Marine Search and Rescue, Australian Volunteer Coast Guard, Alpine Search and Rescue Victoria and Bush Search and Rescue Victoria. It is a fact that they are not in this bill and they are not supported in this bill. That is correct, isn’t it?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, I have already confirmed that agencies can have an MOU with an emergency service organisation – a good example is Shepparton search and rescue and the SES. They are a great Shepparton organisation, they work very well with the SES and they access their training and the like. By virtue of that MOU they will be included in the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund. In relation to many of the other agencies that you listed, it is not the intention to include them in the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund bill. That is not to suggest that they do not receive government funding.

David DAVIS: So the conclusion is that most of those agencies, with the exception of Shepparton, will not get funding. But Shepparton will not get direct funding, it will get funding via an MOU. Is that what you are saying?

Jaclyn SYMES: No. Just to clarify, the reason that some of the agencies that you mentioned are not included is that they are not statutory authorities, so they will continue to be funded through government consolidated revenue and the different arrangements that we have with some of the ones that you listed – not under this bill. It is not the MOU that facilitates the funding, it is the MOU with SES that makes them SES-like, effectively – I think that is probably the easiest way to say it. They are the equivalent to SES because of their MOU, so they will be able to be included in the funding model for that reason.

David DAVIS: But the other ones will not?

Jaclyn SYMES: No, but particularly in light of Echuca, I think there are discussions underway in relation to whether they could do a similar thing to Shepparton. There are so many organisations, like the Red Cross and St John Ambulance. There are so many people that I know are there when we have emergencies. Where we have drawn the line is statutory authorities, and we will continue to support the range of agencies in another way, not through this levy.

David DAVIS: So what quantum are they likely to be funded? Is there a band or a range for some of these agencies like Shepparton, for example? How much are they going to receive – $5000 or $100,000? I do not know. Is there some understanding of how much that might be?

Jaclyn SYMES: I am not aware of their existing funding. It would be a matter for the Minister for Emergency Services. I can get the answer, but the answer is not from the Treasurer. I am looking at my former emergency services minister adviser, who will know the answer. But it is not a question for this bill.

David DAVIS: I will just put on record that it would be helpful to the committee if a list of those is available and we can actually see.

Jaclyn SYMES: It is just Shepparton search and rescue.

David DAVIS: Shepparton is the only one? There is no other?

Jaclyn SYMES: At the moment.

David DAVIS: At the moment. So there is no other intention immediately?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I indicated, Mr Davis, where an organisation has an MOU with an existing statutory agency, they have the same standard operating procedures. That is kind of why they can be included. The reason that we do not want to start naming things like Shepparton search and rescue is that we do not have to name everyone if they meet the same criteria as Shepparton. What I am outlining is the process for agencies that would be included, and there are discussions underway with a couple of others.

David DAVIS: I will perhaps ask: will Echuca and Moama search and rescue also receive funding under the same mechanism, or is that to be left out?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I indicated, I understand that Echuca are in conversations with the SES in relation to a potential MOU.

Melina BATH: The Australian Volunteer Coast Guard are financial and affiliated members of the CFA. Can you confirm that the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard members will be eligible for, first of all, a rebate, as they are a volunteer service, and are they eligible for funds?

Jaclyn SYMES: Sorry, you started off by saying CFA volunteers.

Melina BATH: The Australian Volunteer Coast Guard are financial and affiliated members of the CFA. Is that correct? My question is: will they be included in funding in this legislation? And if they are affiliated members of the CFA, will they therefore be able to receive a rebate in this legislation?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Bath, I was having a conversation earlier with Mr Davis about the MOU between Shepparton search and rescue and the SES. That confers a lot of operating procedures and legally binding responsibilities, and they basically become the equivalent of SES in a statutory authority sense. Affiliation does not do the same. I do not have any intention of gazetting anyone other than CFA and VICSES volunteers to be eligible for a rebate under the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund. Similar to my answer to the list that Mr Davis read out, we will continue to work with agencies on their funding requests in the usual way.

Melina BATH: Just to clarify, the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard, even if they do have an affiliation with the CFA and financial membership with the CFA, will not be receiving funding through this legislation, through this levy, and they will not be getting a rebate? I am just confirming that.

Jaclyn SYMES: If they are CFA volunteers, they will be eligible for a rebate.

David DAVIS: Just to understand about the rebates, the list of organisations I read before – will they be eligible for rebates? Do you want me to read them again? Echuca and Moama –

Jaclyn SYMES: As I just said, Mr Davis, it is VICSES and CFA volunteers that will be eligible for a rebate because they are the agencies that will be part of the funding arrangements that we are proposing. Shepparton search and rescue members will also be eligible for a rebate by virtue of the MOU with the SES. Anybody else that is in a similar situation and has an MOU in the future would be able to consider that as well. In relation to ordinary volunteers across the board, I certainly value the work they do, but this rebate is for dedicated emergency services personnel such as CFA and SES.

David DAVIS: I am just trying to understand: will Life Saving Victoria have the same mechanism for rebates or not?

Jaclyn SYMES: No.

David DAVIS: If it is via the SES to provide funding to be distributed to volunteer organisations, will they have any capacity to do that? Will the SES be able to distribute via the SES to some of these organisations?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, there is nothing in this bill that changes the current funding arrangements for agencies in relation to money going out.

David DAVIS: So Shepparton Search and Rescue Squad will be eligible, but the Echuca & Moama Search & Rescue Squad will not – is that right? Am I correct there?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, that is my information at this time. I have answered this several times. Shepparton have an MOU with SES, and I understand Echuca are engaged in conversations.

David DAVIS: So not at the moment?

Jaclyn SYMES: Do you want me to say it 10 times?

David DAVIS: Is there any mechanism then for Life Saving Victoria to get these vouchers, these volunteer rebates, these arrangements? Is there any mechanism that is linked to the bill?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, Life Saving Victoria are not included in the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund.

David DAVIS: Just to round this off, I guess the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard, Alpine search and rescue, Bush Search and Rescue Victoria and Marine Search and Rescue – none of those will be eligible for the rebates.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, for about the fifth time, the people who are eligible for a rebate are volunteers at CFA, VICSES and volunteer agencies that have an MOU as I have described to you.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: Just in terms of the rebates then, in rural communities where we have smaller CFAs, from what I understand of what you have said, they will not be eligible for rebates either if they are smaller CFAs in rural communities or remote communities of Victoria.

Jaclyn SYMES: No, that is not correct.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: Because you mentioned that they are all small organisations – I just wanted to make sure that all CFAs –

Jaclyn SYMES: Every CFA volunteer is eligible, regardless of the size of their town.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: Minister, a number of the farming community are extremely distressed, as you can imagine, with the additional tax and the implications that it has for them. On the potential for rebates in this bill for struggling farmers who are barely making a living, will there be some sort of provision for them as well where they will be able to apply for a rebate if they are struggling to actually even make an income from their farm?

Jaclyn SYMES: Whilst again not directly related to the bill, I would like to give you some information in relation to some announcements and some considerations that the government has taken in response to advocacy from farmers. What I was able to confirm this morning is that when I set the rates, which is outside of the bill, we will be reducing what we had proposed to apply to primary production land. That will go from the proposed 83 cents per $1000 capital improved value to 78.1 cents. What we have also announced today – and the Minister for Agriculture will be backing this in in her consideration of support for drought-impacted farmers – is that if a farmer is in an LGA that is eligible for the drought package because there is an existing drought package out or because there is an expansion in the number of eligible LGAs, any farmers in those regions will be able to access a rebate, which will mean that there is no increase in their Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund levy compared to what they paid the previous year for their fire services property levy.

Nick McGOWAN: Treasurer, is there any guarantee in this bill that any of the budgets for the CFA, the SES and the FRV will not be cut?

Jaclyn SYMES: The budgets will continue to be set in the normal budget process. There is nothing in this bill that dictates a separate budget process.

Nick McGOWAN: So just to be clear, there is nothing in this bill that guarantees the people of Victoria that any one of those budgets cannot be cut in the future, either in your next budget to be delivered next week or in any other future budget?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr McGowan, the amendments that I am proposing will ensure that the percentage of the entity’s budget will be confirmed. For Fire Rescue Victoria that is 90 per cent, for the CFA and SES 95 per cent. This is literally just to guarantee that level of funding as opposed to their budget. This does not set their budgets. As I was just describing to Mr Davis, that is a matter for the agencies to come to government and explain their budgets, supported by the relevant minister.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: Minister, communities have been contacting me, and they are concerned that they do not have easy access to information on where the money will be going exactly. How transparent, accountable and detailed will the government’s breakdown be in telling us where the emergency services levy is going? They actually want to see the details in a way that is easily understood by local rural communities. Will that be possible, Minister?

Jaclyn SYMES: I too have certainly heard that, and I know we want to provide as much detail as possible. I have been at pains to stress that every single dollar will be spent on emergency services. I understand that people want us to be able to prove that, so that is why as part of my proposed amendments there is a requirement for the government to lay out the estimate of the levy to be collected and what it will be spent on, and we are proposing to make that as user friendly and as clear as possible.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: I do have more questions here. In terms of the CFA promise you mentioned a number of trucks in a deal that has been made with the crossbench and that there would be an additional truck for Chelsea. I could not help but note that places like Dandenong, Frankston and the like have some of the highest call-outs, certainly for the FRV. How is one additional new truck going to meet the needs with this extensive levy that will be hitting areas, including the metropolitan region which I represent? How is one truck in Chelsea going to actually meet the needs of some of the highest hit areas that require callouts from our emergency services, like Dandenong and Frankston? I know Skye, for instance, is still waiting on a new truck. It had a truck given to it, and then that truck was recalled for another area. It still has an outdoor section on one of its trucks, and some of its trucks remain not fit for purpose. So that is my question: if you are only going to provide one truck for Chelsea, how is that going to meet the needs with this levy for the regional areas in the south-east?

Jaclyn SYMES: First of all, your characterisation of the question is wrong. I announced the rolling fleet for VICSES and CFA as the former emergency services minister last year. What I announced today was where those assets would be going. You mentioned Chelsea. They will be one of the first to receive a VICSES medium rescue truck. You have detailed a number of needs you have identified in your community. Supporting this bill will mean more trucks for communities just like yours.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, I want to go back to the Alpine shire. While we are here, do you think you could produce that letter you said you have from the Alpine shire which you indicated supports this approach to funding emergency services?

Jaclyn SYMES: I will take that on notice, Mrs McArthur, and have my office have a look for the correspondence that I referred to. But as you have received direct intel from the mayor, I will take you at your word that she would like it noted that she does not support it. I am more than happy with that.

Bev McARTHUR: But will you be able to provide this while we are here now? Can you organise to get the information while we are asking further questions? Because I have got a newspaper report which goes totally contrary to what you suggested the Alpine shire position was. I think it is very important that if you are going to allege that a council supports this extraordinary new tax you can verify it while we are in this process.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, I have just said I am more than happy to put on record and not disagree with your information that the Alpine shire mayor would like it noted that they do not support the legislation. I think that should deal with the matter.

Bev McARTHUR: But had we not got this confirmation, it would be left suggested in this chamber that a council had said something when they had not. I hope there is no more misleading in the committee stages. Can I ask: has the government and the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) come to an agreement on the rate in the dollar of the valuation for the proposed levy on primary production land?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, I have engaged with the VFF, I have met with the VFF, and I have advised the VFF of the change.

Bev McARTHUR: What change?

Jaclyn SYMES: The change I just outlined to Mrs Hermans.

Bev McARTHUR: Going back, Minister, to the Alpine shire, why did you make the statement in the first place if it was not accurate?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, the advice that I had was that I had received correspondence. As I have said to you, you have received direct correspondence. I probably should not have said they wrote to me. One did. I thought it was Alpine shire; maybe it was not. Now, given the conversation that we are having, I would be reluctant to identify the council that did write to me because of the way this conversation is going. I thought it was Alpine; I still actually think it is. But I am very much not intending to mislead the house. I think for absolute clarity, let us all agree Alpine shire do not support the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund in one way, shape or form. I am sure they support emergency services, though.

Bev McARTHUR: Well, now we have clarified that. I hope there are no other misleading references. Dr Mansfield referred this morning in her contribution to assurances you had given her. I think we should know: what assurances have you given Dr Mansfield?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, unlike many members of the chamber, I have had constructive conversations with the Greens, who raised a number of concerns with the bill. In terms of those conversations, I was able to explain what the government’s intention was, so the information that the Greens have been given is probably more thorough than some others, because they asked questions and I answered them.

Bev McARTHUR: Can you outline to us what the assurances are that you have given Dr Mansfield and others who have now agreed to support this legislation?

Jaclyn SYMES: What I can say, Mrs McArthur, is that I have had a range of conversations with members of the crossbench. I have had conversations with MAV, the VFF and range of other stakeholders that have had similar concerns. I do not want to necessarily attribute some of the changes to individuals, because a lot of them have similar concerns. That is why we have reduced the farmer rate. That is why we have a rebate. That is why we have announced rolling stock for FRV. It is why we have amendments to make it very, very clear that this is not about funding bureaucrats, it is about funding frontline emergency services. All of my amendments are as a result of conversations with not just the Greens and other members of this chamber but a broad range of stakeholders that brought things to my attention.

Bev McARTHUR: But if you say you are not funding bureaucrats – you have included government departments, effectively, in this legislation, haven’t you? Or are you withdrawing all those?

Jaclyn SYMES: We can go through this when we go through my amendments, Mrs McArthur. But as I have tried to explain, the Secretary for the Department of Justice and Community Safety, for example, will be responsible for the contract for the radios that go out to our volunteers. That is just how the system works. It is ensuring that expenditure that can be applied to agencies can be demonstrated to be for emergency services response. I think in particular there are a lot of firefighters in Forest Fire Management Victoria (FFMVic), so we thought it was appropriate to include them in this levy.

Bev McARTHUR: But these government departments were funded out of consolidated revenue previously. Why are they not still being funded out of consolidated revenue?

Jaclyn SYMES: They are.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I have a series of questions that may assist Mrs McArthur with her previous line of questioning.

Members interjecting.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Well, it may be a bit more specific, so that might be helpful. Minister, councils are concerned about having to determine the difference between primary and secondary residences. That is not data that is readily available to them but it is to the State Revenue Office. What is being done to assist councils with this aspect of the levy?

Jaclyn SYMES: The bill contains amendments enabling the State Revenue Office to share information held regarding principal places of residence, including principal place of residence exemptions from land tax, with councils for the purpose of administering the PPR concession. But as the chamber would be aware, that change is being delayed by a year to allow smooth implementation.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Many councils have also raised concerns with me about the financial risk this levy poses for them when people do not pay and councils have to carry the debt. Some rural councils, as you would be aware, are already in a financially precarious position, and the result will potentially be flow-on cuts that they will have to make. Will the government provide assurances that they will not make councils carry this debt?

Jaclyn SYMES: I think Mr Davis had a similar line of questioning earlier. But under the current fire services property levy and potential of this legislation, the SRO does not and will not have any power to penalise councils if ratepayers do not pay their bill. The Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund is not a taxation law under section 4 of the taxation act, meaning that the commissioner and the SRO do not have the powers invested through it to collect the ESVF liability directly in the fire services property levy legislation and any changes. The only power invested in the SRO and the commissioner is under section 48, and that is to receive levy amounts and levy interest collected by a collection agency and pay them into consolidated fund; monitor the performance of council and other functions conferred on the commissioner under the act – this refers to paying councils fees for collecting the rates on behalf of the state; and oversight measures to ensure that councils that have collected the levy pass it on to the state. Dr Mansfield, what I would like to confirm is that the State Revenue Office have never pursued or penalised a council for a bill not paid by a ratepayer under the fire property service levy, and I do not anticipate any changes to that.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Also within the context of this bill, concerns were raised with members of this house about an intention of government to remove safe firefighter staffing levels. Obviously this raises concerns about what impact this would have on firefighters’ ability to respond when called on. Can I please seek clarification on whether it is in fact an intention of the government to remove these staffing levels?

Jaclyn SYMES: I welcome the question, Dr Mansfield, because I was also a bit concerned that there were communications around this bill or the government more broadly having plans to reduce firefighter staffing levels. I was equally worried about that, and I cannot quite understand how it got connected to this bill. But for that purpose I think it would be good to be quite clear on it: there is absolutely nothing in this bill that would have any impact on safe firefighter staffing levels, and I am referring specifically to FRV firefighters. As I have said many times, this further provides certainty of funding for FRV at a slightly higher level than has previously been the case. There is no ability for that to translate into negatively impacting on staffing levels. We have also announced the fleet, so the benefits of this bill are positive for FRV firefighters, not negative. On a broader point, I want to assure you and the house that there is absolutely no intention of the government, through this bill or any other measure, to remove safe firefighter staffing levels. These are protected in the enterprise agreement for a reason, and they have been crafted in a way to ensure that our firefighters are as safe as possible on the ground when they are carrying out the vital work that they do.

Bev McARTHUR: Rural Councils Victoria issued a statement in February, saying that they were disappointed with both a lack of consultation and the changes themselves, which are ‘unfair on rural councils and rural communities’. They said they have written to relevant Victorian government ministers to strongly state this view and seek clarity on how the ESVF can be delivered fairly and equitably without any unintended consequences for councils or volunteer management. Have you given them a guarantee there will be no unintended consequences for councils and volunteer management?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, you are referring to unintended consequences. Do you want to be a little more specific?

Bev McARTHUR: Sorry, I did not hear that. Can you repeat it, Minister?

Jaclyn SYMES: You have asked me to give a guarantee against unintended consequences. Do you want to give me a flavour of the consequences you are referring to? I do not understand what you are getting at.

Bev McARTHUR: I am referring to the statement from Rural Councils Victoria, who have asked, I imagine, you particularly but other ministers. They were seeking clarity from you of how the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund can be delivered fairly and equitably – and I am quoting their statement – without any unintended consequences for councils or volunteer management. You will have got their request to confirm that. I am asking you: have you confirmed to Rural Councils Victoria – which are 38 councils in Victoria, I might add – that there are no unintended consequences for councils or volunteer management?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I indicated earlier, there will be an implementation package that we are working through with the MAV to support councils in relation to any of the implementation issues that are known or do come up.

Bev McARTHUR: Well, let us go to the MAV now. They have called on the Victorian government to review and reform the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund by – and I will go through them point by point; you can answer each one – transferring the levy collection to the state.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, I have answered this question already to one of your colleagues, but the current fire services property levy is part of council rates, and we are continuing that practice.

Bev McARTHUR: Well, there is the first issue where you will be at odds with the MAV. We will go further. They ‘strongly call on the Victorian government to reassess its decision to designate councils as collection agents for the ESVF’, so you are clearly totally disregarding that call.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, it was the Liberal government that brought in the fire services property levy and decided that the right mechanism was via council rates. It makes sense in relation to home owners receiving letters from council and reducing duplication. I have spoken to a lot of councils about this. It is our intention to keep the current practice, which was introduced by your side of politics.

