Tuesday, 17 June 2025

Bills

State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2025

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Gayle Tierney:

That the bill be now read a second time.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (14:50): I am pleased to rise and make a contribution to the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2025. This is a regular bill that comes through concurrent with the budget. It was a little bit delayed this year by the government’s games and duckshoving at the start, but it has come through. The government has tried to say with this bill that there are no particular new taxes in it. Whilst on one level there are not any brand spanking new taxes of scale or substance, that is because the government brought through the big, new, nasty taxes in bills a couple of weeks earlier. They brought through the emergency services tax, that big whopper new tax that is going to hit Victorians very hard, the tax that will see people in the country pay much more but also people in the city pay more in their so-called emergency services levy, which will increase massively for many people in the city.

If you own a rental property, if you own a commercial property or if you own a farm in the country, you will pay much, much more. But even regular householders, those who own homes, will likely pay 60 to 80 per cent, maybe in some cases 100 per cent, more in the actual payments that they are making year on year. I would urge Victorians to look closely at their council rate notices when they come, because those council rate notices will show the size of that new tax. It is called a levy, but it is really a three-letter word: it is a tax – there is no question about that – and it is applied to property across the state. If you are a renter, you will not see that bill, but it will go to your landlord and there is no question that over time rents will rise in reflection of those new and additional charges that are being made.

It is important in context to say that it is not just that new levy, but there is a whole raft of new charges and levies that the state government is bringing forward in my own portfolio area of energy. We have seen these 234 per cent increases proposed by government for the levies and charges to be applied on mining and resource extraction. For example, even prospectors who go out on the weekend will pay more for a miner’s licence to the tune of 234 per cent. Those who are wanting to go and get a mining permit more broadly – a commercial-scale mining permit – will pay 234 per cent more. Those who want works permits for extraction or mining will pay about 234 per cent more under the government’s proposals. Even the resources sector – for example, quarries where rock is extracted and used as a significant input into concrete and homes – will see its levies by government go up by 234 per cent.

What I am saying is that there have been more than 61 new taxes, charges and levies and expansions of them by this government over the last 14 years. We now have the highest level of state taxation in the country, and that is feeding directly through into the cost of living. It is no wonder that the standard of living of Victorians has been falling. It is no wonder that household income and income per head has been falling over the last few years under this government. They are taxing the state into a position where it is very hard to undertake business, it is very hard to expand and it is very hard to have your business turn a decent profit.

The truth of the matter is that as we make the state less attractive, less significant investment is likely to come to this state than would otherwise have been the case, and that is a very big concern. We see interstate migration – that is, not net migration into the state, because we have a very significant flow of people from overseas, but interstate migration – has swung heavily into the negative in Victoria’s case since the days of COVID and has not restored. Extraordinarily we have not actually gone back to the pattern that we have had since – and I will give the date to the chamber – 1997, when net intrastate migration or interstate migration actually swung into the positive for Victoria under the Kennett government. It is the Allan and Andrews governments that have actually made it very difficult for the state and made it very clear in this state that more people want to leave than go into the state, in terms of other states and territories. That is an important context to this bill. This is a bill which we will make some significant amendments to, and it might be worth circulating those amendments at this point.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

David DAVIS: The main provisions of the bill are amendments to the Commercial and Industrial Property Tax Reform Act 2024, with the introduction of provisional determination allowing the commissioner to assess whether land has a qualifying use, particularly where valuation details are outdated or unavailable. This is one of those small changes that actually will disadvantage some commercial operations. It is designed to give a greater whip hand to the commissioner.

The amendments to the Duties Act 2000 relate to subdivided tax reform scheme land, clarifying how duty operations apply in specific subdivision scenarios, and the introduction of an exemption for first home buyers who have been the victims of family violence, waiving certain conditions traditionally associated with duty concessions. Those changes are supported strongly by the opposition, so we do indicate to the government that we support that set of changes that relate to victims of family violence.

There are, as I say, amendments to the First Home Owner Grant and Home Buyer Schemes Act 2000, with exemptions allowing applicants affected by family violence to access first home owner grants despite previous ownership or entitlement conditions typically preventing eligibility.

There are also some amendments to the Land Tax Act 2005 – an expansion of exemptions for principal place of residence, specifically accommodating victims of family violence who have temporarily vacated their property, and this is only a fair change in my humble view. There are modifications of build-to-rent property criteria to clarify when dwellings qualify for land tax benefits and a test addressing temporary unavailability due to repairs and refurbishments. This, we think is only a fair change.

There are amendments to the Payroll Tax Act 2007. There is refinement of the definition around regional employees to provide clearer guidelines on payroll tax eligibility for regional businesses.

There are amendments to the Taxation Administration Act 1997, with the introduction of a higher penalty tax rate up to 50 per cent for taxpayer or agent recklessness concerning obligations under tax laws intended to enhance compliance. This is a new piece of weaponry – the new bazooka that the State Revenue Office has sought to avail itself of. There are already penalties at 25 per cent and 75 per cent. I am not sure why they needed this new –

Harriet Shing interjected.

David DAVIS: It is a cudgel, exactly. Let us record that the minister called it a cudgel, and I think that that is an appropriate –

Harriet Shing interjected.

David DAVIS: You did say.

Harriet Shing: On a point of order, President, I would hate to have words attributed to me in the context that Mr Davis has sought to have them attributed, and that in and of itself constitutes a misleading of the house. Me saying one word out loud, Mr Davis, is not an endorsement of your position.

David DAVIS: On the point of order, President, I responded to the interjection. It was not my idea to use the word ‘cudgel’. That was an idea that came directly from the minister, and I picked it up by way of a response to the interjection and indicated that I thought it was an appropriate description. A cudgel to clobber taxpayers – that is exactly what it is, President. The Treasurer wants another stick –

The PRESIDENT: I am not too sure if this is part of the contribution or –

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: President, I was responding to the interjection.

The PRESIDENT: I am not sure how to respond to any of these points of order. I think the minister was pretty clear in her position, so I will ask Mr Davis to continue.

David DAVIS: There are many things I would say about the minister, but she is a person who is aware of many words and can often find a suitable word for the occasion. This was such an occasion where she spontaneously – it just came out. It was clearly because it is such an appropriate word for this new lever, this new device that the Treasurer has put in the bill to hound and chase taxpayers. That is what it is. There are already many, many levers, but they want more.

On the Unclaimed Money Act 2008, the bill empowers the registrar of unclaimed money to issue repayment notices where previously paid claims are later deemed incorrect. There are amendments, as I said, to the Taxation Administration Act. There are amendments to the Victorian Conservation Trust Act 1972, removal of redundant schedules and simplification. These are all important points.

I just want to, as an issue of version control, ensure that I have exactly the right version of the bill that was distributed. As the government will well be aware, there are a number of points in our amendments. One is to deal with the new penalty rate for recklessness and the cudgel, as it were, and to try and remove this new and extraordinary cudgel that is sought to be put into the act through this bill. We seek to take it out. We seek to keep the arrangements fairer for taxpayers. We think the government has enough devices, levers and cudgels; it does not need more.

Harriet Shing interjected.

David DAVIS: No, I am simply making the point that we will seek to remove these changes.

The second set of changes relates to matters that seek an exemption. There has been discussion between the government and opposition in the form of the Treasurer and the Shadow Treasurer regarding the issue of proper exemptions where there are floods or other extraordinary circumstances. These words have been modified after discussion with the government, hence my desire to make sure I have the right version in front of me. It was a case of good discussion across the aisle. An amendment I think has been framed which can be agreed across the chamber, and we would suggest that that is a good process that has occurred here. Mr Newbury suggested very strongly – with, I might add, the specific input of the Deputy President Ms Lovell, who was a very strong advocate – that where there are floods or other natural disasters affecting taxpayers there should be some reasonable relief. That is the purpose of that amendment. I will leave our response to the other amendments which I understand are to be moved – some by the government, some by the Greens and some by Mr Limbrick – until later when they have moved those amendments. I will respond at that point.

But the context of this bill, as I said at the start, is important. There have been massive increases in taxes under this government – new and expanded taxes, novel taxes, taxes that disturb and disadvantage business and taxpayers, and regulatory fees that have been increased as well. It is a range of new imposts and charges, and I think it is important in this context to see that Victoria is not only the most heavily taxed jurisdiction in the country but we are also the most heavily regulated. That is making us very, very uncompetitive, and that is a long-term problem for our state. Whilst there are a number of items in this bill that we agree with – and I have identified those quite closely – there are some amendments that we are seeking to make. I understand that at least one of those amendments is likely to meet with support from the government and support more broadly from across the chamber. I think that covers the matters I needed to cover.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (15:07): I too will speak on the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2025. This bill touches on a wide range of areas, but what connects all of the provisions in this bill is a theme of fairness. I want to mention just very briefly and summarise some of the changes that are being made before going into one area of the bill.

The bill makes changes to support for people who have to leave their homes due to family violence. We know it is overwhelmingly women and children that experience that situation, but not entirely. It extends the off-the-plan stamp duty concession. It makes changes to support build-to-rent developments. It provides more security for renters and broadens eligibility for accessing the vacant land conservation covenant account. The bill marks a shift away from upfront stamp duty towards a more flexible, ongoing land tax. It fixes a number of other technical issues, such as trust notifications, so that land tax is calculated fairly and accurately. We are making sure that people who have to leave their homes due to illness or a loved one’s passing do not lose their partial principal residence exemption. We are also fixing a problem that has affected some regional businesses. Right now if a business operates mostly in regional Victoria but some of its workers do a bit of work interstate, they can lose access to the regional payroll tax rate, and that is not fair. This bill will change that so that only time worked in Victoria is counted when determining eligibility. That means businesses that are genuinely regional will not be penalised for having drivers travel across the border or sales reps pop into, you know, Adelaide. That is somewhat of a summary of some of the changes.

The change I want to focus on in my speech is the one relating to family violence, and I want to focus on what I think are the most important changes in this bill: support for people who have had to leave their home due to family violence. People fleeing family violence often face immediate and overwhelming financial constraints. Leaving a violent relationship can mean losing access to shared bank accounts, income or even basic necessities like housing and transport. Many victim-survivors, especially and most often women and children, are forced to start from scratch, often without savings, employment or a safe place to stay. The cost of temporary accommodation, legal support, setting up a new household and meeting day-to-day living expenses can be enormous. The evidence shows that overwhelmingly those escaping violence and abuse are women and children, but these changes will also assist all survivors in these types of situations. What is more, financial systems, including the tax system, can unintentionally penalise them. These systemic barriers can be a significant cause of women staying in unsafe situations – situations that might then delay their recovery or their ability to escape.

Ensuring that our laws account for the lived reality of people escaping family violence is essential if we are serious about safety, fairness and financial justice. Right now if someone had had access to the first home owners grant or stamp duty exemptions to buy a home with a partner and then had to flee due to violence, they can lose their eligibility. They are treated as if they have already had their one shot. That does not seem fair, particularly given the circumstances. It punishes people who have already been through trauma and discourages them from leaving unsafe situations. This bill changes that. It means that if someone has to leave their home because of family violence and they do not benefit from the property, they will be able to access those supports again. So where that person does not get the rental income, does not see capital gains and does not get to live in the property that they have had to flee, they are treated as if they had never bought the property in the first place. They will be eligible again for the $10,000 first home owner grant on a new home, and they will be eligible for the full stamp duty exemption on homes under $600,000 and concessions on homes up to $750,000. This is about dignity, it is about rebuilding and it is about recognising that sometimes good tax policy can be about gender. Good tax policy should always reflect our values as a society and a Victorian community. A further change ensures that if they are still listed as the owner on the home that they have fled and they are not making any money from it they will not be hit with land tax either.

For too long the tax office has perceived itself as a gender-free zone. In the 1990s the sector argued to the Department of Treasury and Finance that family violence is an economic issue, costing Victoria and Victorians money. At the time the sector was seeking more secure funding for family violence and sexual assault services across the state. Put more brutally, these amendments will prevent the tax office from being intrinsically implicit in the oppression of women, removing these property barriers from consideration for women who are planning to leave a violent or abusive relationship, and this is the right thing to do. These are practical, decent changes. They are about giving victim-survivors of family violence a fair go. No-one should be punished for protecting themselves or their kids. So this bill is an important demonstration of the value of a multilens analysis – that is my made-up phrase – critically looking at longstanding financial and tax assumptions from the perspectives of vulnerable and diverse Victorians. For that reason, I commend the bill to the house.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:15): I am also pleased to talk on the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2025. I will start from the outset by saying that the Libertarian Party will not be opposing this bill. Overall my understanding is it results in a slightly lower tax take, and on that basis I will not be opposing it. In fact it does a couple of good things, which I will go through in a moment.

I would note, as pointed out by Mr Davis earlier, the big tax that was recently put through by the government: the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund. Nonetheless, this bill – firstly, some of the good things that it does. One thing is it extends the new stamp duty concessions from 12 months to two years. Those that were watching would know that the Libertarians attempted to extend that to make it permanent. It appears that the government decided that one year was not long enough – and I agree with the government that one year was not long enough – so the government is going to two years. I do have an amendment, which we will get to at a later point. In the interests of compromise, I will attempt to make it 10 years, instead of forever, and maybe we can get to some sort of agreement to that amongst the chamber.

Another thing that this bill does which is very good is extend provisions on tax exemptions to people in domestic violence situations. This is undoubtedly a good thing. I note that there are some amendments from the opposition that the government has indicated it may agree to, and I will look at that carefully when it comes through, when we go through the committee stage. But nonetheless I am generally supportive of these exemptions as well.

The main concern that I have with this bill – and it is not a deal breaker, but it is a concern nonetheless – is around the new penalty rate. There are penalty rates for taxes that have not been collected for various reasons, and currently there is a 25 per cent penalty rate and a 75 per cent penalty rate. I have been informed that the 75 per cent rate is very rarely used, as my understanding is it is basically things that are verging on criminality, and therefore the bar is very high. The government want to introduce a new, intermediate rate of 50 per cent for what they are calling reckless conduct. I am a little bit concerned about how that may be used. I think the term ‘cudgel’ was used before.