Bev McARTHUR: The fire services levy as it was originally intended bears no relation to this tax that you have applied to the citizens of Victoria, not in any shape or form. This is a new tax. The MAV, who represent 79 councils in Victoria, obviously strongly disagree that they should be collecting this and ask why it is not the State Revenue Office, which would be a far more efficient operation to do it and a centralised process, given that you probably know how many lavatories we have got these days, you are so busy taxing property. Although Mr McGowan cannot seem to get a lavatory for Ringwood train station. Putting that aside, this is a core issue for the councils of Victoria. This is not the same tax; this is not the fire services levy. This is a new tax. You are now saying to all of these municipalities that you totally disregard their position, which is for the State Revenue Office to collect it.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, I have answered your question. The cost of collection is dramatically reduced by using rates notices, as it is much simpler for ratepayers. In relation to MAV and their advocacy, one of the issues that they were most concerned about early on – and I have responded to their satisfaction – was having to determine the eligibility for volunteers to access the rebate. We certainly have made it very clear that government services will take on that role. There have been some constructive conversations with MAV, but our policy of continuing the practice that was implemented for the fire property services levy is where we have landed.

Bev McARTHUR: Why is it more efficient for councils, especially small rural councils, to be collecting your tax than the SRO?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I said, Mrs McArthur, they are already doing it.

Bev McARTHUR: Another issue that they have is reducing the levy burden for all Victorian residents to ensure that the levy is equitably structured and does not disproportionately burden rural communities or primary producers, yet the vast increases in this tax go to exactly that issue. They disproportionately burden rural communities and primary producers – do you agree?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, the vast majority of the proceeds of the levy will be raised from metropolitan Melbourne. I have, after consultation with the VFF and other advocates, made changes to the proposed primary production land settings. Those settings are outside of this bill. The bill sets up the framework for the gazettal. I am more than aware that the impact of natural disasters is felt heavily in regional Victoria, and we are trying to find the best balance in relation to apportioning how we raise revenue. But around 73 per cent of the revenue for this will be raised from properties in metropolitan Melbourne. It will be 27 per cent that comes from regional Victoria. But when it comes to the experience of where disasters generally hit, it is the regional Victoria communities that I know will see the benefit of the investment, because unfortunately they are often the casualties.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, that will be an abhorrent statement to those people in rural communities who actually go out and fight the fires and deal with emergencies, including the SES, on a regular basis for no return of income – often obviously in their own time, using their own equipment – when they are severely impacted themselves. So saying that the greatest problems are out in the rural communities –

Jaclyn SYMES: I would not describe it like that.

Bev McARTHUR: Well, that is what you said.

Jaclyn SYMES: No, I did not.

Bev McARTHUR: The emergencies frequently occur outside, so therefore, ipso facto, they should pay a much higher premium. That is what you are saying. A 189 per cent higher premium – isn’t that what you are alleging? That country people should pay a gross amount more than anybody else?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, I would kindly request that you refrain from telling me what you think I said, because you are misquoting me. It is unhelpful for those people that might be watching at home or reading Hansard to be misled by your characterisation of my answers. I would prefer my answers to stand on their own. As I indicated, 73 per cent of the revenue will be raised from properties in metropolitan Melbourne; 27 per cent therefore will come from regional Victoria and 10 per cent will come from primary production land. It might be a little bit less now actually given the announcements that I made previously and in response to Mrs Hermans’s questions about reductions on primary production land. Following feedback, we are reducing what we had proposed. We are also bringing in a pause for drought-impacted farmers.

Bev McARTHUR: Do you not agree that the rate you are setting is much higher for primary producers than anybody else – significantly higher, almost three times higher? Why are you so penalising primary producers?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, as I have indicated, the levy is calculated based on the value of property and has a varying rate depending on the type of property. In relation to your comments about country communities and farmers turning out to protect their communities, I would remind you that all active and eligible CFA volunteers will be eligible for an exemption and rebate in relation to the levy. That is a recognition of the fact that we know particularly many farmers are also members of their CFA. So that was a direct acknowledgement, knowing that there is that crossover time and time again. When it comes to farming properties, as I have indicated, we are certainly aware of the drought impacts. That is why that pause has been announced. That is why there is a drought package out there. There are a range of other measures that we consider when we are looking at primary production land, such as the exemption from land tax. Subsequent to the question that Mr Davis asked me in question time today, certainly there is no intention to change that.

Georgie CROZIER: I just want to follow on from Mrs McArthur’s questions around primary producers. Often they might be regarded as asset rich but cash poor, and you are basing this levy on the value of land. What consideration was taken into account in relation to those farming families who may be running their properties but do not have a lot of cash flow. What exemptions might they be able to have, given their situations?

Jaclyn SYMES: The impact on a medium farm will be around $10.40 a week.

Georgie CROZIER: What is a medium farm?

Jaclyn SYMES: $1.233 million. That is the land value, not the operation of the farm. There has been, obviously, consideration of farmers that might be experiencing hardship. We are having conversations with councils about their existing hardship provisions. As was announced today – and the Minister for Agriculture will have more to say – there will be no increase from the current levy. If this new levy applies, we will pause that in relation to farmers that live in impacted LGAs.

Georgie CROZIER: There are a few questions in that answer. But before I get to that I just want to follow on from Mrs McArthur’s question too around exemptions and the crossovers, you said, for volunteers. How will those exemptions be applied for volunteers? In terms looking at the number of volunteers that are currently in the state with the agencies of CFA, lifesaving and SES, how will those exemptions actually be applied?

Jaclyn SYMES: It will be a rebate system. We have worked with the CFA and SES. They will be ensuring that volunteers that are eligible – and I released some detail about the eligibility today, which was basically just confirming what I have been saying. But just to put it beyond doubt, it says:

Eligible volunteers include all active VICSES and CFA operational and support volunteers. To be eligible for the rebate, volunteers will need to have served at least 12 months, have passed probation, and not be suspended on disciplinary grounds or have taken leave of absence for the entire duration of the preceding 12 months.

CFA and SES will be giving volunteer ID numbers to individual members, so it will be up to them to make sure that the rebate is being made available. They will also be responsible for any disputes around people. It will be easier to be in, to be frank. We are not trying to make this onerous. If you are a volunteer or a life member, the local units and brigades know who you are. You will be able to access the rebate. You will get onto the government services app and be able to access a rebate by putting in your rates notice and your number. Again, we will have more information on how to do that. I am sure electorate officers and the like would be interested in case they need to help anybody with that.

Georgie CROZIER: Just from that answer, the onus will be back on the volunteer organisations to provide the IDs and to assess who is eligible, who has been 12 months working in a voluntary capacity. So the onus is going to fall back on the voluntary organisations, who are already stretched.

Jaclyn SYMES: No. They already know who the people are.

Georgie CROZIER: I know, but if people are moving around – that just is extraordinary, that the voluntary organisations are going to have that burden placed upon them. And how are there checks and balances? Somebody might say, ‘Oh, yeah, we’ll just sign you off and get the rebate.’ Who is doing the checks and balances about who is actually eligible for this? Dare I say it, there is no oversight to ensure that those that are saying they are volunteers are actually volunteers.

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Crozier, the organisations know who their volunteers are. They want to ensure that they are supportive of the rebate. They want to see their members take up this benefit. Some members have told me they will not take up the benefit because they do not consider that they need a rebate in order to promote their volunteerism. But I expect that a lot will, and I would encourage them to do so. The onus is not on the organisation. The volunteer claiming the rebate needs to provide the evidence by using the Service Victoria app. It will just be SES and CFA being able to provide you with a number that is basically confirming that you are a volunteer. That is information that they already hold. And to be clear, too, both agencies are expecting volunteer numbers to go up as a result of this policy.

Georgie CROZIER: Are you concerned that the scheme could be rorted?

Jaclyn SYMES: I am not. Could a few people try and get through? Balancing up, I want to make it the least onerous on volunteers possible. I want it to be easier for volunteers; I do not want it to be difficult. If that results in a couple of people rorting, then I would prefer that than making it too hard for people to access.

Georgie CROZIER: There are many, many volunteers who give their time for the community, as we all know, and they do a tremendous job each and every day, I have to say. When they are signing up – and you are saying you hope those numbers go up. There are many volunteers who have been in organisations. They might have administrative roles rather than more active roles. Again, I am curious, because it could openly be exploited. If the organisations themselves have to do this administrative work and sign off, what happens if somebody is rorting the system, if there is somebody who is signing off people to allow them to be deemed to be a volunteer so that they are eligible for the rebate? How is that going to be overseen, and what consideration around any penalties for that aspect has the government considered?

Jaclyn SYMES: I outlined the core criteria that they need to meet.

Georgie CROZIER: But they could be signed off.

Jaclyn SYMES: Well, there are existing laws for fraud and theft. We are not proposing to introduce any new laws or penalties in relation to that matter. I have spoken to both the CFA and the SES in relation to their role in this, and they are not expressing the concerns that you are.

Georgie CROZIER: Given you said you expect the numbers of volunteers to increase, have you done any modelling? What is the government’s expectation in each of those different agencies of seeing an increase in volunteers?

Jaclyn SYMES: Like your colleagues, you put something to me that I did not say. I said that the advice of SES and CFA is that they expect increases in volunteers. That is what their advice is.

Georgie CROZIER: Surely you were interested in that assertion by them. What was their prediction for an increase in volunteer numbers? Did you ask, or did you just leave it?

Jaclyn SYMES: I probably would have had further conversations as the Minister for Emergency Services. That would be a matter for the Minister for Emergency Services, not the Treasurer.

Georgie CROZIER: I am well aware that you were the Minister for Emergency Services. You were also the Minister for Agriculture and Minister for Regional Development, and now you are the Treasurer.

Jaclyn SYMES: I have still got regional development.

Georgie CROZIER: And you have still got regional development, as you said. I just want to go back to the issue around exemptions. To apply for the exemption when this tax comes on board – those rates notices come through quarterly, so they have got to pay up-front. You are saying no. Could you just explain then how the rebate would work in terms of, when the bill comes in, how the Victorian taxpayer is getting that rebate? And how long will it take for that rebate to fall back into the volunteer’s bank account?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Crozier, you will be able to apply for a rebate when you get your rates notice, because the requirement will be to upload your rates notice and put in your material identifying that you are a volunteer. You can apply for your rebate at any time, whether you have paid it or not. I am not proposing to suggest how people would pay their rates. Lots of people pay them in instalments and the like. None of that is going to change.

Georgie CROZIER: But how long would it take to get the rebate back into the bank account for the volunteer?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Crozier, the advice is that ordinarily it would be instant, because it will just match up and it will go through. But if there is any confusion around names, identification, that kind of thing – basically, if it is not automatic – it will take longer because there is an issue to follow up.

Georgie CROZIER: Just to make it clear – and others might have this more clarified than I have – the ratepayer gets their rate notice with the new levy attached, and they have got a period of whatever it is to pay, but you said you have got to upload the rate notice with your ID to say that you are eligible for the rebate. So then does it automatically take off that bottom line?

Jaclyn SYMES: No, that is why it is a rebate, not an exemption.

Georgie CROZIER: But don’t you have to pay and then get the rebate?

Jaclyn SYMES: It is probably best if you do, but it is not a requirement to access the rebate. We just need evidence of your rates notice and that you have a liability to pay the levy. We give you a rebate to the equivalent of the levy. We are not going to be checking what day you paid your bill. You just have to show the liability.

Georgie CROZIER: I am just saying if people are very cash-strapped and they have got the bill, they cannot pay the bill, but they cannot get the rebate –

Jaclyn SYMES: You can get the rebate before you pay the bill.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: Today I had the opportunity, Minister, to meet and speak with a few of the farmers, and I had a particular farmer say to me that she had applied to be a member of the CFA, and the process had already taken more than six months just to get through the beginning stage of the test. Somebody else that she knew had applied 12 months ago, and the process is taking a long time. People in regional Victoria that wish to volunteer with the CFA are finding that the process is taking a long time, which means that this rebate that they may so desperately need and the CFA volunteers that they so desperately need are not going to be fast-tracked. You are anticipating that through this there is going to be an increase in people wanting to volunteer to be with CFA. So have you actually taken this into consideration or put anything in place in order to fast-track the process that enables people to volunteer with the CFA?

Jaclyn SYMES: The issues that you raise are a matter for the CFA, but what I would say is that the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund is all about raising more money to spend on our fire services and emergency services, including the CFA, so you would imagine that with additional funding they could look at some of their training provisions.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: You did mention also when you were speaking in response to both Ms Crozier and Mrs McArthur medium farms being $1.233 million in terms of land value. Some of the regional people again asked this particular question: they want to know why this levy is being based on capital improved value when land value has nothing to do with income or cash flow. Their concern of course is, as everybody has been raising in various forms today, that it will be extremely difficult for regional Victorians that do not have the cash flow. They may have the land. It may be valued at a certain amount. You may have decided it is a medium farm. Let me say that in the South-Eastern Metropolitan Region we still have people that are primary producers in terms of growing vegetables; that still takes place in the south-east. Their land is extremely valuable because of the sprawl of growth in the area. However, their produce is exactly the same, and in some cases their capacity has even been reduced. I am just asking this question on behalf of them: why have you based it in this way that will actually disadvantage these particular areas where the value of their land has gone up because of things beyond their control in terms of the suburban sprawl, if you like –

David Davis interjected.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: Yes, the things around them. But you have actually made this particular levy in such a way that it will disadvantage them, and they do not have additional cash flow coming through.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs Hermans, this is how the fire services property levy has been applied. That was introduced by a Liberal government. We are proposing to continue that practice in relation to this levy. But in relation to some of the issues you raised in terms of capital value and production and the like, these are not connected to the bill but are the topic of conversations that I am having with the VFF.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: In terms of hardship provisions, I know you have mentioned that there will be a drop from 83 to 71 – a reduction in costings that you are now going to be factoring in. What hardship provisions will be provided for those beyond that measure, for those who do not have the cash flow, for those whose land value has increased and who do not have the additional income? What hardship provisions, in addition to this, will this government be providing with this new tax?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs Hermans, we will continue to work with local councils. In terms of hardship assistance many people can already apply by contacting councils and using the details in relation to what is on their rates. There may be additional options – payment plans, deferrals and the like. As I have said in some previous answers, which you have acknowledged, there is the reduction but also the exclusion of an increase for those in the drought-impacted LGAs. There is capacity for councils to waive payments in relation to certain matters. Most of them have policies, and we will continue to work with them on the implementation phase. As I have indicated, there will be funding available through the MAV to look at all of these implementation issues. I know hardship is something that a lot of people are interested in, and it is certainly a conversation that is ongoing.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: I want to just labour this point a little bit more, because some of these people are already on payment plans. If they are already on payment plans and they are already struggling to pay what is required of them in terms of these land taxes, how are they supposed to find additional funds with the 189 per cent increase? I know you have said that the councils do not have the ability to enforce this, but it seems to me that these particular groups that are already on payment plans and are already struggling are going to be so significantly disadvantaged that you are basically taking their livelihood, forcing them to sell what little they have and be reduced to nothing. Will there be some additional support or some additional way of supporting those who are already on payment plans for this tax as it exists today?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I indicated, we will be happy to have further conversations with councils in relation to their hardship policies. That is also why we have made announcements that will be backed in by the Minister for Agriculture in relation to those in drought-impacted LGAs not receiving an increase on their levy whilst they are in drought.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: Just to labour this point, Minister, some of these people are not necessarily in drought-impacted areas, and they are on these payment plans already because the taxes have been too high.

David Davis: Is it green wedge zones?

Ann-Marie HERMANS: Yes, that is right. I am just asking on behalf of a number of people who are already in this position. It seems to me that the government has not actually thought this through. It has not actually done the consultation. The word that we are receiving is that these people have not been asked and that they are already in that position and struggling. What level of consultation in this area of capacity to be able to produce the finances for this tax has this government taken when it comes to primary producers for this state?

Jaclyn SYMES: We have consulted with MAV and the VFF. As I indicated in my earlier answer, we will be working on an implementation plan supported by funding with MAV for local governments. We can look at some of those issues at that time, because a lot of them already have their own hardship arrangements. We will be seeking to support them in that way.

David DAVIS: Just on the matter of rebates, and just perhaps a little lateral question, do career firefighters qualify for a rebate? No. Some may be volunteers, and they would then get it if they are volunteers. They may be members of co-located volunteer brigades, for example, or even another brigade. They would get it then?

Jaclyn SYMES: Irrespective of your paid employment, if you are a volunteer for SES or CFA and meet the eligibility, then you will be eligible for the rebate, Mr Davis.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, has the government estimated the delinquency rate of people paying the levy?

Jaclyn SYMES: Similar to the conversations I have been having with Mrs Hermans, we will work with councils on the implementation of this and support them, and some of those issues will –

Bev McARTHUR: Sorry, Minister, can you speak up?

Jaclyn SYMES: We will continue to consult with councils in relation to the implementation, and some of those matters may very well come up.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, can you confirm you said farmers can afford to pay this tax?

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, I am not quite sure why it is the practice of opposition members to continually try and tell me what I have said. Mrs McArthur, the very reason that we have announced, as part of drought considerations, ensuring that there is no increase on farmers that are experiencing drought – I am very conscious that there are a lot of farmers that are doing it tough right now. I speak to a lot of people through work and through personal activities. You would have these conversations. We talk about the fact that it has not rained constantly. I know that there are some farmers that are doing it tough; it is why we have made some of these arrangements, and the Minister for Agriculture will have more to say in the coming days. The reason that we would reduce the farmer rate is based on feedback, and a pause in relation to some of those worst hit areas is a direct reflection of the fact that we, and I as Treasurer, acknowledge that this will be difficult for some farmers. That is why we are pausing.

Bev McARTHUR: Do you deny you said farmers can afford to pay?

Jaclyn SYMES: When and in what context?

Bev McARTHUR: You were reported as saying, and I think the Premier was reported as saying, that farmers could afford to pay.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, I do not think I said that statement.

Bev McARTHUR: Do you agree then that farmers cannot afford to pay?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, I have just acknowledged that there are variable rates that apply to different types of landholdings. There are a range of exemptions for primary producers of land; we do not apply land tax, for instance. There are a range of other concessions in relation to changing of property ownership, whether you can get exemptions and the like. An acknowledgement that there are farmers that are doing it tough is certainly reflected in some of the announcements that I have made today, and further detail will be provided by the Minister for Agriculture.

Bev McARTHUR: Do you agree that farmers are – by and large, whether there is a drought or not – asset rich and cash poor?

Jaclyn SYMES: There are a range of farm businesses. I will not reflect on them as one homogenous group.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, you do not have any understanding of the primary production industry and farmers in this state, obviously. But I want to go to the MAV, which you keep referring to having had discussions with. They are moving a motion tomorrow at their state council, and one of the points is to:

Delay and Adjust Implementation of the ESVF Changes:

Delay the implementation of the Principal Place of Residence … obligation under the ESVF beyond 1 July 2026 to allow for a more practical, cost-effective, and consistent verification process.

Are you open to agreeing to that?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, I have met with the MAV. The Minister for Local Government has met with the MAV. My office have met with FinPro and the Revenue Management Association, together with the MAV. DTF have subsequently met with MAV. I appreciate their constructive feedback. We have made some adjustments based on their advocacy. In relation to their outstanding matters, I will be happy to continue discussing with them, but it is our intention to implement this legislation as announced.

Bev McARTHUR: Further to that point that they are going to debate tomorrow and that they want you to change, they want you to:

Explore alternative approaches to PPR verification, such as leveraging existing State Government data, to minimize duplication and inefficiency.

Are you open to that?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, we will be having further conversations with the MAV.