Harriet Shing interjected.

David LIMBRICK: Yes. I am a bit concerned about how this might actually be used, and I have got some questions for the committee stage on that. But nonetheless it is not actually putting in a higher rate than what currently exists, because the existing highest rate is 75 per cent. Therefore I do not see a good reason to oppose this. There are other things that this bill does, some of them just tweaks and technical things. The main thing, around extending the stamp duty concessions, is undoubtedly a good thing, and providing exemptions to people who are suffering family violence situations is also a very good thing. On that basis, the Libertarian Party will not be opposing this bill.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (15:18): I am pleased to rise to make a contribution on the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2025. In doing so, speaking on it in 2025, I again reiterate that in effect it impacts a number of tax-related acts: the Commercial and Industrial Property Tax Reform Act 2024, the Duties Act 2000, the First Home Owner Grant and Home Buyer Schemes Act 2000, the Land Tax Act 2005, the Taxation Administration Act 1997, the Unclaimed Money Act 2008 and the Victorian Conservation Trust Act 1972.

As we have heard from the lead speaker from the Liberals and Nationals Mr Davis, this bill has many technical and administrative elements to it, which are relatively uncontroversial. But indeed some of the aspects of the bill require further scrutiny and indeed amendment, and those in particular are about victim-survivors of family violence and adjustments to clarify their obligations and, in addition, for trusts and build-to-rent properties. There are some that certainly need looking at. And what we have seen in the government over the past decade is an interest in taxing people. The interest that the interest in taxing is creating in this state is in the forward estimates: we see a debt of upwards of $190 billion. Indeed that interest payment on an hourly rate will end up being somewhere in the vicinity of $1.3 million in interest payments alone. That will be a frightening, frightening occurrence and eventuality if this government is not drawn in and if it is not replaced in 2026.

This bill does amend the Duties Act 2000, the Land Tax Act 2005 and other taxation acts; it introduces new compliance frameworks, new exemptions and new penalty rates; and it removes or modifies existing entitlements and thresholds. One of the parts to the bill that we heard Acting President Ermacora speak to was in relation to family and domestic violence. It amends the first home owner grant and home buyer scheme so that exemptions allow applicants affected and impacted by the scourge of family violence to actually have access to first home owner grants, despite in many cases having entered into an arrangement before in their previous relationship that would have then prevented them access in the future. So there is recognition of the impact of that domestic violence on – and it is not always but it is overwhelmingly and regularly – women and then subsequently children and families. It also amends the Land Tax Act for the expansion of exemptions for principal places of residence, specifically accommodating those victims of family violence who have had to vacate their property.

Doing a little bit of research in relation to domestic violence, it is so alarming and concerning that still nationwide 21 per cent of Australians have experienced family violence or domestic violence, emotional abuse or economic abuse by a partner. Specifically in Victoria, 27 per cent of women – that is almost 3 million, 2.7 million women – have experienced partner violence since the age of 15, and 15 per cent of men, or 1.5 million, have also experienced the same. That is frightening, isn’t it, when we consider the impact on lives, livelihoods, ability to get through the day – those sorts of imposts – and the pain and trauma that is caused through domestic violence. And it is no surprise that in Victoria 49 per cent – so half – of our domestic violence victims report the offender being an intimate partner, that first partner. That is why some of the changes to this legislation are important.

Also what we know and what is most concerning is that Victoria’s response is certainly falling short, in particular in relation to the Royal Commission into Family Violence. Safe and Equal, a respected organisation, put in a budget submission only a few months ago to the state government what they want to see, and some of their quotes in that particular budget submission indicate that without long-term, sustainable funding, the specialist family violence sector cannot meet current or future demand. This puts victim-survivors at risk and undermines the progress made since the royal commission.

They are advocating for additional funds. They are concerned that our numbers are tracking in the wrong direction. Indeed in my own Eastern Victoria electorate unfortunately – and again, these are no metrics that anybody, any sane person, would rejoice in; indeed it is a very sad situation – there are areas in my electorate that are suffering on a statewide comparison, and certainly more needs to be done in that space. The bill introduces new land tax exemptions, as I have said, and looks at those disaster-affected individuals. The important thing that Mr Davis has tabled and discussed on behalf of the Nationals and the Liberals is certain amendments in relation to having that ability for further exemptions, particularly if domestic violence victims have left their primary homes and/or because of a natural disaster. I believe that there has been some positive discussion with the government looking to adopt some of those recommendations through the amendments.

What we also know is that it is tougher than ever to get a first home, whether you are someone who, very sadly, is experiencing domestic violence or whether you are a first home buyer. I know the Nationals’ and the Liberals’ fantastic new policy is up, with exemptions from stamp duty for first home buyers purchasing established or off-the-plan properties up to a threshold of $1 million, so I congratulate the team there for that. That looks at saving somewhere between $40,000 and $50,000 on a home. We know that the cost of homes is going up and up. Even in regional Victoria the median price is getting, in many locations, well above that $600,000 to $650,000 for a home.

While the Nationals certainly are not opposing this bill, we do acknowledge that people are suffering under this government over the last 10 years and of the no fewer than 60 new or increased taxes, half of them are on property. It is no wonder that the lines, in a variety of ways, to get a home are just getting longer and longer for so many Victorians. This is not a budget reform; in effect this is just another blunder that this government keeps winding us into. We have seen the introduction of the windfall gains tax, a vacant resident land tax, a cladding rectification tax. Do not forget the COVID debt levy and the mental health and wellbeing surcharge. All of these are impacting Victorians in a way that is unsustainable. We even saw the Auditor-General back in 2022 talk about the debt continuing to rise faster than revenue and economic growth, increasing the cost of servicing that debt. The government has not yet outlined a clear plan for how and when it will repay existing and future debt.

We heard the Treasurer today during question time endorsing and certainly supporting the words of the Victorian Auditor-General in her contribution. She needs to have a listen and reflect on some of the very valid comments that the Auditor-General has made in the past about this government’s spiralling debt and those comments my very vigilant and strident Shadow Minister for Mental Health has made on that mental health levy. This is a billion dollars a year coming into the government coffers. It is supposed to be addressing those issues arising from the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System – it is supposed to be doing that – and yet we see, particularly in my patch, the government shutting down services and siphoning off funding, pinching it, ringbarking funding into the health assembly in our patch. Those organisations look to support people with domestic violence. On one hand they are saying, ‘Look, we’ll put this bill through.’ On the another hand they are cutting off funding that supports victims of domestic violence. I congratulate my colleague Emma Kealy for being so strident in her position and her views of supporters of domestic violence.

The other thing, in summation on this bill, and we heard our lead speaker Mr Davis speak about it, is the impact on regional Victorians of so many taxes – the cumulative land tax burden that we are facing through this. We also heard him speak about the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund, and that always sticks in my neck when I have to say ‘volunteers fund’ for the correct title. It is a tax, it is a de facto tax and we have seen the Victorian Farmers Federation and the chair of Rural Councils Victoria go in hard and oppose this impost which affects all Victorians whether you own a house, a business, run an industry or you are a rental provider. It will impact renters in the future, absolutely. But also, no more is it felt than in country Victoria, where this government is imposing a 150 per cent increase on the previous levy. And a stay of execution for one year just will not wash – it is unacceptable.

I was interested in Ms Ermacora’s discussion around the amendment to payroll tax, part 6 of this bill, looking at the refinement of definitions around ‘regional employees’ to provide clearer guidelines on payroll eligibility for regional businesses and addressing those which were ambiguous. When she spoke about communities, she has got her border community, and I certainly have mine in Eastern Victoria as well. One of the key factors that pains me to understand as I speak with former businesses that were involved in the native timber industry – our world-class, sustainable native timber industry – is that I know that those businesses have had to close and collapse, and while they are trying to keep those communities like Orbost alive they are, on a regular occasion, having to send their diminished staff into New South Wales, up the Monaro or over into Eden or further, in order to continue to pay their staff and keep that community alive and keep the small schools alive in those regions.

You have these communities that are suffering because of this government’s flawed policies over the last decade. You see a slither of acknowledgement of that, where you have a government that has shut down an industry, causing pain in our regional communities, and now it is saying, ‘Okay, we’ll ensure, at the very least, that if you are going to have your workers retained in those communities, we’ll whack you for payroll tax as long as you’re working in this state. But when you have to go interstate to find some funds, we accept that.’ That is minimal at best. Farmers in towns like Lang Lang and Nyora are struggling with inflated land values. We see Wonthaggi and Inverloch small business owners and retirees are also having impost over impost from this particular government.

The Nationals will not oppose this bill. We endorse our combined amendments. What we also are very concerned about – and we heard it through the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee – is that the government is now using its Treasurer’s advance, and at last count it was $12 billion worth of Treasurer’s advances for core government services. It is going to continue that and continue to drive that debt that your children’s children will be funding.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (15:33): I rise to speak on the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2025. This makes adjustment to eight pieces of legislation allowing the government to implement several of the budget commitments announced in May. One important change this bill makes is that it takes the existing temporary stamp duty concession for off-the-plan apartments, units and townhouses and extends it for another year. The extension of this concession was a big part of May’s budget, and it is perhaps the biggest single aspect of the bill, which covers changes being made to many different pieces of legislation across the tax code. So it is fitting for me to cover this particular change first.

This is a concession that was first announced in October 2024 and which was extended in May’s budget. It will remain valid on eligible properties until October 2026, an extension of 12 months. Prior to October 2024, the concession was value-capped and only applied to first home buyers and owner-occupiers. The announcement in 2024 that any Victorian looking to purchase off the plan would be eligible for the concessions is important. The more we can incentivise people to look towards buying off the plan rather than competing for existing homes, the more we can incentivise developers to build new homes. This means that this change is directly addressing both housing affordability and housing supply. One of the reasons why this concession is so important is because it will have meaningful effect on helping people to buy off the plan and therefore incentivising developers to build more houses. But because it is targeted specifically at off-the-plan purchases, it places the tax relief where it is needed the most to achieve our desired outcomes. It does this by incentivising the construction of more homes rather than just pushing up the prices of existing homes without adding any value. Remember, building more homes also benefits those who want to buy an existing home – when everybody has more choice and more options, they will not have to compete with so many people over each existing home. Premier Allan wants to be the Premier who gets millennials into homes, and that requires getting more homes built.

Some other important parts of the bill include the changes made to the regulations around build-to-rent. Currently the Victorian government gives build-to-rent developers a 50 per cent reduction in the taxable value of their land on eligible developments; in some cases they also receive a 30-year exemption from the absentee owner surcharge. The tax incentive is one of the Allan Labor government’s policy settings which has made Melbourne Australia’s built-to-rent capital. As of last year three-quarters of the completed build-to-rent projects across Australia were located in Melbourne. One example of a fantastic build-to-rent project is the Greystar project on Yarra and Claremont streets in South Yarra, located in the Southern Metropolitan Region, which I visited last year with the Minister for Planning in the other place. It is a project which delivers 617 high-quality homes near public transport, near shops, near services, near the CBD and, crucially, in a location with existing infrastructure in place to support an influx of new residents. We on this side of the chamber know how important build-to-rent is, and that is why this bill makes life easier for the developers and gives people more choice as tenants, because sometimes a small change like that can go a long way towards giving people more choice, more autonomy and more security.

This bill does not seek to make sweeping changes to the existing set of incentives but instead adjusts some of their precise terms to ensure that they are promoting secure, long-term rental housing. In short, we are giving the developers new rights but also new responsibilities. As such, in order for developers to benefit from the build-to-rent incentives tenants must receive lease term offers of three years or longer. It is acceptable for tenants to request shorter lease terms, but the developers would have to demonstrate that this was the tenant’s preference through the signing of a joint declaration. Further, because build-to-rent projects exist to provide secure, long-term rental housing, this bill changes the law on this. It prohibits lease terms of less than 12 months in build-to-rent housing through providing exemptions in limited circumstances. Also this bill gives the Commissioner of State Revenue the power to allow temporarily uninhabitable properties to maintain their build-to-rent benefits under certain circumstances; these include unforeseeable circumstances such as natural disasters and other reasonable circumstances such as planned refurbishments.

Build-to-rent is all about security and choice in housing. Some people want or need stability to be able to stay in one place for a longer period of time but either do not have the means to purchase a house of their own or would just prefer not to. Everyone’s circumstances are unique, and long-term private rentals are an important tool to have in our housing arsenal, because renters deserve to have a choice when they decide where they want to live. That is why it is important that the government provide tax incentives to build-to-rent, and that is why small changes like we are including in this bill are important, to make it easier for the people who build homes to build and maintain them. That is also why it is important that the government always looks out for renters’ rights and puts into law that renters in build-to-rent properties are entitled to lease terms of at least three years, giving them security and giving them choice. With that, I will leave my contribution there.

Gaelle BROAD (Northern Victoria) (15:39): I rise to speak on the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2025. This bill amends various Victorian taxation-related acts, including the Commercial and Industrial Property Tax Reform Act 2024, the Land Tax Act 2005 and the Unclaimed Money Act 2008. It impacts multiple taxation acts regarding taxation administration and compliance, and the bill also institutes a penalty taxation rate for reckless noncompliance, which is arguably a new taxation measure, and that is what this government loves to do – they love to tax, tax and tax. We have had over 60 new or increased taxes since this government came to power. When I think back – I have been in now for 2½ years – I remember early on looking at the interest payments every day being about $15 million every single day. Now we have seen in the recent budget in a few years we are heading towards a much, much higher amount of $29 million every single day just in interest. The debt we are heading towards in this state is $194 billion. Now, that is extraordinary. So what do we get for it? As David Davis pointed out, we are the highest taxed state. But it would be good to know where the money is going, because at the moment our state is in a huge hole. It is like a vortex: there is lots of money going into the coffers and lots of new taxes being introduced, but there is certainly not much to show for it.