Bev McARTHUR: We are here debating this egregious tax today. We cannot wait for your further discussions; we need your answers now, and the MAV clearly did not get answers that they wanted or found acceptable from you. So to just say to this audience now that you are going to have further discussions with people when you have had months to get this sorted out and when the MAV, that is 79 councils in Victoria, clearly do not agree with how you are approaching this issue – we should not have to accept your assurance that you are having more discussions with people. That is totally unacceptable.

Another point they want to take up with you is conducting an economic impact assessment. They want you to:

Undertake an economic impact study evaluating how levy increases will affect residents, local businesses, and overall community well-being.

Are you open to that?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, we have announced funding. We are working with MAV on an implementation package. There are some changes that do not come in until after a delay of 12 months, to make sure that there is time to work through some of those implementation issues.

Bev McARTHUR: Going back to the rebate – which seems an odd name, I agree – if an individual property can get a rebate before paying why do they need to apply? Why doesn’t the government just pay all the volunteers their rebate to assist them to pay their rates notice?

Jaclyn SYMES: Well, not every volunteer is seeking an exemption from the levy. In fact I have had a cohort of volunteers who believe that it is not in the spirit of why they volunteer. I think that people who give up their time should access this rebate, and I will be encouraging people to do so. One of the things that we heard loud and clear from volunteers who are also farmers that might have a principal place of residence in town was the ability to apply it to their farm property. What we are facilitating is a process that I hope can be as straightforward as possible. You upload the rates notice of your choice, you put in your ID number and your bank details, and it should be facilitated that way. We think this is a good method. The Service Victoria app already deals with some rebates, and it is a straightforward platform that we believe is the right platform to deliver people’s rebates if they choose.

Nick McGOWAN: Treasurer, just following on from that, is it correct to say that the rebate only applies to one rateable property?

Jaclyn SYMES: A volunteer, if they have multiple properties, can choose the rebate to apply to one. If you own multiple properties, you can choose which property you apply the rebate to. I would assume that when your rebate for a principal place of residence is worth around $250 but your farm rebate is worth $4000, you are probably going to use your farm rate notice.

Georgie CROZIER: Treasurer, just going on from the uploading, what about those Victorians and some of these volunteers who might not be active on the front line but they are still volunteers in their communities – they might have an admin role with the CFA or do some other thing. What if they do not have the capacity to upload – they are not technologically savvy? What do those people do that do not have that capacity? Many farmers do not have proper internet connection. There are black holes all over Victoria. It is just a disgrace in 2025 that farmers all over Victoria cannot access basic telecommunication services like other parts of Victoria can. What do those Victorians do?

Jaclyn SYMES: I anticipate a range of measures to help people access this rebate. I think our electorate offices would be quite well placed to help people, just as they helped with the power saving bonus, for instance, and libraries. I would expect BASOs and the like – brigade administration support officers – at the CFA would be able to provide some information for their members. They are very good at helping them do those types of things. We will be making sure everyone knows that you can access a rebate, and if we identify any kind of challenges to people accessing it then we will take action, whether it is through a community house or something like that. As I said, I want to make this easy and accessible for people who want to access it.

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Jaclyn SYMES: Well, what is the alternative – not provide a rebate?

Nick McGOWAN: I just want to pick up on where member Crozier I think was headed some time ago in respect to the enforcement of the rebates, because your answer in respect to the reason why the SRO was not doing the job of collecting it themselves was because of course they are not a collection agency. What is the lawful basis for the enforcement of the rebate program?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr McGowan, Service Victoria, which holds the platform that you would apply for your rebate on, can check and validate your material in much the same way as for people who apply for solar panel rebates and the like. They are used to checking information. If information comes to light about somebody being fraudulent and the like, in theory you could refer these matters to Victoria Police. But as I said, this is a system that we want to be as easy as possible, and we are not overly focused on enforcement of people doing the wrong thing; we are more focused on ensuring that it is not difficult for those that deserve it.

Nick McGOWAN: Thank you, Treasurer, for that answer, because that does go to member Crozier’s point. It appears from the answer you have just given that in fact no-one is responsible for enforcement of the rebate program, because there is no lawful basis for it other than, as you said, as a last recourse that someone should actually lodge a complaint with the police should they ever go down that path.

Jaclyn SYMES: The chances of this occurring are pretty slim, because CFA and VICSES already have the centralised data available of who their members are. They have to first provide the individual with verification that they are a volunteer. So unless we are going to see multiple parties colluding, it is going to be pretty difficult to falsify.

Nick McGOWAN: Where the rates notice is in two names, because very often people’s property is obviously in two names, not just one name, is that a partial rebate or is it a full rebate depending on whether both people are volunteers or just one?

Jaclyn SYMES: It is a full rebate for the volunteer. So notice, put in your ID, get your rebate. You do not get two rebates for one property.

David Davis: But do you get half a rebate? If George and Mildred have the house and Mildred is a volunteer and George is not –

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, I understand the question. No, you can get the full rebate if you are one of the people named.

Nick McGOWAN: Okay. So just to be clear, notwithstanding the fact that the rates notice is in two names and only one of the individuals is a volunteer, that rates notice is applicable for a full rebate of the entire sum, notwithstanding the 50 per cent ownership, presumably, of the other person or persons or however many other names are on that rates notice.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes.

Nick McGOWAN: Can you help me understand the logic for excluding professional firefighters? I appreciate you might respond that it is part of their enterprise bargaining. Nonetheless firefighters, as we know, on the way to work or on the way home and throughout the course of their daily life also volunteer. You read about this repeatedly in the media. We see instances of this quite frequently. What is the logic in excluding professional firefighters from the rebate?

Jaclyn SYMES: The decision is to provide a rebate for volunteers, not paid emergency services personnel, regardless of whether they are firefighters or sit at Triple Zero Victoria or in the State Control Centre, unless of course they are also an SES or CFA volunteer.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, what happens then if Mildred and Fred have got a second property and they are both volunteers? Can one claim the rebate on the second property and one on the first? How are Mildred and Fred going to handle this?

Jaclyn SYMES: In the example that you have provided, if you have two names on a rates notice and you have two properties, one is a PPR and one is a farm, one person could take the rebate for the farm, and the other person could take the rebate for the principal place of residence. But it is only the farm where you get to choose whether it is your principal place of residence or a farm. If you own a holiday house and have a principal place of residence, you can only apply for the rebate on your principal place of residence.

Bev McARTHUR: What if Mildred and Fred have got four children and there are four property titles in the enterprise and they all actually work on the farm? Can Susie, James, Jane and Sally apply for a rebate? They are volunteers. Can they apply for the rebate on the other four property titles?

Jaclyn SYMES: I am reluctant to give individual advice when it comes to different farming arrangements and the like, but we have ensured that it can apply to a range of farming interests and trust arrangements and the like. So I do not want to say yes, because it might vary depending on the way that the arrangements are made. But yes, one person can apply if they are eligible.

Bev McARTHUR: Now let us go to the trust situation. So the property is in trust and there are multiple volunteers living on the property, which is a trust. How does that work? They all are entitled to a share of the dividends of that trust received from that property. Can the trust members apply for a rebate if they are volunteers?

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, Mrs McArthur, the rebate can only be claimed once for a particular type of property per –

Bev McARTHUR: The trust might have multiple owners.

Jaclyn SYMES: Well, yes, but without knowing the details of the trust and the ownership arrangements, I am reluctant. We have made it that it applies to a range of ownership arrangements and have tried to be as fair as possible in relation to that, but I cannot comment on individual circumstances.

Bev McARTHUR: But if you have worked through all these scenarios, where there are trusts, multiple titles, multiple companies, multiple volunteers, surely you have the information that you can provide the committee at this stage.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, I think probably answering it rather than applying it to specific examples would be best. So if you are a beneficiary of a trust that owns the property, you can receive the rebate. Let us go with that.

David DAVIS: A shareholder in a company?

Jaclyn SYMES: It has got to be an owner of the property.

Nick McGOWAN: When lenders determine the debt-to-income ratio for properties, they will be required to take into consideration this new tax, because they will not factor in the automatic assumption – and it is an assumption – that that person will continue to be a volunteer. So isn’t it a fact that this will actually make it harder for people to be able to get a loan, whether it be for a house, whether it be for a farm, whether it be for any enterprise where this tax is applicable?

Jaclyn SYMES: That is not the advice I have, Mr McGowan, and it is outside the bill.

Nick McGOWAN: I am sorry, Treasurer, I am just a bit intrigued by your answer. I missed part of it. The advice you received is that is not the case? How could it not be the case that, factually speaking, when you have a greater debt to service, because the debt is a regular, predictable, measurable, certain thing, because it is a tax from the government, and the banks know this so they factor that in, according to your property value and the financial year, that somehow does not have a bearing on the debt-to-income ratio?

Jaclyn SYMES: The second part of my answer, Mr McGowan, was that it is not directly related to this bill. But what might be of interest or what might be useful is that for a median house, for example, it is just over an extra dollar a week.

Nick McGOWAN: You raise an interesting question, Treasurer. It is over an extra dollar a week for the median house. The median price, as I understand it, is $171 as I stand here, and you propose to increase it by 100 per cent. That is closer to $400. What is your understanding of the median price that home owners who are not exempt or not entitled to a rebate will now be paying under this tax? In metropolitan Melbourne, I am talking.

Jaclyn SYMES: You keep talking about a 100 per cent increase. It is not a 100 per cent increase on the amount that you will be paying. The median house is $680,000. If you own a median house, you will be paying around an extra $65 under the changes, not 100 per cent more.

Nick McGOWAN: To reiterate member Davis’s question: from what to what? What is your expectation of what the median cost is to each household in the metropolitan area?

Jaclyn SYMES: Going from $191 to $256 is the proposal.

David DAVIS: Just to pick up a couple of points there and then to maybe move to a couple of new points, residential renters – you are a volunteer, you are a renter, you pay for the levy via your rent. The landlord passes it through – of course they do. Is there any recognition in that circumstance?

Jaclyn SYMES: It will be available to property owners.

David DAVIS: In the same way as you looked at the median house price, we had a long discussion earlier about the City of Port Phillip and their views and their correspondence to a number of MPs over recent days. They said the new levy will raise approximately $37.7 million in 2025–26, up from $24 million in 2024–25, a $13.7 million increase – 57 per cent. If I look at other municipalities in my area, for example, the City of Boroondara, what is the current collection of the levy out of the City of Boroondara?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, I do not have that information to hand.

David DAVIS: Could you get it for the committee? You might want to see if we can get it for the 79 municipalities – the current collection rate out of the municipalities.

Jaclyn Symes interjected.

David DAVIS: Yes, you can.

Jaclyn SYMES: I can check with the Minister for Local Government, but I think you have obtained that information directly from the council. Councils might be well placed to provide that information.

David DAVIS: I am using Boroondara; these are municipalities in my own area, but this would apply to Glen Eira, Monash and all the other councils in my area. The government, through the SRO, must know the amount that is collected. You must have that available, and you must have estimates of how much is going to be collected in each council subsequently. I would actually seek that from you, and you may not be able to get it immediately. We have got a bit of time. We will have a dinner break in about 20 minutes. It might just be possible to get that. I would have thought that was easily obtainable: in the first instance the current amount that is taken out of each municipality by the current arrangements, and then the second thing is what the estimated amount is. I would have thought if you are modelling this you will know pretty much what the estimates are for each and every municipality.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, that is not the way that material is presented to me in relation to the existing levy. I take on notice your question without being able to be sure that I have that information readily available. As I said, it is not something that is presented in that format to me.

David DAVIS: We will have a bit of time over the dinner break. Just to be clear, the municipalities now collect, and therefore the amount must come in from them to the SRO, so the amount per municipality now must be quite easily –

Jaclyn SYMES: I understand what you have asked for. I have said I will have a look at it.

David DAVIS: I am just making the subsequent point that there must have been modelling to understand what you could put in the budget. You must have modelled that up to put it in the midyear update in December when the announcement was –

Jaclyn SYMES: That is what I mean: I have got the total; I have not broken it down.

David DAVIS: You have got the total, but to get the total there must be a breakdown.

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not know the answer to that.

David DAVIS: That would be much appreciated.

Jaclyn SYMES: What do you want it for?

David DAVIS: I want to know how much it is going to cost each municipality and what the breakdown is so we can see the difference in each municipality.

Jaclyn SYMES: The reason I was having a conversation with Mr Davis about some of this information is that certainly with some of the country communities that I have been speaking to their view is, ‘Well, if we’re going to pay this levy, how can we be confident that we’re going to see something for it?’ I have been having those conversations with communities, and I think that is why it is important to identify where the money is spent so that communities can see the benefit of what they are paying for. That is something that communities have raised with me.

David DAVIS: I agree with the essence of what you are saying. One thing that is in my mind here is: where will that money be spent? Will it be hypothecated to the municipalities in which it is collected? Will there be an upgrade in facilities? Or will it be a further sort of tax on certain municipalities that then goes into a big pool and then goes somewhere else? That is one thing I am interested in too.

Jaclyn SYMES: I have been asked this a bit. No, there will not be a direct hypothecation, because that does not really reflect the reality of emergency services. Emergency services respond to where the incident is. For instance, the communities that have been impacted by fire and floods will receive well in advance of anything that they contribute in relation to the emergency services fund just by virtue of the recovery costs and the like. In one sense you want to make sure that you can protect the communities that are hardest hit, but I am also quite conscious that communities do want to see, particularly regional communities – but I do take your point about the communities you have raised – the investment in the trucks, in the fire stations and in upgrades. They visibly want to see what they are contributing to. Again, this is straying outside the bill, but I think in consultation with the Minister for Emergency Services and the agencies, they advise where they need investment. We are very conscious of making sure that all communities benefit from funds when it comes to this particular one that we are talking about today.

Melina BATH: Minister, with the high increases in the rate notices – and clearly there has been a change in the system from the current system to the greater impost – there is a greater administrative impost on councils. What are you doing and what modelling have you done to be able to support those councils – particularly small councils with a low rate base – to deal with this additional impost?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Bath, I do appreciate that you have been out of the chamber –

Melina BATH: No, I have been here for a long time.

Jaclyn SYMES: Have you been here for the whole time?

Melina BATH: Except for 10 minutes.

Jaclyn SYMES: I have gone through the answer to your question in detail more than a couple of times. I have answered your question.

Melina BATH: Minister, with elevated rate notices we are going to have distressed people coming into council offices in a distressed state. What are you going to do to support those front-of-house council staff with their mental health and wellbeing when there is such anger and distress at this additional tax?

Jaclyn SYMES: We are working with MAV and councils in relation to implementation issues and providing funding to support those issues. Councils have certainly indicated to me that they will make it clear to their ratepayers that this is a state government levy, and we are certainly not shying away from that.

Melina BATH: You just said that you will be working with them and there will be some additional funding. What will that look like? What quantum will that look like? How will it be administered? What is the government doing in that space?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Bath, the MAV have been advocating for a bucket of money to assist them to assist councils. I can confirm that we will provide significant funding; I just have not confirmed it to them yet, but it is in the order of $4 million.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: Minister, you mentioned earlier that 73 per cent of the levy money was anticipated to come from metropolitan areas and 27 per cent from regional Victoria, of which, until you had to make some recent changes, 10 per cent was expected to be from primary production land. There are a few questions in that. If the government is not able to enforce the collection of these funds, do you anticipate that there may be a shortfall in that breakdown?

Jaclyn SYMES: I think I can answer that along the lines of, ‘I’ve answered it before.’ There is, obviously, existing experience in delayed payment and the like, so that would have been factored into the estimates of what the fund will bring in. But again, we will come back to the provisions that councils have to deal with hardship and provide payment options for their residents.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: This is a question that comes from a farmer. Has the government modelled the impact this levy will have on food production and food prices if it forces farmers to scale back or walk away?

Jaclyn SYMES: Sorry, Mrs Hermans, I was just following up on your previous answer. What was your question?

Ann-Marie HERMANS: If the minister has any additional information on the previous question, I am happy to take that and then ask this question if that is permitted.

Jaclyn SYMES: I was just double-checking whether there is anything I should offer you in response, and I was told I had covered it – that is all.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: The question was – and as I said, this comes from a farmer and it is in terms of the impact on food production: has the government modelled the impact this levy will have on food production and food prices if it forces farmers to scale back or walk away?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs Hermans, there are a range of factors in relation to the viability of farmers and none more impactful right now than drought conditions. We know that certain farmers are making really challenging decisions. That is why we have a drought package that is currently available, and as I said, the Minister for Agriculture will have more to say off the back of the announcements that I have made. AgVic will be working very closely, providing a range of services to farmers in need.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: I just want to labour this point a little bit more, with a little bit more understanding, because the reality is it is drought today, it might be flood tomorrow, it might be fire next year. This is, as we all know the great southern land, and it is well known, as I have said before, for its fires, its floods and its droughts. Droughts might be impacting one farmer in one part of Victoria while a flood might be impacting another, and not long after that there might be fires in a particular area, so this is not simply about the drought-affected people of today. But the question remains: has the government modelled the impact that this levy will have on food production and food prices if it forces farmers to scale back or walk away?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs Hermans, you have articulated the very sense of reality that people are facing. There are more frequent, more severe emergencies, whether it is storms, floods or fires, impacting communities. That is disproportionately impacting regional Victoria. We want to make sure that they are well supported, whether they live in a regional town or live on a farm, and make sure that our emergency services are best equipped to respond. We also want to help people prepare for and mitigate natural disasters, and there is certainly work in that space. We want to help farmers address emissions and the like. There are lots of programs and a lot of really smart farmers giving advice to government on some of the programs that they think should work in that space.

When disasters occur they do have a large impact on fruit and vegetable prices. The emergency services fund will contribute to disaster mitigation and recovery so that we can help farmers that produce our food recover as quickly as possible. The 2022 floods cost the Victorian economy $900 million, and that was just in direct support; that does not account for lost revenue and the like. But the impact was significant on the agricultural sector. And the support that went into that was 10 times the total annual emergency services volunteer liability for primary production land, which is estimated to be quite a bit less than that. The levy as a percentage of the operating costs of the average farm is small. I acknowledge that people will notice it – I do – and I know that it could be difficult for some people. I also acknowledge that people do not like paying more for their rates, for their bills. I cannot find anyone that says, ‘Yes, I’d like to pay more on my bill.’ It just does not happen. But for this levy we can demonstrate what it is going to be spent on, and when it comes to farmers we want to make sure that we can be there to help them respond and recover.

When it comes to the average increase on a farm it is equal to around 0.6 per cent of the value of the agricultural production – say, for a beef farmer, it is less than probably two steers at market. We are having those conversations, particularly through this debate, about making sure that there are a range of measures that we are looking at for farmers. We do value them. We recognise that they feed us. We want to make sure that we can be there with them in the good times and, unfortunately, as it is right now, some of those harder times.

Bev McARTHUR: It is just a bit hard to hear. What did you say in relation to a beef farmer?

Jaclyn SYMES: The advice that I have in relation to a beef farmer and what I said was that the levy as a percentage of operating costs of an average farm is very small. The average increase on a farm is equal to about –

Bev McARTHUR: What is an average farm?

Jaclyn SYMES: I have gone through this before, Mrs McArthur.

Bev McARTHUR: So what is an average beef farm, Minister?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not have the advice in front of me about an average beef farm, Mrs McArthur.