When you look at our roads – and there has been a lot of news coverage over a long period of time – our roads are falling apart in regional areas. Certainly the Calder up to Bendigo is nice and smooth for the most part, but when you deviate off that onto other roads across our state you will see a very different picture. We know our health system is under pressure. And when you look at housing, we do have a housing crisis in Victoria, and it is certainly burdened by property taxes. But with roads, as I mentioned, there have been a number of media reports. I know my Nationals colleague Kim O’Keeffe, member for Shepparton, has been out with a truck driver actually experiencing how bumpy it is.

A member interjected.

Gaelle BROAD: Her bruised head; that is right – just experiencing the uneven nature of our roads. If you have hit any of those potholes, you have probably experienced that absolute thud and that crunch. We have seen in the news reports that Victoria’s roads will continue to deteriorate despite so-called record funding. The newspapers talk about experts warning not enough work is being done by the Allan government to rehabilitate roads:

Data released in performance reports linked to the May budget have revealed that despite a record $976 million in funding, a shockingly low amount of road repairs will be carried out compared to previous years across regional Victoria and outer Melbourne in the year ahead.

It goes on to analyse Victoria’s road maintenance targets, which show that in 2025–26, works in regional areas will dramatically reduce to 2.7 million square metres. Now, this is down 13 per cent from the target of 3.1 million in 2024–25 and down from 9 million square metres of road that was being fixed and treated to protect against rain and potholes in regional Victoria in 2022–23. Now, I know my colleague and Leader of the Nationals Danny O’Brien has pointed out that despite claiming it is spending record amounts on roads, Labor’s own budget papers show a shocking 93 per cent reduction next year in patching works and a 13 per cent reduction on road resealing and rehabilitation. So where is the money going? Last year alone there were approximately 15,000 reports of potholes – that is averaging over 120 defects daily. But yes, as I said before, if you have ever driven on these roads, you will know what I am talking about.

It is not just roads, it is our health system. There is a significant shortage of hospital beds, particularly in regional areas like Mildura and Wodonga, which leads to ambulance ramping. Mildura is now the worst hospital for emergency department waits, and my colleague Jade Benham –

Ryan Batchelor: On a point of order, Acting President, just on relevance, whilst the state tax bill deals with a number of taxation matters, I am not sure it deals with potholes or hospitals, so I would ask the member to come back to the bill.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): I ask the member to come back to taxation and revenue measures, please.

Gaelle BROAD: I do believe that state taxation is important. As I was mentioning, it is raising revenue, and where that money is going is very important. But this bill does talk very much about property taxes. Recently I hosted a forum in Bendigo with Tim McCurdy MP, and we met with local real estate agents to discuss the deepening housing crisis in regional Victoria. As I mentioned before, there are 60 new or increased taxes – 30 of these target property – and Labor’s policies are pushing rental providers out and driving up the cost for tenants. I have received emails about these issues, and this particular bill does talk about the Land Tax Act. I received a letter from a gentleman in Huntly, and he says:

We are a couple in our mid 70’s on a part pension. Due to health reasons we retired from work 5 years ago.

He goes on to say:

In the last 3 years we have had land tax and “covid debt recovery charge” applied. First it was less than $300. Last year it was increased to over $1600 and this year the bill is over $1700. We could not pay last years and are on a payment plan with the State Revenue Office.

He goes on to talk about:

Adding up Mansfield Council rates, Bendigo Council rates along with the new “Volunteer Services Levy” on both rates charges this year’s land tax and covid debt recovery charge is impossible to pay.

This is the pressure that people are under.

I received another email from someone who was telling me about – well, this is one example of why investors are moving away from residential property. He talks about the costs that you find on a four-bedroom home in Strathfieldsaye. He says:

Rent was $550 per week, has just been listed and relet at $600 per week.

He lists the costs connected: council rates, over $3200; land tax, over $18,600 on that property; insurance, over $1600; the agent’s management fee, $2300; the Coliban Water fee, over $1000; mandatory electrical inspection, over $160; general repairs, $1164. The expenses are over $28,200, and the rent for the 2024–25 financial year is $28,600.

That is just an example of the incredible burden that is being placed on people with property, and yet we see the introduction of the emergency services tax, another new tax. Again I ask: where is the money going? Because this particular tax is to pay for services that have previously been funded under the state budget. I received another email from a lady called Carolyn, and she talked about that emergency services tax. She says:

… it’s not just farmers that Victorian taxes are effecting –

She is talking about that particular tax –

Before this tax was on the table the new Victorian land tax effected me as a small property owner who struggled all my life to pay for my investment, for a good retirement. My land tax went from $9000 to $28,000 per annum, which I could not afford. I had owned and lived at the property for 30 years. I am actually glad, now that this tax has come in that I have sold.

And then she talks about the impact on other people and small investors in a similar boat.

We have seen people protesting against this tax. Certainly that has happened in Bendigo, it has happened on the steps of Parliament and, I know on the weekend, in Ballarat. The councils have said very clearly they do not want to collect it. No-one can afford it, and the impact of the drought has just meant that this has been the most difficult time for people, particularly in regional areas that rely on the land.

The damage done by this government is extensive, and it will take years to fix. We need a government for the whole of the state, a government that is more equitable and more transparent and a government that cares about your money and where your money is going and how that money is being spent. We have seen in previous budgets under this Allan Labor government that only 13 per cent of new infrastructure spending goes to regional areas, yet we have 25 per cent of the population that have chosen to live in regional Victoria. Now, we are less than 70 weeks away from the next state election. We need a change of government and a fresh start.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (15:49): I rise to speak on behalf of the Victorian Greens on the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2025. The bill proposes a number of changes to a range of state taxes, the most substantive being the extension of the temporary off-the-plan stamp duty concession for another 12 months and some tightening of the eligibility for the generous land tax concessions offered to build-to-rent operators. Whatever we think of this bill, what we can probably all agree is that it represents yet another example of how timid Australian governments prefer to tinker around the edges of the crisis in our housing and taxation systems rather than stepping up to implement the systemic reform that is needed. Beyond all the government spin and media releases on housing, the cold hard numbers in the Victorian budget say that housing affordability is expected to get worse year on year – in fact it has to so stamp duty revenue can continue to prop up the budget.

The 2025–26 budget released just a couple of weeks ago states that Victorian dwellings prices are forecast to grow by an average of 5 per cent a year over the forwards. If we compare this with the budget’s expected wages growth of 3.25 per cent over the same period, the Victorian government is anticipating that the already unaffordable housing dream of young Victorians is becoming even less affordable by 1.75 per cent in real terms every year. Of course this forecast is probably optimistic in regard to a first home buyer’s wages growth comparative to property prices. It is telling that the Victorian property industry is openly lobbying for an overall rise in apartment and townhouse prices of 15 per cent from current levels over and above forecast annual price rises, particularly with regard to those apartments in the so-called affordable price range. It is also telling that they are big supporters of the government’s housing agenda.

Of course Labor keep telling us that they are making changes that will make housing more affordable, even if this involves inverting the laws of economics by also making it more expensive. Victorians should not hold their breath for this housing miracle. The fact that it is getting harder and more expensive every year to buy or rent a home is not news to the thousands of Victorians attending opens every week, but what may come as a surprise is that for many Victorians the government’s announceables around making housing more affordable are actually making the problem worse – which leads to the proposed extension of the stamp duty concession for off-the-plan developments by 12 months in this bill.

The minister told us last year that this was a short-term targeted policy. In fact the minister forcibly argued against extending the scheme when we debated this proposal, so there are some questions to be asked about why this is again being extended. What 12 months ago was necessarily a short intervention due to the fact interest rates had not fallen is now a longer-term intervention because interest rates are falling. The accompanying media release could have had a quote from the minister saying, ‘Just don’t think too hard about it.’ So while it is self-evident that this is no longer a short intervention, we now have evidence that it is not a targeted one either. While there may be some logic to trying to reduce stamp duty on the 8000-odd affordable apartments currently sitting empty, it makes no sense to provide tax breaks to the luxury end of the market where off-the-plan sales and construction rates have remained consistently strong and where buyers can actually afford to pay the tax. Yet this is exactly where the concessions are overwhelmingly going. Just google the words ‘Luxury apartment for sale in Melbourne’ and you will see developers spruiking hundreds of thousands of dollars in stamp duty savings on opulent riverside developments with entry-level prices starting at over a couple of million dollars.

As one somewhat incredulous real estate agent told the Age a few weeks ago when celebrating a client receiving a $1.1 million stamp duty concession on a $20 million purchase, ‘Wealthy people are going to buy these properties anyway regardless of these handouts from taxpayers.’ What is more egregious is that not only are these tax concessions just overwhelmingly benefiting the wealthy in dollar terms, but because stamp duty rates are set progressively the wealthy buying properties over $2 million will also receive a higher rate of tax concession than those buying more modest properties. Why do the superwealthy, who do not need or ask for these concessions when buying multimillion-dollar properties, receive a greater benefit both real and in relative terms than those young Victorian families who still cannot afford to buy a modest new apartment?

This is a big beautiful housing bill where those buying apartments in excess of $2 million will get the biggest benefit while those struggling with the cost of living will get a far lower trickle-down benefit. Suffice to say that this Labor government simply cannot afford the kind of largesse that gives a $1.1 million tax credit to someone buying a $20 million apartment for no reason, especially when you can look further into the budget to find that the waitlist for those seeking priority housing to escape family violence has blown out to over 17 months. There can be no greater example of just how badly this government has got its spending priorities wrong. The Greens therefore have amendments, which I will ask the clerks to kindly circulate now.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Sarah MANSFIELD: The government’s rhetoric has claimed repeatedly that these tax concessions are a targeted measure to help first home buyers and young families struggling to afford housing. The reality is that this is a regressive trickle-down tax concession that overwhelmingly favours the wealthy when buying multimillion-dollar luxury apartments. Our amendments effectively seek to make these tax concessions match the government’s rhetoric by making sure all concessions are tightly targeted towards getting Victorians into affordable homes. Unlike luxury developments, the current pricepoint for new affordable apartments does seem to be unaffordable for most people, meaning thousands of apartments are sitting empty while others never begin construction in the first place. The Greens amendment seeks to cap the off-the-plan stamp duty concession – extended by 12-months under this bill – to homes where the dutiable value is not more than $1.6 million, or three times the current median value of new apartments, because that is what targeted housing affordability policy actually looks like. What is more, if passed, we would like to see the additional revenue generated from ending concessions on luxury properties to be hypothecated into building more priority public housing for those who most need it – for example, people escaping family violence – to bring the waitlist down from the current 17 months, which I think we would all agree is absolutely unacceptable. Hypothecating income on luxury penthouses will likely deliver tens of millions of dollars more to these underfunded housing programs to protect families, who instead will be waiting over a year to escape danger.

The word ‘crisis’ is overused in politics, but we could all agree that this much is clear: there is no luxury housing crisis in Australia. Multimillion-dollar developments are being built and sold like hotcakes. Billionaires are managing to scrape by okay without taxpayer handouts, so the Victorian government handing out $1.1 million tax sweeteners to this cohort when buying $20 million penthouses can only be described as some kind of joke. However, there is an undisputed housing affordability crisis in this state, as there is a family violence crisis. Some might say, if we are not there yet, there is also a fiscal crisis. The Greens amendments are about being fiscally responsible by targeting tax concessions to where they will address the state’s genuine housing needs while providing the necessary revenue to invest in the appalling priority housing waiting lists.

We have further amendments regarding build-to-rent, or BTR, developments. BTR has a role to play in the housing mix, but the Greens are concerned that the state government is putting too many eggs and taxpayer dollars in this basket, particularly as BTR rents are generally much higher than the open-market equivalent. The land tax concessions for BTR operators under the Land Tax Act 2005 are overly generous – up to 50 per cent of the taxable value of the land – yet these operators are still charging weekly rents higher than landlords who do not receive land tax concessions, so something really does not add up here.

The Greens have also advocated to the Treasurer to remove the loophole allowing BTR developers to avoid paying the public open space levy to local governments, which goes towards balancing the increased housing density with new parks, greenery and open space in these localities, which really make them more livable places. This levy is really a win–win for the community, and BTR should have to pay an equivalent levy that is already paid by build-for-sale developers on subdivisions. I am pleased to advise that the Treasurer has indicated that the government is reviewing this loophole, and the Greens will continue to pressure this government to correct this oversight in this term of Parliament and deliver better outcomes for local residents.

BTR operators have justified the higher rents they charge by claiming that they offer longer leases and housing stability to tenants in return. This bill makes some small improvements to make sure that these leases, of at least three years, are being genuinely offered by providers in order for them to receive the land tax discount. But the Greens believe there should be a stronger legislative requirement to stop BTR operators from exploiting loopholes and to genuinely offer the kind of rental stability to tenants that they claim justifies their price premiums, because despite the sunny rhetoric in the brochure, there have been countless stories of BTR operators booting out tenants for no reason or – this is now being prohibited – pricing tenants out of their homes by excessively raising rents after 12 months.

One such operator in Fitzroy reportedly raised rents by up to 17 per cent after just one year. While three-year leases are positive, they will be of little value to a renter who has been told that their rent – already at a premium over the market rates – will increase by 17 per cent or more in the space of a year. I spoke earlier of how the government’s own figures show average wages rising by 3.25 per cent at best over the next year. So the reality is even with a three-year lease many BTR renters will be forced to leave after the first year if they receive an excessive rent increase. Therefore our amendments propose to require BTR operators to also cap annual rent increases at no more than 5 per cent per annum, alongside offering a three-year lease, to be eligible for the 50 per cent land tax discount. This will mean that BTR renters will have genuine long-term housing stability rather than facing the real prospect of being priced out of their apartments after just one year. BTR operators who are unwilling to offer such genuinely stable long-term housing for renters will still of course be able to raise prices beyond 5 per cent in a 12-month period; they just will not be able to claim the generous land tax concessions if they choose to do this.