Bev McARTHUR: Can you find it?

Jaclyn SYMES: It is not part of the bill.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: If farmers are forced to scale back or walk away, can you tell us what modelling the government has done on the impact that this levy will have on food production and food prices? I still have not had an answer to that question about modelling the impact on food production and food prices if farmers are forced to walk away.

Jaclyn SYMES: I answered that, Mrs Hermans. The impact on fruit and vegetable prices when a disaster hits is significant. We want to make sure that we are well resourced to ensure that farmers can recover when the worst happens to them, and that is part of the intention of this levy.

Ann-Marie Hermans: On a point of order, Deputy President, the question is actually on the government’s modelling in terms of the impact this levy will have for those farmers that have to scale back or walk away. Obviously if they scale back and walk away, they will be paying less. Has the government done the modelling on food production and food prices and the impact that this will have on farmers that do have to walk away or reduce their farms and their stock?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I do not think that was a point of order. I think you have just repeated and clarified the question.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs Hermans, unfortunately, you cannot simplify the decision of a farmer to walk away or destock and attribute it to this levy. Right now farmers are seeking advice from Agriculture Victoria in relation to making decisions about their stock and the like because of the drought. There are a range of factors for farmers to make informed decisions about their businesses and their personal circumstances.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: Treasurer, I am actually trying to understand the modelling that the government has done in terms of food prices and food production. Could you please help us to understand the modelling that the government has done in terms of the impact that this will have if areas are no longer farming areas now and they are being reduced – regardless of how. I do not want to hear about the drought again. I am not asking that question, in all due respect. The question is about the modelling that the government has done on food production and food prices. If farmers are producing less, what modelling has the government done on the impact of this levy, if it has that effect?

Jaclyn SYMES: With respect, Mrs Hermans, I have answered your question.

Sitting suspended 6:29 pm until 7:32 pm.

David DAVIS: I am conscious that we have had a short break and we are back into it. I want to start on a slightly new topic within the bill on clause 1. This is the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee report, and SARC has had quite a bit to say. Clause 2 of the bill provides when it comes into operation. It broadens the purposes of the Fire Services Property Levy Act 2012 (FSPL act) and inserts definitions including ‘farm land’, ‘single farm enterprise’, ‘funding recipients’ and so forth. It repeals section 9A of the Fire Services Property Levy Act 2012, which provides that a person could apply for an exemption in relation to a single farm enterprise in certain circumstances. I see when I look at the statement of finances in chapter 5, table 5.2, page 186, of the budget last year the fire services property levy exemption for municipal single farm enterprises – and this was an exemption from the current levy – was $9 million a year. It seems that this disappears. One question I have is: what happens to the $9 million? Then I want to understand which group we are talking about there.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, you were referencing clause 2, which is where I got stuck looking for what you were talking about.

David DAVIS: I am doing this straight out of the SARC report too, so I am just interested to understand some of these points. I thought it was worth covering the SARC report in the main clause.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, can I ask you to break your question down? We are having trouble deciphering exactly what you are after.

David DAVIS: If I just take it from the SARC report on page 10 of the Alert Digest No. 4, March 2025, it repeals section 9A of the FSPL act, which provides that a person could apply for an exemption in relation to a single farm enterprise in certain circumstances. I am trying to understand what group that is, who that is, how many of them there are, where they are – that is my first set of questions.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, I would bring your attention to clause 15, which inserts new section 20A, which replicates that provision. It has been transferred to the new bill by virtue of section 20A. So it is not repealed, it is moved.

David DAVIS: So it is replaced?

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes.

David DAVIS: So which group of people are we talking about there? What is the –

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, again, it says it there in the section. Do you want me to read the section to you? Okay:

A person is entitled, on application to the relevant collection agency, to an exemption from the liability to pay the fixed charge part of the levy amount in respect of a parcel of leviable land if –

the parcel is one of 2 or more parcels of land that constitute a single farm enterprise; and

an exemption is not claimed in respect of at least one of those parcels; and

in the case of a single farm enterprise which is occupied by more than one person, an exemption is not claimed in respect of more than one principal place of residence.

David DAVIS: How many are there – how many people, how many circumstances that fit that description?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not have those details on me.

David DAVIS: Are you able to take it on notice? We are just interested to know exactly how many there are and how much the exemption is intended to cost.

Jaclyn SYMES: It is just the same as it currently is, Mr Davis.

David DAVIS: I just wanted to hear that. And I just want to talk about the section 85 that is inserted. Why did the government feel it necessary to insert a section 85, removing a well-established set of rights under the Victorian constitution? What is the administrative reason? Why are we removing rights against decision-making?

Jaclyn SYMES: Government have made a policy decision and applied a similar approach to similar pieces of legislation.

David DAVIS: Did the government have any estimates of how many cases it was likely to encounter, how many times people were to appeal to the Supreme Court or the like?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, I can just confirm that it is intended to continue as it has under the previous system.

David DAVIS: But actually, Treasurer, we have now got a vastly expanded tax that is going to be much more impactful, and the concern I would have is that for incorrect decisions, honest errors or capricious decisions made on these matters, taxpayers will not have the ability to appeal to the courts – that is the truth, isn’t it?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, I will take that as a statement, but this limitation is necessary. As I explained in similar types of government policy, it is around ensuring efficiency, allowing government to efficiently determine and collect revenue. It would not be the case if the Treasurer’s annual determination were reviewable. This is pretty common practice in relation to legislation such as this.

David DAVIS: If an error is made in the determination or in the assessments that are made for people, what steps does that taxpayer have? What steps or remedies does that taxpayer have?

Jaclyn SYMES: For what?

David DAVIS: If a decision is made and there is some difficulty with the decision, do taxpayers have some legal recourse to review the decision?

Jaclyn SYMES: Taxpayers can challenge the valuation but not the rates that I set.

David DAVIS: And how will you set the rates? What steps will you take in setting the rates? How will you decide what rate is to be set?

Jaclyn SYMES: We have forecast our expectation in relation to the gazettal of rates. But as I have explained today, following consultation with VFF and others, the rates for primary producers are being reduced in line with the feedback we have received.

David DAVIS: It is true, Treasurer, isn’t it, that in the financial cycle next year you could just simply decide on a very high rate for one or another category?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, you are straying outside of the bill, because rate setting is not covered by the bill. Like a number of responsibilities of the Treasurer and indeed other ministers, I am required to consider matters like the annual funding requirements of each of the funding recipients and such matters. But that is not a matter that is contained in the bill.

David DAVIS: Notwithstanding that, this bill contemplates a much higher rate of taxation than has hitherto been the case.

Jaclyn SYMES: The bill does not.

David DAVIS: Well, I am just saying that is the reality of what is going on here. You are putting out a very high rate. Now, perhaps you would like to explain exactly how you have arrived at those rates. That would be my question. How did you arrive at these particular rates, and how can that be reviewed, if at all?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, this line of questioning is outside of the bill. I would encourage you to come back to the contents of the bill. That is the purpose of the committee stage. The Treasurer has always set the rates in relation to the existing levy, and that will be transferred to the new one.

David DAVIS: With respect, the section 85 aspect is in the bill. It is part of the bill.

Jaclyn SYMES: I have explained that.

David DAVIS: You have. I am just saying you have set rates, but how does one challenge those? In this model –

Jaclyn SYMES: It is the same model.

David DAVIS: But this model is contemplating a much higher rate of taxation. That is what you are introducing – a higher rate of taxation. How did you arrive at those new rates? How did they come around? Did you just dream them up? Who invented them? Was it like the Ten Commandments and you found them in the desert? How did you arrive at these numbers?

Jaclyn SYMES: To answer within the confines of the bill, my house amendments go to the issues that you are referring to in the fact that the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund cannot raise more than what the emergency services need, for instance. But in relation to the setting of the rates, that is not a matter for this bill except for the section that we have discussed. I have answered your questions in relation to that section.

David DAVIS: With respect, it is a matter in this bill in the sense that the decisions that are made are not reviewable, are not able to be challenged. That is the whole purpose of the section 85. It removes the ancient rights in our constitution to seek a review of decisions, in this case a minister’s decision, in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Now, the section 85 crushes that right. That is what it does – it removes the right to challenge that decision.

Jaclyn SYMES: The right did not exist. So I am removing it?

David DAVIS: No. But I am just saying now you have got a new situation coming where there will still be no right to challenge because this new legislation has that approach, but you are contemplating a much heavier burden of taxation. So you have got a minister making heavy decisions, and there is no review. These are much heavier taxation levels, and there are differences in how this has been struck. Now, I am just asking a simple question: how did you arrive at these decisions? Was it some sort of dream, or was it tablets on Mount Sinai? What was the thing that enabled you to come to the new rates that you are proposing to strike? I note you have said today you are going to tweak some of the farm rates, but this actually raises the question even further: how are these rates derived?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, there is a lot of advice that goes into these types of decisions. As has been revealed in the draft rates that were released by the former Treasurer, the average house is seeing an increase of around $1.25 a week. We are certainly looking at the farmer rate, as I have indicated, and taking feedback in relation to that. There are a range of considerations that go into these matters, but I am not going to have further conversations about something that is outside of the bill. I have answered your questions.

David DAVIS: Let us be very clear here. A set of decisions has been made on rates. We have tweaked one of the rates in the last 24 hours, so leaving that aside – and any reduction is welcome, but it is a very modest movement as I understand it – this bill crushes the right to review your decision.

Jaclyn SYMES: No, it does not. It replicates the former bill.

David DAVIS: No, but this is actually what it does. No-one can challenge your decision at law. No-one can say that you have made a wrongful decision for capricious reasons, in error. I do not know if you know the Oswestry case in Britain many years ago. This was about a decision-maker who made a set of decisions that no reasonable minister could make or could be seen to make. So there is actually case law on this sort of decision-making. But this of course crushes the right of anyone to appeal against your decision, your allocation of these capricious rates. These are new, they have been struck higher, and my question is: why? What is the basis for the particular rates that have been struck? We know that they can be unstruck now and changed –

Bev McArthur: And how did you come to that decision?

David DAVIS: That is another question. There has got to be some answer to how you arrived at these decisions. For example, let me be clear here: you must have had a brief or some advice from the department. I do not actually think you dreamed it up, and I do not actually –

Jaclyn SYMES: I was not the Treasurer at the time.

David DAVIS: Okay. So a different Treasurer made these decisions and you have stuck with them. You have just modified this one a little. Can we see the brief on which he made that decision to strike a rate which is now going to be put into law? Can we see that brief, please?

Jaclyn SYMES: No, Mr Davis. Executive privilege and the protection of frank and fearless advice would be consistent that I would –

David Davis interjected.

Jaclyn SYMES: I would refer you to the new divisions of the bill that set out some of the things that would be considered in relation to the emergencies and volunteer funding levy – the annual charge, the things that must be considered. I think if you look at that, you will see some of the issues that the government would be getting advice on and considering in relation to levy setting. Clause 13, for example, goes through the fact that you should look at the annual funding requirements of the funding recipients in the levy year in which the determination is made, any likely changes to the funding requirements for the funding recipients in the following levy year, any surplus financial assets for the funding recipients, any shortfall in the collection of the levy, the administrative costs of collection agencies in performing functions and any other matter that the minister considers relevant to the proper determination of the levy rates. So that would give you an indication of some of the material that would be presented to me, or any Treasurer, in relation to determining the rates.

David DAVIS: I thank the Treasurer for shedding some light on some of the matters that were considered, and I would ask the question: were those matters considered in this case by the former Treasurer? Can you answer that?

Jaclyn SYMES: Absolutely, because he sought that advice from the then Minister for Emergency Services.

David DAVIS: Can we see that advice from the emergency services minister on this matter?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, I will not be furnishing documents as to the nature of what you have requested. I have taken you through the considerations, and some of it is on the public record in relation to the budgets of the agencies. You actually read them out to me right at the start of the debate, so a lot of that information is already at hand.

David DAVIS: I am just still very concerned that we have got a new taxation regime, a heavier burden. Rates have been struck, as we have heard now, by a former Treasurer and modified today by the current Treasurer in relation to one class of property, but we still have no formal notes or information about exactly how that decision was arrived at. For example, we could be nervous that it might have been a weak budgetary position that drove the decision of the then Treasurer to strike this rate. Can the Treasurer rule that out or indicate if there was another matter that was involved?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund is proposed to 100 per cent go to emergency services. I cannot be any clearer than that.

David DAVIS: We understand the destination of the money that will be raised from a range of taxpayers across the country – every piece of land in the state of Victoria, all 79 councils and probably French Island, which I do not think is in a municipality, so there will be another zone there. Right across the state the rates have been struck, and what you are actually arguing here, Treasurer, is that the taxpayers and the Parliament are in some way not entitled to see the minister’s decision here. These are massive new rates, and the taxpayers of Victoria are not entitled to see the reasons and decisions that the then Treasurer made. That is not satisfactory in my view. You may wish to comment on that. Perhaps you can tell us whether you think it is satisfactory for a new and high tax to be levied without an explanation for how that rate has been struck.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, when items are gazetted these are the types of questions that would generally be addressed. I think, as I have indicated, the scheme is designed to not have a huge impost on ordinary home owners – those people that have a mortgage and have their one house and do not have investment properties and the like. We are trying to be as fair as possible across the board in relation to capacity to pay. That is why I have taken feedback in relation to farmers and their concerns that the rate was too high. That is why I have forecast a change to that. But, Mr Davis, there is nothing different in the rate setting under this proposed model that was not in existence in the previous model, and it will be my responsibility to explain the rates to the public when they are set.

David DAVIS: Sorry, are you saying that you do not need to explain the rates?

Jaclyn SYMES: No, I said I will.

David DAVIS: You will. But we have already had some determinations, and we have not had that explanation as to how that has been set. You are pointing to future conduct, and I would welcome that if that is true. But I do not think we have that information now.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, I was taking you through some of the considerations in rate setting. It is exactly what I was doing, and I would again point to the fact that this is a matter that happens outside of the bill. At the time of gazettal I am sure that people will ask for an explanation, and I will be able to answer that then, not in the context of this bill.

David DAVIS: These rates have been set for this period, and even though you have now listed some of the matters to be considered, what we do not know is: were those matters considered? Were they determinative? Was it another set of things that drove the decision? We just simply do not know that answer. I think it is wholly unsatisfactory, and I am happy to put that on the record. I think capricious decisions made by the former Treasurer do not fill me with confidence. It is a bit like his penchant for doing Treasurer’s advances. He blew it up to $12 billion in Treasurer’s advances. We all know that –

Jaclyn Symes: On a point of order, Deputy President, Mr Davis is providing a lot of commentary. We are here to take questions on the clauses of the bill, and if we can stick to the bill, I would appreciate that. We are just getting some thoughts and feelings from Mr Davis, and I would appreciate it if we could come back to questions on the bill.

David DAVIS: In response, as I was saying, I am at the point on this where I have asked the questions and the answers are unsatisfactory in my humble view, and I am putting that on the record. I am not intending to pursue it any further, as I was indicating a moment ago. But I think this is a major flaw in the process. I think a section 85 statement removes the capacity of a taxpayer or a class of taxpayers to challenge the determination or decision of the Treasurer in this matter. If that is the case, I just think that is a troubling outcome. I know your point is there was a similar section 85 statement previously, and the truth is there are section 85 statements in other pieces of legislation, but I do not think it is regarded as best practice at all. I think this is materially different because of the scale of the new tax take and the clobbering of certain classes of taxpayer.

Nick McGOWAN: Just to aid my understanding, is it correct to say that concession card holders will not be entitled to either a rebate or a reduction in the tax of any kind?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr McGowan, concessions for the rebate – sorry, can you be clearer?

Nick McGOWAN: Concession card holders – would they be eligible?

Jaclyn SYMES: Would they be eligible if they are accessing and they are a volunteer?

Nick McGOWAN: I heard you state earlier ‘if they were a concession card holder’.

Jaclyn SYMES: Accessing the rebate as a volunteer?

Nick McGOWAN: Just because they are a concession card holder.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, concession card holders will still be eligible, as they are under the existing framework.

Nick McGOWAN: Just to be clear, is that under the hardship provisions or is that under a separate exemption model?

Jaclyn SYMES: It is not a hardship provision, it is a concession provision that already exists.

Nick McGOWAN: Just to assist in my understanding, because rates obviously can be paid either in one instalment or in multiple instalments, does the government receive its payment, its tax, in the first instalment and therefore is it not relevant whether there are multiple instalments or one?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr McGowan, my advice is that if the local council received payments in instalments, they can pass it to the state in instalments also.

Nick McGOWAN: Treasurer, could you also assist me in terms of the inputs that arrive at the calculation of $1.25 per week?

Jaclyn SYMES: I went through this earlier when I was explaining that the current rate of $191 is proposed to increase by $65 a year. If you divide that by the weeks of the year, you get around $1.25.

Nick McGOWAN: The reason I ask is that on the State Revenue Office website, if you use the calculator at the moment, it would appear, is it not correct, that they have already updated their website as though this bill had already become an act? Is that your understanding?

Jaclyn SYMES: I have not been on the SRO website for a little while, so I do not know the answer to that. I would suggest that when you are on the website they have a range of calculators that enable you to plan and the like, so there could be some forecasting assumptions there to help people plan and the like. They have got some useful tools on there; I suspect that is what that would be.

Nick McGOWAN: I also assume, because I think the figure you gave earlier on was $650,000 – is that not correct?

Jaclyn SYMES: Can I just clarify? I just received some advice. The website is not pre-empting the outcome of the bill, and the calculator is not currently usable for the 2025–26 rate. I have had some people with fast fingers just check that.

Nick McGOWAN: While we are checking figures, I am just curious – and further to member Davis’s points – how did you arrive at the 95 per cent figure for the CFA?

Jaclyn SYMES: It was just based on consultation and feedback and advice in the normal way that government determine policy.

Nick McGOWAN: Treasurer, it seems like a very vague response, with all due respect. I know that from time to time when I have worked in government – it has been a while, admittedly – there is, as Mr Davis pointed out before, a great number of details, a number of briefs that go into making these considerations, unless of course they are completely random and they are completely made up. Ninety-five seems to be quite strange. Nonetheless, what was the basis for the decision to make the Victorian SES 95 per cent?

Jaclyn SYMES: I will see if there is anything to add other than what I have already said.

Mr McGowan, the whole purpose of the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund and the levy is about funding our emergency services, and in relation to the CFA and SES, giving them a guarantee of 95 per cent of their funding is representation of a sustainable funding model. They cannot drop below that in relation to allocations from the levy, so it is futureproofing these organisations and giving them the confidence of the sustainable funding model. That is the purpose of the legislation and why those rates are set relatively high.

Nick McGOWAN: That would be true, Minister, were it not for the fact that this is not actually guaranteeing their funding at all. All this guarantees is the proportion of funding, as you have illustrated and pointed out to us earlier this evening. That is to say, it is up to individual ministers to determine, in conjunction with the Treasurer and the Premier, their relevant budgets. So it does not actually guarantee anything. All it guarantees is that whatever that budget is, 90 or 95 per cent of it will come from a certain source as opposed to consolidated revenue.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, Mr McGowan, you are not wrong. It would be good if we could futureproof these agencies. They have been subjected to Liberal government cuts in the past. We believe that the 95 per cent levy is a good way of discouraging that type of behaviour.

Nick McGOWAN: I suppose it begs the obvious question: why not 100 per cent for all?

Jaclyn SYMES: Why wouldn’t it be?

Nick McGOWAN: Yes.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr McGowan, it was never contemplated to be 100 per cent to ensure contributions from consolidated revenue remain.

Nick McGOWAN: That leads me nicely on to Triple Zero at 47 per cent. Poor Triple Zero – why were they so lowly in the sights of this government? What did they do wrong?

Jaclyn SYMES: Sorry, I was giving an indication of how the fund could be allocated. The only legislative requirement is in respect to the SES, FRV and CFA. There is no legislated percentage requirement in the bill for the other agencies. I was just earlier forecasting a spread of around 47 per cent that could be allocated to the others that would accommodate the legislative requirements for the first three.

Nick McGOWAN: So, to use your phraseology, Triple Zero has no guarantee of any funding level whatsoever from this new levy?

Jaclyn SYMES: What has been important to many of the stakeholders is that the intention is that the funding is dedicated to frontline service support. It is not intended to be the entire budget of an agency such as TZV. It can be up to 95 per cent of ERV and TZV, but it has not got a minimum requirement.

Nick McGOWAN: I want to take a step back for a moment, because some of the preamble, certainly from this afternoon or this evening, related to the increasing need. If I look at the SES incidents – because part of the rationale for this great big new tax of course is not only climate change but the draw on the volunteers and so forth – the SES incidents are actually down 20 per cent over the last three years, according to the annual reports. In 2021–22 there were 36,975 incidents, in 2022–23 there were 32,985 incidents and in 2023–24 there were 31,512 incidents. Doesn’t that make it very difficult to justify the rationale that more is needed if we are doing less, notwithstanding we cannot necessarily generalise about the incidents themselves?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr McGowan, it is without a doubt that the requirements on VICSES volunteers have increased. If you visit any SES station, they will tell you that. If you attend any local SES, they will tell you how busy their call-outs are. Between 2009 and 2013 VICSES averaged around 20,000 call-outs a year. Over the last three years they have averaged around 35,000 call-outs a year. You would appreciate that there would be a spike in turnouts during a flood event, and the commitment and work of the SES volunteers during the floods was phenomenal right across the state where all of those impacts were. We had floods and storms literally on the same day. We have had SES volunteers turning out any time of night, and that is certainly the motivation for the government to support and recognise VICSES which really started off this whole conversation about a new levy. I am very proud to support the Victorian SES, and I am very proud to give them recognition in legislation that has been reserved just for our fire services. They are just as valued, and I think expanding this to them is something that everyone should get behind.

Nick McGOWAN: I agree. We find some common ground at least in respect to how proud we are of our SES services and the job they do. No-one is questioning that for a moment. But you have just quoted back to me the average of I think you said 35,000 over the last three years. Now, that is not borne out in the annual reports from the SES themselves, and I have just quoted those last three years, with the highest being in the order of 37,000, the lowest being 32,000. I was never great at maths, but my quick maths tells me it is certainly not 35, no matter which way you cut that pie.

Jaclyn SYMES: My advice is that it is. But nonetheless, Mr McGowan, when you are talking to SES volunteers that are responding to floods and storms, they attend incidents with other emergency services in terms of supporting road closures and the like, and a lot of units are also turning out as road crash rescue units in relation to their expertise in relation to that. I do not question the amount of work that they are putting in as unpaid volunteers.

Nick McGOWAN: Well, as we speak, some 33 brigades have decided to go off line, so I think certainly in respect to the CFA that speaks volumes. Minister, your amendments may well take care of what I am about to ask you, but do you still intend for this bill to cover the cost of the emergency management commissioner?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr McGowan, the bill goes through the funding recipients and has a definition of who is covered, and it includes the emergency management commissioner and Emergency Management Victoria (EMV) and indeed some roles of the State Control Centre, which is obviously also in the remit of the commissioner. It also is, in relation to those general related activities, looking at Emergency Recovery Victoria, the emergency alert program and the emergency management operational communication program, which is also known as EM-COP.

Bev McARTHUR: Treasurer, I will just go to unintended consequences of this egregious tax bill – some might say totally predictable consequences. Right now I am reliably informed that three-quarters of Victoria is unprotected; 130 brigades are off line, and the rest are likely to go off soon. Volunteers that you are saying you are supporting have walked. Do you accept and have you factored in this unintended consequence of the fact that CFA brigades are now putting down their tools and are no longer servicing the role that they have so generously and bravely served for so long as a consequence of your actions today?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, I understand that there are questions and concerns around the bill, and I think that is what we are trying to work through the evening. As I have indicated, this is about providing increased funding for our CFA brigades. This is about supporting our volunteers. We value our volunteers. This is about respecting them, and I maintain that is the purpose of this bill. In relation to the crossover with farmer concerns, I acknowledge and have listened to those concerns, and we have responded in relation to some changes. I acknowledge that people would like to see further reductions, but it is also why we have announced some drought measures, with more information in relation to that to come.

Bev McARTHUR: It has gone up. There are now 160 brigades off line, and it is rising. So what are you going to do about that, Minister?

Jaclyn SYMES: I appreciate your representations, Mrs McArthur, and I do not mean in any way to make light of or dismiss them, but it is not relevant to the bill, nor is it relevant to my role as Treasurer. We will continue to have conversations with people who will be beneficiaries of this legislation about changes in relation to the increased funding, the new trucks, the additional training and the like, and I am sure the matters that you have referred to will be a matter for the CFA and the minister. But there is no advice that I have in relation to those matters that are connected to the bill that I can share with you at this time.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, that is most disingenuous. These firefighters – volunteer firefighters – are also largely farmers. That is why they are laying down their tools, because you have imposed this egregious tax on them. But what are you going to do? If the volunteers walk off the job, what are you going to do to keep Victoria safe?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, I have spent a lot of time with volunteers across a lot of agencies, including the CFA, and what motivates them to turn out and volunteer is commitment to their communities and wanting to protect them. As you have indicated, there are farmers who are also CFA volunteers that I think you are suggesting are potentially the ones that are acting in the manner that you have suggested. That is why we have provided exemptions for farmers who are also CFA volunteers. We are very much aware of the amount of time and effort that farmers in particular go to in protecting their communities, because there are very often a large cohort of CFA volunteers who are farmers. That has been something that has been front of mind in the development of this policy, and it is what brought about the exemption in the first place, the particular consideration of farmers who are also CFA volunteers.

Bev McARTHUR: I do not think you get it, Minister. These volunteers, whether they are farmers, tradespeople, people in towns or wherever they are, are walking in unison in opposition to this tax. And not only the volunteers but the professional firefighters as well are furious about what you are doing in this space. You have not told us what you are actually going to do to keep Victoria safe. When the volunteer brigades are no longer in operation, are the professional firefighters going to be able to pick up the load of the volunteer firefighters as they walk off the job?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, I have answered your question, but I will just reconfirm that the funding that would be raised in relation to changes that we are proposing will be about funding new trucks, new technology, ensuring that people have the latest radios, equipment, uniforms and the like. That is the intention of raising the funds, so that we can support our emergency services.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, it is appalling, quite frankly, that you think you can buy people off by saying they can get a new uniform or a new truck, and that is what you are doing to ensure that we keep Victoria safe. You just do not get the picture. But I will go to another aspect of it. We have now got wives of farmers at home making sure they get the guns out of the gun cupboard and store them somewhere else, such is the state of concern in many of these rural communities. What are you going to do to keep everybody safe, actually, but particularly the people that are most egregiously affected by this tax, two of whom have already taken their lives this week? What are you doing with this tax, which is compounded by the state of the economy and, in rural Victoria, the drought and the cost rises that have been incurred exponentially in so many areas, largely brought about by everything that happens in this city? There are now people that are very concerned about their own personal safety and the safety of their loved ones. Exactly what are you going to do? Are you just going to continue to charge ahead and make sure these people pay this tax or are billed for this tax, regardless of what the circumstances are? And saying that you have reduced the farm rate by some tiddling amount is disingenuous as well. I mean, how did you come up with that figure? But really – what are you going to do for the families that are now very concerned about their own safety and that of their loved ones?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, as someone who grew up in regional Victoria, most of the funerals that I attended before I turned 30 were people who were under 30 who had either committed suicide, many of them farmers or children of farmers, or died in car accidents. I am fully aware of the mental health impacts in many regional areas. That is why we have a range of measures as a government that is always looking at mental health support, suicide prevention and the like. That is outside of my responsibility, but you referenced the impact of drought on people’s mental health. As part of any drought package you always have programs that ensure that people who are struggling know where to get assistance. I am wanting to respond to that because you raised it. Of course I want to respond to that, but it is technically outside the scope of the bill. But I did want to give you the courtesy of responding.

Nick McGOWAN: I want to take us back to earlier this evening when Dr Mansfield asked you a question with respect to the numbers of firefighters, the firefighters ratio. Minister, perhaps I got the impression from you that you are not sure where this came from – certainly that is the impression I was left with. Yet here I have a copy of a Fair Work Commission document; I am happy to table it and provide it to the house. It is from the government’s lawyers – I am sure you are familiar with it, Treasurer – and in this they specifically include as part of their discussions and part of the negotiations clause 5, which says:

Clauses setting out minimum staffing numbers and/or incorporating Schedule 1 which sets out the Minimum Staffing Charts.

This document is dated 17 November 2023, so this is something I am sure you are aware of. That, I would suggest to you strongly, is where it commenced, if not some time before that, in fact. Is it the fact that this government has now – I trust – walked away from any attack on professional firefighters and their staffing ratios?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr McGowan, my confusion was that I was unclear as to how anyone could surmise from the bill that there was any intention to reduce minimum firefighter numbers in relation to FRV. I just cannot see the connection between that and this bill. The response that I provided to Dr Mansfield was because I had heard commentary about the connection, I wanted to make it very, very, clear that that is not what the bill is doing, and more broadly there is no intention from the government to reduce firefighter numbers.

Nick McGOWAN: Well, it would be logical, would it not, Treasurer, given that this bill, as you say, actually allows for the guaranteed funding of FRV now up to 90 per cent? I know it was less than that yesterday, but it is now up to 90 per cent. And it would be fair to say that professional firefighters, the United Firefighters Union and the community generally, extrapolate that if you are providing that guarantee, then of course it is relevant to the staffing ratios, because staffing ratios go a long way to determining the budget, as you well know.

Jaclyn SYMES: No, Mr McGowan. In relation to FRV’s funding, it is a flat 90 per cent. But again I am more than happy to put on record that there is no intention of the government through this bill or any other mechanism to remove safe firefighter staffing levels. It is just not something that we have contemplated.

Nick McGOWAN: Treasurer, you may also be well aware that with the Fair Work Commission, the evidence from the FRV themselves – not the union, but the FRV themselves – is that they are actually receiving less than they require in terms of their budget. That is, their budget is insufficient. This goes to my point earlier on that if a minister – not you, but a minister in conjunction with you perhaps and in conjunction with the Premier and the other subcommittees of cabinet – decides that the budget will be reduced, you may be funding it by 90 per cent, but that 90 per cent may still be a reduced budget which is insufficient for that organisation to run efficiently or properly.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr McGowan, you and I have had a conversation on this topic, but the FRV budget is not part of the contents of this bill – only the contribution to the budget, not the setting of the budget.

Nick McGOWAN: I spoke a little earlier about the emergency management commissioner. What is the wage of the emergency management commissioner?

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, that is not relevant to this bill, and I do not have that at hand.

Nick McGOWAN: I fail to see how the emergency management commissioner is not relevant to this bill given that his or her title is specifically mentioned and his or her wage is specifically allowed by this bill. It is entirely relevant to this bill, I would suggest to the house.

Jaclyn SYMES: Their wage is not relevant, Mr McGowan.

Nick McGOWAN: Perhaps you misunderstand. I am not interested in the individual concerned – that is, the person’s name and their identity. This is a position of appointment. The scales themselves exist, as you and I both know, in terms of the schedules that exist. All I am simply asking – and I am sure it is something that is publicly available; it should certainly be in the briefing notes – is what that wage bracket is for the emergency management commissioner, given that you are proposing that this bill, should it become an act, will fund that position.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr McGowan, I am sure that it is publicly available information. I do not have it to hand, and I do not consider it relevant to the clauses of the bill.

Nick McGOWAN: Treasurer, that is sort of like saying it is not relevant to any of this, the extent to which we are debating any of this. It is entirely relevant when you are asking the people of Victoria, through this bill, to fund this position and your justification for that is because it is somehow integral to emergency services.

Jaclyn SYMES: But it does not fund 100 per cent, so what relevance is the actual quantum?

Nick McGOWAN: Well, it is 100 per cent. The quantum is 100 per cent, because it does not differentiate. We know that already. What we do not know is the actual the quantum of it. We know it is 100 per cent in terms of the proportion. We do not know the quantum.

Jaclyn SYMES: I will look it up for you. Let us google it and see what comes up.

Nick McGOWAN: Please do, Minister. While you are doing that, Minister, you might also look up my previous questions: the chief executive of Emergency Management Victoria and of course the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr McGowan, I was going to be helpful and google it for you. I might leave you to do that for the wages of the people that you are interested in. The ESVF is not funding the positions. It puts a proportion of funding from the fund to go into the agencies that I have listed and that are clear to see in the bill under the funding recipients.

Nick McGOWAN: Minister, perhaps we are just not understanding each other, but this bill clearly funds, as you have said – funds, because they are listed as recipients, as you rightly say – these three positions. It is entirely appropriate, I would say – indeed it would be prudent – to share with this committee the value. We know that there is no differential in terms of whether it is a percentage, because it is the full 100 per cent, so all we are asking is for you to share and be transparent with the Victorian people as to the quantum – that is, how much are the Victorian people now going to be paying an emergency management commissioner? Regardless, it is not a question of their identity, their personal identity, the chief executive to Emergency Management Victoria and the secretary of the department. I also ask this in the context of earlier today, when in response to a different question you told us this was not about funding the bureaucrats, and yet here we are funding the chief bureaucrat for the Department of Justice and Community Safety.

Jaclyn SYMES: No, we are not.

Nick McGOWAN: I will read the words to you:

…the Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety to the extent that the Secretary is performing functions in relation to emergency management …

What does that mean, Minister?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I explained earlier, the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety has a range of roles that can be performing functions in relation to emergency management. The example that I gave is that in terms of procuring equipment such as radios, that would go through her office. We have committed to providing a detailed breakdown of how these funds will be attributed if the bill is passed. We are not funding the salary of the secretary of the department of justice. In relation to your questions about individual salaries, I do not have them at hand. They are all publicly available material, because executive band salaries are on the public record.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I acknowledge that we have a former member of the Council in the gallery. I would like to welcome Daniel Young, who is now a councillor with the Macedon Ranges shire, and also acknowledge that we have the mayor of the Macedon Ranges shire, Cr Dom Bonanno, with us as well. Thank you for being here.

Nick McGOWAN: Treasurer, what is the estimated monetary value of all the exemptions?

Jaclyn SYMES: Of the rebates?

Nick McGOWAN: Correct.

Jaclyn SYMES: I take your point on the rebates. Let me just triple check.

Mr McGowan, if you would like to move to another question, we are just verifying the numbers, and I will provide that for you. We have the information.

Nick McGOWAN: Treasurer, how many Victorian households will pay the new tax?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr McGowan, the same amount of houses that do now.

Nick McGOWAN: We can make it Melbourne metro if that makes it easier.

Jaclyn SYMES: Let me find out.

Mr McGowan, sorry to circle back, but we are estimating $26 million in rebates, and in relation to the number of Victorian residential properties I will just get a figure on that as well. They are just looking that up.

Nick McGOWAN: Is it $26 million per annum?

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, it is.

Nick McGOWAN: Just to clarify, earlier there was a $4 million figure you gave; was that $1 million for each of the four years? That was in respect to the council support fund.

Jaclyn SYMES: That is an initial $4 million to work through the implementation plan, and I have committed to having ongoing conversations if anything further is required.

Nick McGOWAN: Just to be clear on that, that is $4 million, one would guess, in this coming budget as a one-off with no further payments in the outlying years thus far. Is that correct?

Jaclyn SYMES: Councils are already paid administration fees for the collection. The $4 million is in addition and above that, for implementation issues.

Nick McGOWAN: I would like to understand more about the appliances. You listed today the appliances for the CFA. I wonder whether you can also list where the appliances for the FRV will go.

Jaclyn SYMES: I am not in a position to provide that information, Mr McGowan. You might want to consult with the Minister for Emergency Services, who would seek that advice from FRV.

Nick McGOWAN: Treasurer, you do disappoint me on this one, I must say, if I am being very frank. How is it that we can tell the CFA precisely where their tankers and other appliances will be, yet when it comes to our professional firefighters, who are in dire need of new vehicles, new appliances, we cannot tell them where one of their appliances will be?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr McGowan, we have received advice from CFA and SES in relation to the first locations that they would be allocating vehicles to. We have not yet received that advice from FRV.

Nick McGOWAN: Treasurer, can you outline for the house when the CFA vehicles will actually be put into commission – that is, up and going, not ordered?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr McGowan, that is not a matter for me, it is a matter for the Minister for Emergency Services. This bill will facilitate the funding, but I can assure you that in relation to the CFA there are trucks being built at the moment from previous allocations of funding. What is good about this, if this bill passes, is this is a minimum amount for the three agencies to create a rolling fleet strategy so that they can ensure that their contracts and procurement are best value. But in relation to the details, that is not a matter for the Treasurer, it is a matter for the agencies in conjunction with the minister.

Nick McGOWAN: Well, while the people of Victoria are funding these new vehicles for the CFA, I proffer to suggest to you that it is a fact that not one of these appliances will actually be delivered before the next election is due, and that is the end of next year given the timelines, given where the chassis have to go, given the fit-out, and that no Victorian will see even one of these new appliances until well after the next election at the end of next year.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr McGowan, as I have indicated, there are currently trucks being assembled. I have visited the –

Nick McGOWAN: Yes, but they have been pre-ordered, Minister. What about the ones we are talking about funding now with this new funding?

Jaclyn SYMES: Well, they do not even have the funding yet, Mr McGowan.

Nick McGOWAN: That is right. So my presumption is correct, isn’t it, Minister?

Jaclyn SYMES: What I was asked for in consultation with a lot of communities, particularly country communities, was a bit of evidence in relation to, if there are going to be new trucks, where they will go. So we asked the agencies where their first priorities would be. But what will hopefully happen as a result of this funding, if the bill is passed, is that, because we will have a greater ability to lock in contracts and have ongoing procurement, that might speed up some of the processes for us. But there are trucks currently in construction, and in addition, if this bill passes, there will be guaranteed more.

Nick McGOWAN: I would not want any Victorian thinking they are having more of anything coming off the production line anytime soon because of this bill or the funding that you are now providing in addition to that that exists.

Jaclyn SYMES: We have not even passed the bill yet.

Nick McGOWAN: So my point is correct, Minister. I think we are in furious agreement, one might call it. Can you tell me what or how many appliances the new $40 million for the FRV will acquire? I am sure you know that, having just ticked off on the $40 million.

Jaclyn SYMES: Different trucks and different appliances cost different amounts of money. As I have indicated, hopefully a benefit of having the guaranteed minimum yearly fund is it will enable procurement practices to be better value for a dollar when you know that you can do that. But again, this is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the Minister for Emergency Services. I obviously just have some experience in this regard.