In short, our amendments incentivise BTR operators to deliver the kinds of rentals that they advertise they will. Both sets of Greens amendments better target concessions to provide genuinely affordable homes for first home buyers and for renters, while ensuring badly needed tax revenue will continue to come from those who can afford to pay the full tax when buying or renting out properties. Our amendments clearly improve the operation of these taxes, so I commend them to the house and will have further to say during the committee stage of the bill.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (16:02): I am pleased to rise to speak on the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2025, a bill amending the Duties Act 2000, the Land Tax Act 2005, the Payroll Tax Act 2007 and the Taxation Administration Act 1997 for a range of purposes. I will go to some of those. It is a bill we strongly support that facilitates several tax concessions and exemptions for Victorians, tax concessions that will help more people buy their own home by extending the stamp duty concession for off-the-plan apartments and townhouses for another year, saving Victorians an average of $25,000 on purchasing a new home; tax concessions which will help open up more long-term options for Victorians via the build-to-rent sector; and tax exemptions for victims of family and domestic violence who have been forced into leaving their principal place of residence due to that family violence. It is a bill that ensures our tax system continues to be fair, progressive and incentivised, working to improve the services and the lives of Victorians.

Some of the measures in this bill are part of the suite of measures that we as a Labor government are committed to to get more Victorians into homes. It will, through some measures, increase the supply of new housing, attracting and providing incentives for housing to be built; it provides some security and stability to other cohorts; and it is part of the way that Labor is combating the housing crisis here in Victoria.

I want to spend a bit of the speech talking about the build-to-rent sector and about build-to-rent homes, which are becoming more and more an important and increasingly popular way of providing housing in Victoria. Melbourne is the build-to-rent capital of the nation. There are now more than 20 build-to-rent schemes here in Victoria, the first completed just a couple of years ago, amounting to more than 6000 apartments provided under the scheme, with around 18,000 under construction or in planning approval. Clearly the changes that the state government made in the 2021 budget, I think, to create some incentives to facilitate more build-to-rent developments here in Victoria are working.

The growth of the build-to-rent sector here in Victoria has been I think a really promising way of diversifying the housing mix that is available. In particular one of the things that I think is very importantly different about the build-to-rent sector compared to the traditional sector is the way we are seeing an increasing number of institutional landlords coming into the rental market here in Victoria, which changes the dynamic in the rental market from people who might own one, two, three or four residential rental properties. Someone who owns a large apartment block full of rental properties over a longer term has a very different relationship to the management of the rental stock – things like maintenance, things like ensuring quality in the construction and quality in the ongoing maintenance of those facilities. I think it is a really interesting development in the rental market here in Melbourne and one that I support.

The other reason for the interest in the area is I have had for the last few months a parliamentary intern from the University of Melbourne, under the parliamentary internships program, working with me in my office, and Tahlia has been doing a research paper on the build-to-rent sector here in Victoria, particularly in the Southern Metropolitan Region. Some of the comments in this speech have been informed by the work that Tahlia has done. One of the pieces of feedback we received in the course of the research we were doing is from a tenant of one of the build-to-rent developments, and they said:

It has allowed me to live in an area I previously could not afford to.

In the Southern Metropolitan Region more and more people are living in apartments in multi-unit developments. Seven of the 20 build-to-rent developments in Melbourne are in the Southern Metropolitan Region.

One of the important elements of the policy intent behind the tax concession changes that were introduced by the government a few years ago was the need to create more security in the rental market, and one of the conditions on the tax concession has been that tenants must be offered three-year leases. This bill strengthens and clarifies that requirement. In order to qualify for the tax concession, a lease of at least three years must be genuinely offered to tenants under the changes proposed by this bill rather than merely being available. A minimum three-year lease term ensures stability and security for tenants and helps protect against excessive annual rent increases, which have been a feature of the traditional rental market. Obviously the tenancies that are entered into in the build-to-rent sector – multiyear leases – are still regulated in the same way as all leases in the broader community, which requires under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 that rent increases and clauses to facilitate rent increases must be included in lease agreements of more than 12 months, the terms of which must specify that rent can go up once only once every 12 months. But under multiyear lease agreements the rent escalation clause, if you will, has to be set in advance, which would prevent the sort of unreasonable and excessive rent hikes that we see operating between lease agreements in the course of rental provision.

There was a very interesting paper produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics last month which examined the rental increases that were seen in longer term multiyear existing tenancies and compared them to rent increases that were occurring for new tenancies and between new lease agreements that people saw in the rental market. What is very, very clear from the work that the ABS published last month is that tenants in multiyear leases have lower annual rent increases than people who are switching between tenancies. The security that longer term tenancies provides does have positive downward pressure on rental increases, and that is there in ABS data. The tenants of build-to-rent developments can obviously choose to have leases shorter than three years, but what this bill importantly ensures is that in this scenario a joint declaration has to be signed by both the developer and the tenant testifying that a three-year lease was genuinely offered. It is important feedback.

As part of the research that my office was doing through the parliamentary internship in the last couple of months, we went out and did a small survey of some of the tenants in build-to-rent developments in the Southern Metropolitan Region to gain their feedback firsthand as to what they were experiencing. What was concerning was – and it was a very small sample that we got back – that less than 10 per cent of the tenants surveyed said that they had been offered a lease of at least three years, and most of them were on a lease of just one year. That has obviously raised some concerns for me. That is why I am very, very supportive of this bill that is going through the Parliament today, to make sure that the tax concessions that are being offered to facilitate the build-to-rent developments here in Victoria are actually and genuinely offering longer term leases, because there is some emerging evidence that it is not the case that it has been. The feedback that we had from this renters survey was that tenants want that stability, they want that longer term and they want the ability to know for certain what the rent increases that they were likely to experience were going to be over the course of their likely tenancy.

The other really encouraging piece of feedback from the work that we have done with the residents and tenants in these build-to-rent developments is that overall the lived experience of the tenants in these developments is really positive. Of the tenants that responded to our survey who had previously rented in the traditional rental market, two-thirds said that their experience in a build-to-rent development was either somewhat or much better than the experience that they had had in prior tenancies in different parts of the private rental market. We think that build-to-rent developments are making a difference here in Melbourne. We think they are an important addition to the housing mix, and I think the changes that have been put forward in this bill by the government today will strengthen the regime of protections that are in place for tenants and ensure that the scheme is being used as it is intended and that the tax concessions are being used as they are intended – that is, to facilitate the development of tenancy that delivers security in the long term for tenants. That is really, really important.

The bill also makes some important changes to expand the stamp duty concessions for off-the-plan apartments and townhouses, a scheme that was announced in October last year, saving homebuyers an average of $25,000 – it will now be extended by a further 12 months. This is a really welcome change. Victoria continues to build the highest number of homes in any state in Australia and continues to approve more homes for construction than any other state. Our measures are helping to reduce the cost of home ownership and increase the supply of new homes, and we are increasing the protections for Victorians who live in them. That is how the Victorian government, the Allan Labor government, is supporting Victorians with the goal of home ownership.

Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (16:13): I rise to speak in support of this bill today, and this bill makes a range of updates across Victoria’s tax system. While many of these amendments are technical and administrative in nature, there are also measures within this bill that speak to the core values that underpin our tax system, because taxation, as we all know, is not just about the dollars and the cents flowing into government coffers. It should be about much more than simply collecting revenue. It is fundamentally about fairness, it is about compassion and it is about ensuring that our systems and structures are responsive to the realities of Victorians, especially those facing the most difficult of circumstances. We must never lose sight of the fact that behind every tax return, every land title transfer and every financial document there are people, real people, who at times are navigating crisis, trauma and upheaval, and so our responsibility as politicians is to make sure that our laws reflect not only economic imperatives but also our collective humanity.

I want to highlight the new exemption for people impacted by family violence. While this change may appear small on paper, I have no doubt that its real-world impact will be significant. Property ownership, and more specifically housing security, is often one of the critical factors in determining whether a person experiencing family violence is able to safely exit an abusive relationship. The ability to retain or transfer property without the added financial burden of stamp duty or land tax can be the difference between rebuilding a safe, independent life and being forced back into harm’s way. We know that family violence does not follow a script and that each and every case is different.

We know the experiences of victim-survivors are varied and often complex, shaped by a web of emotional, financial, legal and cultural factors, so I am heartened to learn of the government’s decision to include flexibility in the evidence requirements for people seeking an exemption. Victim-survivors should not be forced to relive their trauma through bureaucracy, and they should not have to repeatedly prove their suffering to access basic entitlements or protections. I remain hopeful, and I would urge the government to ensure that not only is the application process for this exemption clear and straightforward but that it is also trauma informed. That means working with frontline services, listening to those with lived experience and building systems that prioritise safety, dignity and accessibility. No survivor should be retraumatised by the very process that is supposed to support them.

I also want to take a moment to commend the opposition for their contributions to this bill, particularly their amendment to introduce land tax exemptions for those affected by natural disasters. This is an important inclusion and one that I know will be welcomed by the people who live in my electorate of Northern Victoria. These are communities that have endured a devastating series of challenges in recent years. Right now many are battling the ongoing effects of drought, but their hardship did not begin with the dry spell. We saw it in 2022 when widespread flooding devastated the region, and before that it was the bushfires that impacted us. These are resilient communities. They do not ask for much, but what they do need and what they deserve is a tax system that recognises their hardship and responds with empathy and with support. When a family loses their home in a flood or their farm is decimated by fire, they should not face a wall of red tape when seeking temporary tax relief.

That brings me to a broader point, one that I believe this Parliament must seriously consider going forward: Victoria currently lacks clear and consistent hardship exemptions within its taxation laws. Although the State Revenue Office has the ability to grant hardship-related tax relief, the current guidelines are not clear. They are not simple or easy to navigate. Other states, such as New South Wales, South Australia and the ACT, have already taken this step. They have enshrined into law the right to tax relief for individuals and families facing genuine exceptional hardship. It should not be easier to seek financial compassion from the Australian Taxation Office, a federal institution, than from our own state systems, but at present that is too often the case. We pride ourselves on being a progressive state, one that leads the way in human rights, social inclusion and community wellbeing, but our tax system must reflect those values in practical, tangible ways.

What I am calling for today is simple: let us create a legislative framework that embeds compassion into the heart of our tax laws. Let us ensure that when Victorians fall on hard times, be it through violence, through disaster or through unforeseen hardship, the tax system does not become another burden they must carry; instead, let it be part of the solution. The measures in this bill today may not grab headlines, but they matter to people deeply. They speak to how we treat one another, especially in moments of crisis. And that is the measure of any good government or of any good Parliament – not just how it manages budgets or balances books, but how it cares for people in their time of need. And so in that I commend the bill to the house.

Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (16:19): I rise today to speak to the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2025, a piece of legislation that perfectly encapsulates this government’s approach to policy making. It has great rhetoric and inadequate delivery, and it is always reaching its hands into Victorians’ pockets to drag out more money. I think it is interesting that this bill has been framed as practical relief, budget integrity and advancing gender equality and social justice. These are noble aspirations and ones that we on this side of the house have long championed. It was the opposition that repeatedly raised the issue of exempting women escaping family violence from land tax obligations. We identified this injustice, we advocated for these women and we demanded action. Yet when the government finally acts, after being dragged kicking and screaming to address this issue, they deliver a solution so flawed, so narrow and so bureaucratic that in large parts it fails the very women that it claims to help. Its implementation raises more doubts about its real effectiveness and it being yet another symbolic measure rather than an actual solution that can make real change. I absolutely think that it is well intentioned, but I think there are also some devastating aspects of this that would really impact the implementation.

We support helping victim-survivors of family violence – it is something that I am absolutely passionate about. There is hardly a week that goes by in this place where I do not stand up and speak about these types of issues. But supporting an idea and supporting a flawed execution are two different things entirely. This bill’s family violence exemption contains three fundamental flaws that renders it inadequate for women that need it most. The first one is that it is not retrospective. As our colleague James Newbury said in the other place in his contribution:

… as far as I am advised from the department, is not retrospective, so any of the victims who have been sent land tax bills because they have fled, up to when this bill is given royal assent, will not be helped.

If we think about that, women who have already received land tax bills are fleeing terrible situations. They have raised the issue too early, and because it happened too early, this legislation will not reach them. Regardless of the fact that they are the ones that this has been created for, in order to solve a problem, the solution will not fit their needs.

Second, victims are disqualified if they earn a single dollar from their former home. Another colleague of mine Cindy McLeish said:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

If you happen to rent it out, you cannot get a land tax exemption, and you will be paying rent elsewhere. I know of people in this circumstance. They have left. They were in a dangerous or difficult situation and they have had to move, but they do not want to get rid of the home. They might want to go back there when things are resolved, and now they are being slugged with this tax.

Let me share a real example that demonstrates how inadequate this approach is. The member for Brighton once again raised a case of a woman in Bayside fleeing family violence who received a land tax bill despite the unsafe environment that she was forced to escape. She could not afford to leave her property empty while she rebuilt her life, so she leased it out temporarily to generate an income just to get by. Under the government’s rules she has earned an income from that property – her former home, which she was made to leave – and she is excluded entirely from this land tax exemption. This is not a woman that is gaming the system; she is merely trying to get by. She rented out her home not as a landlord pursuing profit but as a lifeline to financial stability, and for that the government has handed her a tax bill. We are essentially telling women and children fleeing abuse that they are either homeless and exempt or sheltered and penalised.

Last of all, the third point I want to talk about is while this government claims to advance social justice, it abandons other vulnerable Victorians entirely. I want to bring up something that the member for Euroa Annabelle Cleeland observed. She said:

I know in my community people are still out of their homes and receiving land tax bills after enduring the October 2022 floods. It is heartless.

Why does this government believe that women fleeing violence deserve a tax break, which is something we have long advocated for, but not families that have faced incredible devastation fleeing their homes for other areas? Both are victims of circumstances beyond their control, and both have been forced to leave their homes. I believe that both deserve our compassion and support.

Given that the bill was almost actually adjourned and I snuck in with a contribution, I will end with that. While we welcome measures to support victim-survivors of family violence – indeed we initiated the calls for such measures – this legislation fails to deliver meaningful relief for women who need it most.

Lee TARLAMIS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:25): I move:

That debate on this bill be adjourned to the next day of meeting.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until next day of meeting.