Nick McGOWAN: Treasurer, I appreciate your answer, but nonetheless if I came to you with an ambit claim for $40 million and was not quite prepared to tell you what I was going to get for that $40 million, I am sure you would be encouraging of me or maybe you would give me a pat on the back and say, ‘Good try, Nick.’ I am sure that in coming to this decision your advisers, before you ticked off $40 million over four years, told you how many appliances, notwithstanding they have a different value and some may be different units. But I am sure someone has a calculator in the department of treasury. How many appliances have you been told or advised you will be able to purchase for that $40 million?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr McGowan, it would be a matter for FRV to decide what orders they would want to make.

Melina BATH: Treasurer, you just mentioned $4 million that is to go to the support for councils. By my calculation that is about $50,000 per council if everyone takes it up. I find that a very paltry amount, first of all. Secondly, you made a comment that there are admin fees – councils can collect admin fees from the government. How many councils, or what proportion of councils, have taken up that admin fee so far?

Jaclyn SYMES: All 79 do.

Melina BATH: All 79 collect the fees from the government – compensation for taking up the fire property services levy now. Is that your response?

Jaclyn SYMES: That is my advice. Because they collect the fee, there is an admin cost that is passed on to the state and paid. That is what I am told. I think in relation to the $4 million, as I indicated, that is a guaranteed initial amount MAV have suggested. Perhaps closer to $7 million is what they would be requesting, and I am happy to have further conversations with them.

Melina BATH: Will that $4 million be in the budget papers next week, or is it still to be announced at some later stage?

Jaclyn SYMES: I am just getting advice in relation to the money that we have attributed to MAV. As I said, I have given you an indication of those conversations and the results of those conversations. But I will be talking to them about what they need, and that money will be made available.

Melina BATH: Local governments provide essential emergency services and disaster response services. We have seen it in terms of the bushfires, and we have certainly seen it in terms of floods. Did the government, the Treasurer, you as the former emergency services minister, make any comment about why local governments would receive some portion of this new tax in terms of receiving their share as emergency and disaster response providers?

Jaclyn SYMES: I certainly recognise the role that local governments play in relation to disaster management. Also, it is certainly one of the first requirements and asks of a council when they have experienced an emergency to seek funding for recovery offices, and that is something that has been fairly common practice, at least in my time anyway. There is funding that is often provided to local governments in emergency contexts. In the context of emergency services and their roles, they are not included in the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund, but that does not mean they cannot receive money from the government for emergency services related roles.

Melina BATH: But that quantum of money and proportion et cetera would be sporadic and not locked in. You yourself, I think, were talking about, in defence of the SES – and we all defend the SES – the increase in demand, but at no time did you think to apportion any of this new fund, this new tax, to local government disaster and emergency services.

Jaclyn SYMES: No-one has advocated for that to my knowledge, Ms Bath, either. But again, we are in conversations with MAV. We are talking about funding for them in their work with councils, and as I have indicated, there is strong evidence of many councils receiving funding from government in relation to emergency management activities, particularly in recovery.

Melina BATH: Minister, when this levy, and it was introduced in about 2012 under a very different scheme from what we are seeing tonight –

David Davis interjected.

Melina BATH: Exactly. There was a reduction, a rebate for pensioners that was 50 per cent. Some time a little while ago, under the Andrews government at the time, it became a $50 concession for pensioners. Is that still going to exist, or is it going to go back to a 50 per cent reduction?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Bath, my advice is that you are incorrect and that it is always been $50.

Melina BATH: I will not argue the point, but is it going to remain only at $50?

Jaclyn SYMES: We are replicating the concession rate from the existing scheme.

Melina BATH: Even though the actual fee is much greater, and the capacity of pensioners is not necessarily increasing to cope with that rate – that is a statement. My next question is: Treasurer, can you just provide some context? I have done a little bit of research on what you spoke about when I was out of the house for a few minutes earlier on. If a pensioner cannot find that full amount of money, they cannot pay that, they pay a proportion of their rates plus this tax. How is that divided between the state government, as the collection point, and the council? How is that proportioned?

Jaclyn SYMES: I have answered this in a previous question, I think, but proportionately.

Melina BATH: By ‘proportionately’, do you mean two-thirds to one-third? What does that look like? Can you explain that to the house?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Bath, the definition of ‘proportionality’, I guess, is what applies here. If they pay half the total, we would get half of our ESVF and they would keep half of their rates.

Melina BATH: Does the government pay the levy on its Crown land?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Bath, I have just been advised that when the fire services property levy came in, to ensure a contribution from the state’s consolidated revenue to fire, that was deemed to be in lieu of exempting Crown land from being applicable for the government to pay the levy against. We have not changed that.

Melina BATH: We know that 77.5 per cent is the current levy proportion for the CFA budget and 87.5 – and that is on the website; it is all very clear – and it is going to go up to 95 per cent for the CFA budget. So there is an increase through this new tax of 17.5 per cent. Will that be passed on in full in this year’s coming budget? There is an increase. Will that 17.5 per cent be passed on in full?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Bath, just to be clear, this legislation will not be in effect by next week. We have got to raise the funds before it can flow.

Melina BATH: Minister, will the CFA receive that 17.5 per cent increase to its budget then in the first year of the new levy’s operation, or will the government simply reduce the contribution from consolidated revenue?

Jaclyn SYMES: No, we will be passing on the funds from the levy. I have made that very clear.

Melina BATH: In relation to that, what happens then if there are a whole lot of people all over this state who cannot actually afford to pay the full quantum of this tax and therefore the government only receives 75 per cent? What happens then? How is that going to be attributed? Will the CFA, for example, still get the full quantum of that 17.5 per cent increase?

Jaclyn SYMES: It is a rather hypothetical question that you are putting, Ms Bath, but the percentages will be set in legislation. The agencies will receive 100 per cent of their budget. Any shortfalls of any nature would be made up by consolidated revenue.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: Is it possible that some of this money that is going to be taken from this fire levy is going to be spent on engaging lawyers to remove mandatory or legally enforceable fire and emergency protection in any areas in Victoria?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs Hermans, I have gone through this extensively with Mr Davis in relation to how the funds are provided to fund agencies. We have got reporting requirements that will be part of the amendments that I will move. But in short, to answer your question, the answer is no. I think I explained how it would be reported to Mr Davis.

Nick McGOWAN: Treasurer, in the same way your government compels state schools to spend money they might have in the bank, what guarantee do the SES and the CFA have that those charitable contributions they have received will not be subject to a spend order before they receive funding from the state government under this legislation?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr McGowan, that is not directly part of this bill, but what I can say is that brigades and units will continue to raise funds. We have heard from the SES in particular that they would like to spend a little bit less time raising funds, and we are certainly hoping that that is an outcome of this legislation. But what is always an incentive for communities to continue to provide charitable donations if they are able to is the ability for brigades and units to access the volunteer emergency services equipment program grants. VESEP grants are a two-for-one grant program. They are oversubscribed each and every time we open them. They are for the CFA, SES and Life Saving Victoria, who will continue to be eligible for VESEP. They can apply for funding with that ratio, and they get things like chainsaws, vehicles, upgrades to facilities and the like. We would always encourage that continued practice.

Nick McGOWAN: I suppose that leads us on to the obvious question: would those grants, should they receive them, then form part of the compulsory component? That is, would those grants form part of the 95 per cent?

Jaclyn SYMES: No. It is a separate commitment to funding double the current VESEP grants round. It is separate to the budget of the organisations. It is a government funding bucket.

Nick McGOWAN: One of the concerns held by the SES and the CFA of course is, however, that it will be increasingly difficult for them to do fundraising given that the public will now be well aware that 95 per cent of their budget is provided for by the state government. Is that not a very real fear?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr McGowan, you are asking me for an opinion. In relation to the funding of these agencies, we want to be in a position to provide them more funding so that they can spend more time on the tasks and arguably not having to do as much fundraising. Therefore it would be an obvious consequence that there might be less money coming in through fundraising. We are hoping to plug that with the funds from the ESVF so that they can concentrate on the things that they want to rather than too many sausage sizzles.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: Given that earlier, Minister, you mentioned that 73 per cent of the funds would be coming from the metropolitan region and 27 per cent from regional Victoria, meaning that the majority is likely to be coming, I would say, from Fire Rescue Victoria, is the government confident that FRV will be able to maintain their minimum firefighting safe staffing levels to perform their duties in a way that they are required to do by law and through their agreements with the government and meet their key performance indicators with this additional expense?

Jaclyn SYMES: Very clearly asked and answered.

Bev McARTHUR: I have just received information from the captain of my local CFA brigade, who has told me that they are currently in talks about taking their tanker off line, directly affecting my family and our property. You would be aware that out in our area it is tinder dry; it is ready for fire at any stage. So, when you have finished discussing with the box, what are you going to do now to keep our property and all the properties under the Bookaar fire brigade safe, given that that brigade is going offline? I have got an update for you as well, Minister: it is 200 brigades that are off line now, increasing by the minute. These brigades are off line, not available to provide services for us, and we are in an extraordinary situation of dryness and fire-prone influences at the moment. So what are you going to do to keep us all safe?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, the advice that you are putting to the chamber is not the advice that I have from CFA, nor is it confirmed by the CAD system.

Bev McARTHUR: Are you saying that the CFA brigades that have registered to be off line are not off line? Is that what you are saying? Is the CFA head office misleading you?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, you are stating something that is not the advice I have. CFA is monitoring and responding, as is required, and as I said, the advice that you are putting to the chamber is not consistent with the advice that I have received as recently as a couple of minutes ago.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, can you please table the advice you have received on this matter?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, you are the one that is making the claims. Would you like to table the information that you have in relation to the brigades? And I can have it verified.

Bev McARTHUR: Absolutely.

Nick McGOWAN: Treasurer, if it assists the house, what I understand is occurring is that headquarters, CFA headquarters, are trying to put them online, and they are taking themselves offline. So it is somewhat of a tennis match. So the advice you received, while technically correct, is incorrect because of course they are taking themselves offline before headquarters can insist they come back online.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr McGowan, it was the figures that Mrs McArthur was using. I was not disputing that there are some that are off line. It was the numbers that she was saying, and CFA are monitoring and responding as required. I would ask members to come back to the content of the bill, please.

Richard WELCH: Treasurer, a number of times in this process you have made the statement that the purpose and the reason for this bill is to fund new technology, new radios, new vehicles and new uniforms. There is still a chance that this bill will not be passed. So are you saying that if this bill does not pass these things will not be funded?

Jaclyn SYMES: No, I am not saying that, Mr Welch. What we currently have – and this would be reflecting on my experience as the former Minister for Emergency Services – is that the current fund brings in an amount of money, and we have always gone over and beyond from consolidated revenue. We will continue to do that whether this bill passes or not. If it does, we will have additional funding to do some of the things that we have mentioned are our top priorities more quickly.

Richard WELCH: So if this bill does not pass, these things will still be funded?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, we will have to make some reassessments in relation to what would be able to be funded and when. It is fair to say that the fund will assist with more trucks, more equipment and more training. Obviously it brings in the SES for the first time. If it does not pass, we will revert to what we are currently doing. I would always like to do more. This is what this bill will enable us to do.

Richard WELCH: So what I discern from that is that there is not enough money in general revenue to fund the same quantum of assets and investment.

Jaclyn SYMES: Correct.

Richard WELCH: So, why isn’t there?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, again you are asking me to have a discussion which is outside the bill. Coming back to the bill, the bill is a way of ensuring a sustainable funding model for emergency services as the pressure on them continues to grow and grow. I have been on the ground where we have to assist people, we have to make their houses safe, we have to provide temporary accommodation. That has a cost to the state, that has a cost to taxpayers. In relation to having a dedicated way of raising funds that can be attributed to these efforts, we can do more, because we need to do more.

Richard WELCH: So if this bill does not pass, those things will not be funded?

Jaclyn SYMES: Asked and answered.

Richard WELCH: I would just like to ask a couple of questions on the ratios, and I am sort of struggling with the figures around it. The funding formula now is around 95 per cent of budget, 90 per cent of budget et cetera. So these are fixed ratios, but the budget itself of course is a variable. But you must fund to the ratio. This overlaps a little bit with what member Bath mentioned, but I wanted to clarify further. So, should budgets go up, and –

Jaclyn Symes: On a point of order, Deputy President, I am very sorry to do this to you, Mr Welch, but you are asking the identical question to Mr McGowan. Mr McGowan, you can confirm that. I am not going to answer questions that I have already answered, because we will be here forever if everyone just gets to repeat questions that I have already answered.

Richard WELCH: Apologies if I was straying into duplicated territory.

Jaclyn Symes: Sorry, others have done it as well, so I did not mean to pick on you.

Richard WELCH: I will go to several questions that would have followed on from where I was starting. It seems to me that if you are pegged to the ratio, and you must fund to the ratio, when we now have a land tax mechanism to levy tax for that purpose, what in the bill prevents the government from migrating other functions that are traditionally drawn from general revenue, rebranding them, reclassifying them as emergency services and progressively migrating them out of general revenue, out of that column and into the emergency services column? It would give the government licence to increase the levy further, because it is under the heading of 95 per cent and you must meet the ratio.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, I think it is quite difficult to rebrand frontline services in the manner in which you have suggested. The bill is entirely about supporting emergency services. We are certainly not planning on just calling things emergency services roles to be able to pay for them from the fund. We will always be spending more than what the levy brings in on emergency services. We will always be drawing on consolidated revenue, and we will be drawing more when there are events that happen, because of the recovery cost. But in addition to that, we are making amendments that are obligating the government, and any future government, to outline what the levy has paid for.

Richard WELCH: So, for example, the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) spend a lot of money and do a lot of activity in the area of bushfire prevention. Were you confirming that bushfire prevention or other ancillary functions of that nature would never go under this category?

Jaclyn SYMES: We are proposing to fund parts of FFMVic, but it is only the emergency management functions that fall within emergency management that we would be proposing. I would put to you that this is very clearly outlined in the bill.

Richard WELCH: I would like to ask a couple of questions about exemptions. We have covered them, but I do have a slightly different angle to pursue. If I start to repeat, please pull me up. Under the regulation the minister will have the ability to exempt other land through the regulations. I would like to clarify a few of those. Does the minister intend to exempt Scouts and Guides from the tax?

Jaclyn SYMES: The categories are based on the valuer-general’s categorisation of the land, not who owns the land.

Richard WELCH: Yes, but your capacity to exempt remains.

Jaclyn SYMES: Do you mean the land or the exemption from the rebate?

Richard WELCH: The minister has the power to exempt certain land from the tax.

Jaclyn SYMES: Can I get you to bring me to the clause that you are referring to so we can go through that?

Richard WELCH: I believe it is 10(1)(d) of the principal act. The minister can exempt:

… any other land exempted by the regulations.

Jaclyn SYMES: Where in the bill do you want to take me to?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, I am a bit lost as to where we are now.

Jaclyn SYMES: I was asking if I could have a bill reference just so I can be very clear about the question that I am being asked. I was just asking for a bill reference so that I can check the clause that he was seeking clarification on, that was all.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Perhaps we will go to a question from Mr McGowan while Mr Welch finds his references.

Nick McGOWAN: I have a question here from a firefighter, and I will call the person firefighter H so I do not disclose his or her identity. In the October–December quarter FRV spent over $1 million in legal fees. Most if not all of those funds were spent on external lawyers engaged by FRV to litigate FRV firefighters. The Victorian government is currently attempting to remove any say firefighters have over their uniform, their equipment, their OH&S practices, their safe work systems and work on the fireground. The Victorian government is funding the litigation to remove the mandatory fire protection that every community protected by FRV has. The government is on the record about this. This is the government’s position as put by the now Treasurer’s lawyers when she was Minister for Emergency Services. Will the funds from this levy continue to finance this litigation to remove these conditions that Victorian firefighters have?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr McGowan, in a similar vein to Mr Welch, can you bring me to the clause that you are seeking to ask this question about?

Richard WELCH: The reference pertained to the principal act, the Fire Services Property Levy Act 2012. It is section 10(1)(d) of that act, in which the minister has the power to exempt land. I guess the precursor question is: does this power continue?

Jaclyn SYMES: I appreciate that, Mr Welch. That was helpful. I can confirm that there is no change, and that remains.

Richard WELCH: On that basis, does the minister intend to exempt golf clubs from the tax?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, I do not have any representations in relation to those matters. In consideration of any requests, I would take advice. I have not received that question.

Richard WELCH: Does the minister intend to exempt private caravan parks from this tax?

Jaclyn SYMES: Similarly, Mr Welch, I am not in a position to give you answers to questions such as this, because they have not been sought. It is certainly not something that has been brought to my attention. If the bill is passed, I can seek some advice in relation to any of the past exemptions. It has not been a consideration.

Richard WELCH: There are a number of other entities that I think would be falling into this sort of ambiguous state. I can mention some of them rather than go through them one by one: agricultural societies, racecourses, churches, RSLs, Buddhist temples, Sikh temples, Hindu temples, any other faith buildings, universities, independent schools, unions, Indigenous corporations with large landholdings, solar and wind farms, forest plantations –

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, if I could interrupt, there is a public benefit category of land that some of the things that you listed may fall under. In relation to you continuing with further examples, my answer to your previous questions will be the same for the list that you are reading out.

Richard WELCH: Then the question would be: in any of these cases – some may be in, some may be out – has there been any modelling on the forgone revenue of excluding this large number of potentially exempt entities?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, it is not my advice that there is currently exempted land by the section that you are referring to, so we have not made any regulations that I have been advised of in relation to that section.

Richard WELCH: Will there be any mechanism by which organisations of this nature will be able to apply for those exemptions?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, as I said, I have not received any representations on this matter. I can consider future requests at a future time.

Richard WELCH: Just in relation to council invoicing – I know I am late to the game and there have been a number of questions in that territory that have been covered, but I again have a slightly different question on some of them – is there any requirement for councils to invoice residents for this tax in unison with rates and other levy notices, or may they do it separately?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, it is currently in the act that it has to be as part of the rates notice; I just do not have the section on me.

Richard WELCH: For those who cannot afford this tax, if a scheme of arrangement is made with the taxpayer, is the scheme of arrangement with the local council or will it be with the government?

Jaclyn SYMES: Sorry, was that in relation to hardship provisions of councils?

Richard WELCH: Yes. Well, I guess hardship provisions, inability to pay, default – any of those where a scheme of arrangement may be entered into for it. Is the scheme of arrangement with the government or with the council?

Jaclyn SYMES: With the council. Councils have existing hardship provisions, delayed payment plans, the ability to waive. There are slightly different arrangements across councils, but they would be responsible for that.

Richard WELCH: Now on to a separate subject around the impact on business: what modelling was done on the impact on businesses’ working capital ratios arising from this tax?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, obviously the bill was subject to development by the Department of Treasury and Finance, who provided a range of advice in relation to the development of that bill. That was considered before cabinet consideration.

Richard WELCH: Did that modelling take into account different kinds of businesses which operate to different kinds of financial cycles? For example, primary producers are often seasonal, and sometimes that season is actually not annual; it is every three years, even though the tax is yearly. What is the government’s modelling or provision around these realities?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I said in previous answers, rates and the current property levy can be applied annually. They can be paid in instalments, and like many tax requirements, whether they are federal or state, they are done on an annual basis.

Richard WELCH: I think there is no argument that working capital and cash flow is limited for many businesses – farmers and other businesses alike. Will you have any objection to farmers borrowing money in order to pay the tax until their financial cycles and seasonal cycles provide cash flow for funding?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, as you would be aware, this is a levy that is calculated based on land value. As we went through before, councils have a range of measures in relation to payment plans or indeed delayed payment and waivers and the like and would be well versed in dealing with these issues with their local farmers.

Richard WELCH: That may be so, but there will be instances when those arrangements themselves cannot be met. Would you have an objection to farmers borrowing to meet their obligations in this regard?

Jaclyn SYMES: With respect, Mr Welch, what business decisions people make is not something that is the subject of this bill. I think I have answered your question with some of the flexibility provisions that we have been made aware of that the councils have. In relation to support for the implementation, we are providing funding for MAV to work through a range of issues as these changes come into effect.

Richard WELCH: In the event that a business cannot meet their overall tax burden, state and federal, should they pay the ATO first or should they pay the state government first?

Jaclyn SYMES: I will not be drawn on giving advice on individual matters, Mr Welch.

Richard WELCH: But under law, which takes precedence?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, this is about a framework setting up a new Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund. In relation to the decisions that people make, that will be a matter for them.

Richard WELCH: Because in essence land tax is an appropriation of working capital from business, it is very pertinent to the application of the tax and it is a very foreseeable consequence of the tax. In examining the bill it is a very, very relevant question to ask about what happens to businesses’ working capital. When a business runs out of working capital it then starts eating into cash flow, and when it runs out of cash flow it becomes insolvent. So it is a very relevant question. In the event of a business insolvency – there will be cases where this tax leads to insolvency – where in the creditors queue will the government be for the payment of unpaid land tax, and will it be ahead of other creditors?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, this is not relevant to the bill, and I am not giving advice about business decisions.

Richard WELCH: With respect, that is not a business decision, that is a state revenue decision that would be governed by your laws. Do you take precedence over other creditors in claiming unpaid levy under this tax?

Jaclyn SYMES: We have already established that councils will be responsible for management of this, Mr Welch. We are getting a little bit repetitive.

Gaelle BROAD: I know that this tax raises over $2 billion over the next three years. It is going to have a significant impact on households right across Victoria, particularly – more so – in regional areas. Was consideration given to alternative funding models or reducing major projects like the Suburban Rail Loop, which still remains unfunded?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs Broad, I just take issue with the reference to regional areas being impacted more. Not to dispute that there is an increase on primary production land, which has been the subject of conversation, but just to be very clear, in relation to properties it is on the value of the property. In fact there are a lot of regional houses that are valued a lot less than city houses, so therefore the amount owing on some regional houses is relatively small compared to some city houses, for example. It is based on land value. I just wanted to make sure that was clear.

In relation to how this has come about, I think I have been very clear. I have been on the record about this. This is about asking for a contribution from the community to ensure that we can adequately and sustainably fund our emergency services. That is what the purpose of the funding will be – 100 per cent of the funding – which will be the base funding or core funding, which will then obviously always include consolidated revenue on top of that. This is about ensuring that we can do more than we currently are in relation to supporting our amazing emergency services.

Gaelle BROAD: Obviously you are still planning to go ahead with the Suburban Rail Loop, but was consideration given to putting money that would be going into some of these major projects into funding emergency services?

Jaclyn SYMES: You are conflating capital funding with service funding, Mrs Broad, and your line of questioning is outside the bill.

Gaelle BROAD: I think it is very relevant, because this is a massive new tax. Priorities are very important in this place, and it is important that we are also a house of review in this process. Looking at the model that was chosen over other options, I understand Victoria’s rates have been set higher than other states. Can you explain why?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs Broad, the rates are set not by the bill, they are set by gazettal, so outside this bill. I have actually been quite generous in conversations about rate setting despite the fact that it is outside the bill, but I will pull it up considering I have answered numerous questions on that.

Gaelle BROAD: Treasurer, I would just like to talk about the timeline. This bill is effective from 1 July. Councils issue rates notices in August for payment in September, or it could be later depending on when someone decides to pay it. Given your plan is for this new tax to apply this year, when will councils be advised of primary residences by the State Revenue Office?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs Broad, I think what you are getting at is non-principal place of residence changes. That is not proposed to change until July next year, because we are acknowledging that that is different to the current setting arrangements. The first 12 months will be basically just the rollover of the change in the fire property services levy to the emergency services property levy. The change that requires some information from the SRO is in relation to the following year, and we will continue to work with councils on the implementation of any of those changes. But we are of the understanding that the SRO will be able to share with councils in time to meet any of the information they need, because the bill gives them the power to do that.

Gaelle BROAD: I just want to understand: councils will be responsible for calculating the levy?

Jaclyn SYMES: Their systems already do.

Gaelle BROAD: It is a very different system given that this has exemptions in it which relate to someone having their primary residence exempt or something else that they choose.

Jaclyn SYMES: No, the exemptions are the same and the concessions are the same. It is the rebate that is different. Councils were very clear that they did not want the administration of that, which is why government services will be doing that.

Gaelle BROAD: You mentioned earlier – and I do not want to put words in your mouth, so please explain if required – that people could upload their ID and get the rebate straightaway. Can you explain who actually pays the rebate? Is that the government?

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, the rebate will be paid from the government. Just to be clear, it is not uploading your drivers licence; you will be entering a volunteer ID number that will be provided to you by either the CFA or the SES.

Gaelle BROAD: You mentioned that the rebate would be paid straightaway, but if someone is actually – I guess I am trying to think of what else. I will go to another question. Earlier you mentioned you anticipated about 40,000 exemptions. Is that correct?

Jaclyn SYMES: The box is nodding. That is what I said, yes.

Gaelle BROAD: I understand there are about 51,000 CFA volunteers and 5000 SES volunteers, so can you explain that discrepancy?

Jaclyn SYMES: Because you have to be a home owner.

Gaelle BROAD: If someone receives a rates notice with a levy amount and they do not agree or they think there is an error, what is the process for handling that complaint?

Jaclyn SYMES: Nothing in the bill changes that.

Gaelle BROAD: Sorry, what is the process?

Jaclyn SYMES: Querying your rates notice – there is nothing in the bill that changes that. Particularly if you are wanting to question the valuation of your land, for example, this bill has no impact on that.

Gaelle BROAD: You mentioned prior to the dinner break that there will be a pause for LGAs experiencing drought. Can you please list those LGAs and how long you expect this pause to apply?

Jaclyn SYMES: That will be a matter that the Minister for Agriculture will address.

Gaelle BROAD: You mentioned that some matters were delayed. Can you advise what they are? You mentioned earlier that there are some issues that would be delayed, but it was not explained as to what.

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not know what you are talking about.

Gaelle BROAD: I will go to another question. Why are large-scale solar and wind energy facilities classified under the lower public benefit rate category, while primary producers face high rates?

Jaclyn SYMES: That is a decision that was made by the previous Treasurer. My understanding of his rationale is in relation to ensuring that we are doing everything in our power to reduce the impacts of climate change. Reducing emissions is one of those measures, so it is consistent with the purposes of the bill.

Gaelle BROAD: You mentioned levy exemptions for active emergency services volunteers – and I have read your release, and you mentioned members and life members – but I have heard from CFAs where life memberships do not exist because they have always had that agreement in place. So if someone has been volunteering for 30, 40 or 50 years but they are no longer active or they are not a life member, what does this mean for them?

Jaclyn SYMES: Are you referring to people that in effect are life members but just have not been recognised as such? I can certainly speak to the CFA or SES in relation to that. Again, I confirm it is not our intention to be mean-spirited in relation to people’s access to the rebate if you are a genuine volunteer or have given the service such as you have described.

Gaelle BROAD: My understanding is you get the rebate straightaway, but can someone then choose not to pay the levy or their rates notice? What happens then?

Jaclyn SYMES: I think I have addressed this, Mrs Broad. What I was indicating was that for ease of access to the rebate we will be requiring people to demonstrate that they have the liability. You will just have to show your rates notice and correlate it with your volunteer number. That is how the rebate system will work, and it does not change what actions you take next.

Gaelle BROAD: I will move to another question. What concurrent advice are you giving to councils about their rate cap this year? Because I know in December last year the state government put a 3 per cent cap on council rates, whereas this will increase dramatically. Will there be this new levy plus a further increase on rates?

Jaclyn SYMES: Not a matter for me and not in the bill.

Melina BATH: Many of the councils, Treasurer, have written to us, as you know, and they have probably written to you. There are some specifics from my area, the likes of South Gippsland, Wellington and Baw Baw, and those councils are going to have a $5 million increase in addition to costs on their communities with this tax. You are the Treasurer and you also have the honour of being Minister for Regional Development. What measures will the government take to prevent economic decline in our regions? If we consider right across the state, you are looking at millions upon millions of dollars not being in the coffers of our local businesses and communities, because they are going into your state revenue.

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Bath, as was explained, the levy will require the average residential property to pay about $1.25 a week. This will be a particularly relevant figure for regional areas because of the property prices. That $1.25 a week will go to investment into emergency services that will flow back to communities such as the ones you have listed.

Melina BATH: I read from Rural Councils Victoria, saying that $139,025,000 extra will be taken out of rural communities each year. You can quantify it down to a dollar, but the actual reality is, when we have got a cost-of-living crisis, when we have got drought in many parts of the area, you are still ripping millions of dollars out of these regional areas. What will you do to ensure that these regional areas are not suffering by a redirection of your funds?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Bath, it is country communities that unfortunately bear the brunt of a lot of emergencies and natural disasters. Not only do we want to ensure that the existing emergency services personnel and volunteers can respond; the expectation of communities is, rightly, that state governments are there to support their recovery. That recovery is becoming more and more frequently called on and is incredibly expensive. We want to make sure that we can be there over and above where we currently are as we continue to experience more and more of these tragedies that are happening to communities. A lot of country communities, unfortunately, will be the recipients of a lot of the generous funding because it will be in response to events that happen in their communities.

Gaelle BROAD: Treasurer, can you please advise the house of the operating budget for the State Control Centre, Emergency Recovery Victoria, Emergency Management Victoria and forest fire management, and what percentage of that operating budget will be covered by the levy in the next financial year?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs Broad, I do not have all of those figures in my folder. They all are publicly available material. The only organisations that will have minimum percentages of their entity budgets guaranteed are Fire Rescue Victoria at 90 per cent, CFA at 95 per cent and the SES at 95 per cent. There is no minimum requirement in relation to the other agencies that you have listed.

Gaelle BROAD: The operating budget for the next year is not publicly available. Are you able to share it or find it?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs Broad, I am not in a position to give that information to you right at this moment, but I think it goes in conjunction with the amendments that I am seeking to put later in the committee stage about ensuring that there is accountability and transparency in relation to where the funds go.

Melina BATH: Treasurer, you said earlier, I think in response to a question from Mr Davis, that when you were emergency services minister and when the former Treasurer was the Treasurer, that Treasurer consulted with you in regard to the setting of the rates for this Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund. Can you expand on what you meant by that? In doing that, you should be potentially able to share with the house the budgets for each of the agencies in this 2025–26 budget, if you had already been discussing with the former Treasurer the setting of these rates.

Jaclyn SYMES: I have just answered that question previously. What I was interested in as the former Minister for Emergency Services was ensuring that SES would be included. SES spoke to me about wanting to fund training and wanting to fund trucks; CFA were interested in trucks. That is the type of information that I fed into the development of this policy.

Melina BATH: So when you were having a discussion with the former Treasurer, and you were discussing CFA and FRV and VICSES, you did not actually discuss anything to do with Triple Zero, with EMV, with Forest Fire Management Victoria. You just consolidated your conversations around that, or did you have any discussion around Triple Zero and the other core government services?

Jaclyn SYMES: Well, yes, of course, Ms Bath; all of that was discussed in the development of the policy and indeed was taken to cabinet as the Minister for Emergency Services, who had been involved in regular budget discussions over several years. As a minister you always want to get more money for your portfolio, so I was all interested in the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund and the benefits that it would provide to the agencies that I was responsible for at the time.

Melina BATH: If you know if there is a projected cost in the forward budget for this next year, $610 million, you should be able to provide to this house a breakdown of what those other agencies will be allocated.

Jaclyn SYMES: We will be reporting that; I have said that.

Gaelle BROAD: Treasurer, we received an opposition briefing and had questions on notice come back, and it talks about the variety of different farming structures and gives some examples. It talks about a farm that is owned by a company with four shareholders, a couple and their two adult children, who all work on the farm – all four family members are eligible CFA volunteers. The farm has a combined investment value of $20 million made up of four titles, properties with separate valuations worth $5 million each. In this case where a company holds several land parcels and has multiple shareholders who are eligible volunteers, each volunteer can claim the rebate for a different property if the property has a separate valuation. Because each family member has an indirect ownership interest in the four properties, the rebate cannot be claimed more than once for the same property. Now, it goes on with lots of different examples. It seems quite complex to me, but when people such as that example are putting in multiple applications for exemptions as CFA volunteers, who is responsible for auditing or compliance?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs Broad, in a similar vein to Mr Welch, I have answered this exact question, and I do not think it benefits the house to be repetitive.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Jaclyn SYMES: As the Deputy President has made the call that it is 10 pm, pursuant to standing order 4.08, I declare this sitting be extended by up to 1 hour.

Melina BATH: You spoke in relation to those other services that have been funded in core revenue coming in and being funded through this tax. I am interested to understand what improvements you think that you will achieve in terms of forest fire management and the outcomes to benefit both the environment and Victorians by reallocating these funds. What improved services do you expect?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Bath, if you ask that question of Minister Dimopoulos, I am sure he would be delighted to tell you about his agency and the work that they do.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, can you confirm that you will be collecting $610 million next year from this new tax?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, that is what has been forecast at the budget update.

Bev McARTHUR: Can you also confirm that that is basically the cost of getting out of the Commonwealth Games that are now being funded by Australia in Scotland?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, that is not relevant to the bill.

Bev McARTHUR: Treasurer, it is very relevant because it is exactly the same amount, it appears, that you are going to extract from farmers and people across Victoria paying this tax, which probably should be funded out of consolidated revenue as a whole anyway. But you have wasted that $610 million because you stupidly mismanaged a Commonwealth Games project, and we are all being taxed because you failed to manage a Commonwealth Games project. It is absolutely appalling that now we are all paying an extra tax because you could not manage that. It is the same amount of money. Don’t you find that egregious, Minister?

Jaclyn SYMES: I have answered a similar line of questioning. This is funding that will go 100 per cent back into emergency services and is not related to the commentary that you have taken us through.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, you will be lucky to have any volunteer brigades left at the rate you are going, at the rate they are deciding to abandon their stations tonight. I understand the Geelong brigade is off line. Imagine a regional city like Geelong, the second-biggest city in the state – that is now off line. We clearly are not being kept safe in this state as we speak, are we, Minister?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, in relation to the line of questioning that you are saying, I can give you some information. Again it is outside of the bill, but I can tell you that in relation to these matters I have received some advice that the pagers of those brigades and neighbouring brigades would still be paged, and they anticipate for an actual fire incident that it is likely that those volunteers would respond. We are also preparing a message to ensure that –

Bev McARTHUR: So we are all going to be kept safe?

Jaclyn SYMES: No, apologies. I will stick with my former advice that I gave you. I am a little unclear. I am sorry, I could not decipher that message, but that is the advice that I have been given. But in relation to this bill, Mrs McArthur, I would be happy to come back to the clauses.

Melina BATH: Treasurer, I have a pager from the CFA. There is one from Hume division, from Gippsland division, from Loddon Mallee division, from Loddon Mallee, Loddon Mallee again, south-west division, south-west division – and it goes on. We have got districts 24, 09, 18, 20, 02, 07, 06, 05, 04, 22 and 23 all off line in protest of this tax. They are all off line, Minister. It is actually happening now.

Jaclyn SYMES: There was no question.

Gaelle BROAD: Treasurer, will there be periodic reviews of the ESVF to assess its effectiveness and fairness, and will stakeholders have input in these reviews?

Jaclyn SYMES: I appreciate the question, Mrs Broad. Not formally, but it is something that I always think is prudent for government to keep an eye on. Obviously, because the Treasurer has to set the rates every year it is an opportunity to consider feedback and look at how it is working, so it is kind of a yes to the question that you asked. I am sure that people will be happy to provide me feedback on this if it rolls out.

Gaelle BROAD: And with such a review, what stakeholders would you seek to engage?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs Broad, I do not think you listened to what I said. I did not announce a formal review, I announced a process. I thought it was pretty clear.

Bev McARTHUR: Treasurer, I have been informed now that the state duty officer has been instructed not to talk to anyone. Can you confirm that the state duty officer has been gagged?

Ryan Batchelor: On a point of order, Deputy President, I am not entirely sure this line of questioning is relevant to the clauses of the bill.

David Davis: Further to the point of order, Deputy President, clearly Mrs McArthur earlier brought to the chamber’s attention the matter of a series of brigades stepping out of action, and this was very clearly a consequence of this bill – a direct consequence of the steps –

Ryan Batchelor: The bill has not passed. How can there be a consequence of the bill if the bill is not law, Mr Davis?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Davis has the call.

David Davis: They are a consequence because they are in protest. The fact is there has been a rolling discussion for some time as this situation has worsened, and now Mrs McArthur has got information that the state officer has been gagged. This is extraordinary stuff. This is a government that is trying to close down this organisation in a very serious way if it is gagging the chief officer like that.

Jaclyn SYMES: What might be useful to the house on behalf of the Minister for Emergency Services, who has sent me these, are comments from the CFA acting chief officer Garry Cook:

CFA is aware that a number of brigades are currently off line this evening due to a lack of crewing.

This can happen for a variety of reasons and this can change rapidly, with brigades going back online as well.

We are continuing to monitor the situation to ensure brigades are notified of emergencies in their communities and additional brigades are responded.

Under the operational systems in place, when any brigade is offline, neighbouring brigades are notified and can respond, ensuring our communities are protected.

We expect that our brigades will turn our to protect their communities as they always have done in their time of need.

Those are the CFA acting chief officer’s comments, which may be of assistance to the house. I would ask members to come back to the bill.

Bev McARTHUR: Thank you for confirming that the brigades are off line. They are off line not through a lack of crewing in particular but because of what you are actually doing to them now. It is totally disingenuous to say that in the event of an emergency you are confident they will all be back on the job. I am sure they would be pleased to hear that, Minister.

Jaclyn SYMES: I read out a statement from the acting chief. It was not my statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mrs McArthur has the call.

Bev McARTHUR: It is totally disingenuous. Minister, I have got a letter here from Commerce Ballarat and the Victorian Regional Chamber Alliance, who say no to the emergency services levy. These are two organisations – Commerce Ballarat is a large organisation representing all the businesses of Ballarat, and the Victorian Regional Chamber Alliance represents regional chambers from the whole of Victoria – and they say no to it. We have got this situation here with the chambers of commerce, the MAV and Rural Councils Victoria, and I will go through the list of councils that have written to me who are saying no, and we will wait to see what the MAV resolution is when it happens tomorrow. Do you not accept that all these organisations have some justification for saying that you have got this horribly wrong, or do you just totally disregard their concerns, Minister?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, I have received correspondence and engaged with many councils and stakeholders and taken on board their feedback.

Bev McARTHUR: Clearly you have not taken anything on board. I will go to the Moyne shire, who have asked for a call to action in regard to this tax. Many of them have similar concerns. They have asked to:

Develop a fairer funding model that does not disproportionately burden rural communities.

Shift levy collection responsibilities to the State Government.

Compensate councils for administrative costs if collection duties remain.

And that paltry $4 million you talked about, which Ms Bath concluded was $50,000 per council, would not fund a junior administrative officer to cope with the problems. Also, the problems that are going to occur when very concerned, frustrated –

Jaclyn Symes: On a point of order, Deputy President, this is getting very repetitive, and I would ask the member to ask a question rather than read out correspondence which is everything that has already been brought to my attention.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mrs McArthur, is this new information?

Bev McARTHUR: Yes, it absolutely is. I will go through a list of councils that have expressed concerns. I want you to confirm that you reject all their propositions.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Perhaps if you could come to the question.

Bev McARTHUR: The Moyne Shire Council, as I have said, have expressed their concerns, their opposition –

Jaclyn Symes: On a point of order, Deputy President, I have received correspondence from a variety of councils and also the MAV, and I have responded to all of those pieces of correspondence. Mrs McArthur, if you are going to read out letters that I have already responded to, I would put to you that that is not a good use of the chamber’s time. It is also canvassing issues that have been well discussed throughout the evening.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mrs McArthur, perhaps if you could just phrase them in questions.

Bev McARTHUR: I would like to know what exactly you told the Southern Grampians shire, Corangamite shire, South Gippsland Shire Council, the City of Greater Geelong, the City of Ballarat, Loddon shire, Mansfield shire, Mount Alexander shire – and the list goes on. What exactly did you say to them in response to the concerns that they have raised?

Jaclyn SYMES: Asked and answered.

Melina BATH: In relation to the budget update from December, which estimates that $610 million extra will be raised in 2025–26 and rises to $765 million in the following two years, is this based on land value increases or projected increases in the respective rates?

Jaclyn SYMES: No, Ms Bath. That is based on the increased fixed charge for the non-principal places of residence, which is being delayed by a year for implementation.

Gaelle BROAD: Treasurer, you mentioned earlier that all councils are paid currently for collecting the levy – and I do not want to put words in your mouth. My understanding is that the state government does impose particular requirements, and if a council do not meet those reporting requirements they do not receive any funding. I just want the Treasurer to confirm if that is the case, that all councils receive payment if they collect the current levy, and if the same approach will apply in this case or if there will be ones that miss out, as they currently do, even though a council can collect the levy and return it to the state government.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs Broad, a council needs to collect the funding in order to be reimbursed or paid for by the state in relation to the administration costs. There is no change in this bill to the current practice in relation to that.

Gaelle BROAD: I would be interested to know how many councils have actually been paid for dispensing the fire services levy out of the 79.

Jaclyn SYMES: Since 2016–17, 17 have missed out on some of the funding for not meeting certain requirements. But if councils meet the requirements, then the funding flows; that is my understanding. If you have got a particular council that you would like me to have a look at, you can give me some information, perhaps, outside the chamber, and I can have a look at it.

Gaelle BROAD: So 17 councils have actually collected the revenue and given it to the government, but they have not received any payment for doing so.

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not have the specifics of what led to the administration costs not being passed on. It might be a different reason for different councils, but it is from 17 occasions. They are only obliged to report on what they have collected to be paid fees. They are basically integrity and accountability measures that they are asked to comply with.

Gaelle BROAD: Can you please provide the list of the 16 or 17 councils to the chamber?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not have that at hand.

Melina BATH: Minister, what is the quantum of the savings to consolidated revenue with the removal of the costs for Triple Zero, FFMV and all of those other major entities now being funded through this tax? What is that quantum of savings?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Bath, this is not a transfer of consolidated revenue to the fund. Consolidated revenue will continue to contribute to our emergency services. I answered this question when I was talking to Mr Davis.

Melina BATH: Is it the fact that you know but do not want to share with the house that Treasury has done these costings but does not want to share it, or is it the fact that you really have no idea of how much these savings to this consolidated revenue will be because of that removal of funding from this tax?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Bath, this is all about ensuring that we are providing more funding to our emergency services.

Melina BATH: Minister, can you confirm what the new rate for the primary producers will be? You mentioned a new rate, but I just want to understand. I thought it was around 71 cents. Could you please confirm that?

Jaclyn SYMES: The proposal, as I have indicated, following consultation and feedback from others, is to reduce it from 83 cents to 71.8 cents.

Melina BATH: So from 83 cents down to 71.8, and I am assuming, with a quick bit of maths, we are looking at from a 189 per cent increase to a 150 per cent increase. How is that going to make farmers better off, when really that is just a little chip out of a very big wedge of impost that they are now going to bear in the thousands and thousands?

Jaclyn SYMES: I will take that as a statement, Ms Bath.

Melina BATH: On what basis was this reduction made – this per cent or two short? On what basis was that change made, Treasurer?

Jaclyn SYMES: Asked and answered.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, in the Herald Sun on 19 March you are reported as saying that rental providers ‘can afford to pay more’; they ‘generally have a higher capacity to pay’. Do you confirm that that is what you said?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, what I said in relation to that question about the different rates is that generally – and I did not say always – people that have investment properties and holiday houses et cetera are in a better position to be able to afford more than somebody that has one home. That is generally the case but may not always be the case. I used the term ‘generally’.

Bev McARTHUR: But if these people are landlords – rental providers – they cannot actually increase the rent to compensate them for land tax and potentially this tax, so won’t that limit the number of rental properties that you need, that the Greens consistently ask for?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I have indicated, Mrs McArthur, the increase to a median home – so not talking about apartments and units that are commonly on the rental market – is $1.25 a week.

Bev McARTHUR: For all the rural properties and farmers who simply will not be able to afford to pay this – many have actually left the CFA because they can no longer afford to even be involved in that; they cannot afford to pay this tax – how are you going to go after them to get the money, or are you just going to leave it to councils to try and be the debt collectors for your tax?

Jaclyn SYMES: I have answered this question.

Bev McARTHUR: If somebody cannot pay, are you going to force them to go into liquidation, insolvency?

Jaclyn SYMES: I have answered these questions.

Bev McARTHUR: Well, we take it that you are. So many people have written, so many people are concerned; they are stressed out. Here is an example:

Our business (family) paid $3214.50 last year the Fire Services levy, the expected rise of 189% for primary producers will see the new Emergency Services Levy increase to $9289.9.

Why do you think that is acceptable, and how do you think somebody is going to be able to afford to pay that, even without the drought, in the current circumstances? How do you actually expect farmers to be able to pay these increases?

Jaclyn SYMES: Continued repetition. I have answered these questions.

Melina BATH: Treasurer, I know we were talking about the CFA volunteers exemption being capped at $5 million. I just want to understand if there is the same cap for SES volunteer properties. Is that correct? There is no differential between a CFA volunteer and an SES volunteer? That is all right. I just wanted to clarify that.

Jaclyn SYMES: No difference.

Richard WELCH: In clause 17 the bill amends section 62 of the principal act to insert the words ‘or the responsible entity’ after the word ‘Commissioner’. I am just seeking clarification as to why anyone but the commissioner of taxation would be raising these funds.

Jaclyn SYMES: My guess is – I probably should not guess, but I think it is in reference to DGS, because they will be administering the rebate. Does that make sense? Yes, ‘or the responsible entity’ would be referring to government services.

Jeff BOURMAN: I move:

1. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly –

Clause 1, line 6, omit “and volunteers”.

I was contacted by Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria, and I have also had this comment made by quite some number of the volunteer firies that I have dealt with. They feel that, of all things, the title is unfair and that it makes them feel like they are behind this. My amendments are basically changing titles. It does not change any of the rebates. It does not change any of the substance of what the volunteers will get. But they feel that the title is a bit unfair. I was reading the United Fire Fighters Union’s press release earlier, and they seem to have a similar view – I will not go too much into it:

… misleading, to dress this tax bill up as something that supports Victorian volunteers and emergency service workers.

So my view on this is to change the title, to change it all the way through – long title, short title. I just urge people, at least for the volunteers that feel they have been unnecessarily slighted, to support my amendment.

David DAVIS: I will just make a couple of comments. The Liberals and Nationals will support Mr Bourman’s amendments, so we will make it clear that that is our position. I do note with a wry smile that Mr Bourman made commentary a little while ago about changing the title of a bill, so there is sort of, how can I say, a small ‘h’ hypocrisy, if I can put it that way, involved in that. But nonetheless we accept the arguments he has put here and the argument that volunteers have put that this is in effect trying to misuse the good offices of all the many volunteers across the state. And the extraordinary reaction that Mrs McArthur has drawn attention to tonight, where so many brigades are offline, is perfect evidence of that irritation and profound disappointment from many of those brigades. So in that sense we will certainly support it.

Jeff BOURMAN: I would just like to respond to Mr Davis. I am quite comfortable in my hypocrisy, Mr Davis.

Jaclyn SYMES: Seeing as we are doing it at the moment, Mr Bourman, obviously you would be aware that it does not impact the operation of the bill, but part of the intention of the bill – in fact what it exactly does – is to create a fund to support volunteer emergency response agencies, so we think that it is an appropriate title and it reflects very clearly the reality and the intention of the legislation. We will not be supporting your amendments.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I do advise members that section 64 of the Constitution Act 1975 applies to this bill and note that suggested amendments have been circulated by several members. Standing order 14.16 sets out the procedure for dealing with suggested amendments, and this is one of those suggested amendments. The question is that Mr Bourman’s suggested amendment 1, which tests all his remaining amendments, be agreed to.

Council divided on suggested amendment:

Ayes (17): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Suggested amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (22:40)

David DAVIS: I move:

1. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly –

Clause 6, page 3, lines 30 to 32 and page 4, lines 1 to 28, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

This suggested amendment sharpens the list of who can be funded.

Jaclyn SYMES: I think that we have addressed many of the concerns that people had in relation to where the funding was going throughout the evening. Removing government departments who receive funding from the levy in name only would actually remove funding support from critical frontline services. Where a funding recipient is listed as the secretary of DJCS or the secretary of DEECA they are the responsible entity for the expenditure on these emergency services. It does not mean that we are funding public servants. The money collected through the fund that is being allocated to the other entities is only sufficient to fund frontline services that provide direct emergency response and recovery efforts. For this reason we will not be supporting the amendment, but hopefully I have covered off some of the concerns people had, alleging that the funding would be for core public servants.

David DAVIS: What I would say is the concerns have not been sufficiently allayed. In fact there is nothing to prevent the relevant agencies purchasing the relevant equipment that they need. This again opens the way for the fast siphoning of money out of these agencies to fund public servants. We will have more to say in the next suggested amendment on this too.

Council divided on suggested amendment:

Ayes (17): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Suggested amendment negatived.

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

1. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly –

Clause 6, page 4, lines 27 and 28, omit “Forest Fire Management Victoria” and insert “emergency management”.

2. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly –

Clause 6, page 4, after line 28 insert –

“Examples

1 Functions of Emergency Management Victoria, the Emergency Management Commissioner, the Chief Executive, Emergency Management Victoria and the Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety in relation to emergency management include operation of the following –

• the State Control Centre;

• Emergency Recovery Victoria;

• the Emergency Alert Program in Victoria;

• the Emergency Management Operational Communication Program.

2 Functions of the Secretary within the meaning of section 3(1) of the Forests Act 1958 in relation to emergency management include functions delegated to the Chief Fire Officer employed under that Act.”.

Amendment 1 confirms that the funding to the DEECA secretary from the fund is limited in legislation to only funding their work in relation to emergency management. Further, amendment 2 is confirming that funding to the agencies listed in the bill is limited in legislation to only funding their work in relation to emergency management. I think they meet the intention effectively of what I believe many members were trying to articulate, so hopefully they will be supported.

Council divided on suggested amendments:

Ayes (24): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Noes (15): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Suggested amendments agreed to.

Clause postponed; clauses 7 to 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 (22:49)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

3. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly –

Clause 13, page 9, line 4, after “recipient” insert “other than the CFA, Fire Rescue Victoria and VicSES”.

4. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly –

Clause 13, page 9, line 6, omit “exceeding –” and insert “exceeding 95%.”.

5. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly –

Clause 13, page 9, lines 7 to 9, omit all words and expressions on those lines and insert –

‘(2B) The percentage of the annual funding requirements of the CFA and VicSES that are to be funded by the levy in a levy year is 95%.

(2C) The percentage of the annual funding requirements of Fire Rescue Victoria that are to be funded by the levy in a levy year is 90%.”.’.

This amendment is designed to fix the funding percentages for entities. I would again like to make it clear that this does not impact on FRV, CFA or VICSES’s operating budgets. It is just the percentages that we have spent a bit of time talking about this evening.

David DAVIS: We will oppose these suggested amendments. We have an alternative approach.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the Treasurer’s suggested amendments 3 to 5 be agreed to, which test her suggested amendments 8 to 11.

Suggested amendments agreed to.

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

6. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly –

Clause 13, page 9, after line 14 insert –

‘(4) After section 12(5) of the Principal Act insert –

“(5A) The Minister must specify in a notice of a determination in respect of the next levy year under subsection (1) –

(a) for each funding recipient –

(i) an estimate of the amount in dollars of the funding requirements of the funding recipient that are to be funded by the levy in that levy year; and

(ii) the percentage of the funding requirements of the funding recipient that the amount in subparagraph (i) represents; and

(b) an estimate of the amount of levy to be collected in that levy year for each land use classification specified in section 15(1); and

(c) that there is no duplication of funding.”.’.

This amendment is designed to ensure that the government reports on how the revenue that is being collected through the levy will be spent, including a breakdown by entity and the percentage of the annual budget that the ESVF will fund. This is an accountability measure. I understand and support in principle the amendment suggested by the opposition; however, this is a preferred way forward to bring about the same outcome.

David DAVIS: We will not oppose this, because it picks up many of the points that were in our reporting amendments. To that extent it improves the bill, and we support it.

Suggested amendment agreed to.

David DAVIS: I move:

2. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly –

Clause 13, page 9, after line 14 insert –

‘(4) After section 12(6) of the Principal Act insert –

“(7) Despite anything to the contrary in this Act, the proceeds of the levy must not be used to fund any Department within the meaning of the Public Administration Act 2004.”.’.

We are still very concerned that the funds raised through this massive new tax, across every piece of land in the state, will be diverted to fund what should be normal, regular departmental expenditure. This is a government that is in financial difficulty. It is a government that needs to be watched very, very closely on these matters. If the government is not intending to fund departmental expenditure of this nature, it will support this amendment; it would have nothing to fear. My concern is that the government will not support it, because the government in fact intends to divert this levy to fund departmental funding that should be from the normal sources.

Jaclyn SYMES: Just briefly, I have explained it is not the intention to fund bureaucrats proper. The money needs to go through departments to pay for radios et cetera. I have explained how this all works.

David DAVIS: The truth of course is that funding could come directly to the agencies; it is not required to go through the secretary of the department. This just opens a vent about a mile wide, and the government will use it to fund normal departmental expenditure. I do not necessarily accuse the Treasurer here of bad faith on this. This is just an opening that a desperate government will use at a future point. It might be that it is another decision made by a government, and it may be against the intentions of this particular Treasurer.

Council divided on suggested amendment:

Ayes (17): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Suggested amendment negatived.

Clause postponed; clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 (22:58)

David DAVIS: I move:

3. Clause 15, line 21, omit “Division 2” and insert “Divisions 2 and 3”.

4. Clause 15, page 16, line 27, omit ‘trust.”’ and insert “trust.”.

5. Clause 15, page 16, after line 27 insert –

‘Division 3 – Reporting

20E Annual report on levy

The Minister must cause the following information to be included in the report of operations of the Minister’s Department under Part 7 of the Financial Management Act 1994 for a financial year –

(a) the total amount of revenue raised from the levy in the financial year;

(b) a breakdown of that amount by collection agency and by land use classification as set out in section 15(1);

(c) the amounts distributed to each funding recipient from the revenue raised from the levy in the financial year.”.’.

These amendments are a belt-and-braces approach to ensure that the reporting is as strong as possible. We want to see where the money is coming from, which groups and which areas, and how it is disbursed.

Jaclyn SYMES: We do support annual reporting on the collections and spending of the ESVF. Therefore we have proposed our own amendment, which we believe provides stronger reporting requirements. Our amendment outlines exactly how much money is collected through the levy and exactly how much, including the percentage, is going to each entity included in the legislation. As I said, I believe that our amendment is slightly improved and should take precedence over Mr Davis’s, acknowledging that they have similar intent.

Amendments negatived; clause agreed to.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Jaclyn SYMES: Pursuant to standing order 4.08, I declare the sitting be extended by up to 1 further hour.

Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.

Suggested new clause (23:00)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

7. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly –

Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 17 –

‘17A New section 62A inserted

After section 62 of the Principal Act insert –

“62A Proceeds of levy

The proceeds of levy collected under this Act must not exceed the sum of –

(a) the amounts applied to fund the funding recipients in accordance with section 12(2A), (2B) and (2C); and

(b) the administrative costs incurred in the performance of functions under this Act.”.’.

This suggested amendment makes clear that all the revenue raised through the fund will be spent on emergency services, and that is the intention of this suggested amendment: to ensure that clarity.

David DAVIS: We will support this suggested amendment – I will just be clear about that – but I do want to ask the minister one question about the proceeds of the levy. The proceeds of the levy will change with the announcements the minister has made today. I want to know whether those changes will be reflected in the state budget delivered next week and whether the arrangements that have been altered by the Treasurer’s decisions today have been fully taken into account, what the scale of them is and how much less will be collected.

Jaclyn SYMES: There are some components that will be evident in next week’s budget. Other components that I have flagged today will form a broader piece of work that will be brought forward by the Minister for Agriculture.

David DAVIS: How much is the change in the levy collection after the announcements today? How much is it diminished by?

Jaclyn SYMES: We are still working through some of those issues specifically, particularly in relation to the announcements that I have made today, but that will become evident in due course.

David DAVIS: Is it tens of millions? How much is it? What is at least the scale or quantum?

Jaclyn SYMES: Obviously, as we have indicated, rebates for drought-impacted farmers will be significant in relation to making those concessions for farmers doing it tough.

Suggested new clause agreed to; new clause postponed; clauses 18 to 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 (23:03)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

8. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly –

Clause 22, line 9, omit “determined under” and insert “specified in”.

9. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly –

Clause 22, line 10, omit “12(2A)” and insert “12(2B)”.

10. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly –

Clause 22, line 20, omit “determined under” and insert “specified in”.

11. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly –

Clause 22, line 21, omit “12(2A)” and insert “12(2C)”.

These are consequential suggested amendments.

Suggested amendments agreed to; clause postponed; clause 23 agreed to.

Progress reported.

Suggested amendments reported to house.

The PRESIDENT: The Deputy President reports that the committee has made progress in the bill, suggesting certain amendments to the Assembly, and asks leave to sit again. Pursuant to standing order 14.16, a message will be sent to the Assembly requesting that they make the amendments suggested by the Council. The question is:

That the Council again resolve itself to a committee of the whole later this day.

Motion agreed to.