Tuesday, 16 June 2026

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (18:13): I am pleased to rise and make a contribution to the Building Legislation and Treasury Legislation (Tax Relief) Amendment Bill 2026, a bill that is an omnibus bill that covers a wide variety of aspects, which I will enumerate steadily. We will not oppose this bill, but we will seek to amend it. The purpose of the bill is to establish a legal framework for a voluntary 10-year structural defect insurance product for residential apartment buildings as an alternative to developer bond schemes established under the Building Legislation Amendment (Buyer Protections) Act 2025; to amend the minimum financial requirements (MFR) framework for builders entering the Victorian building industry, returning power to the Building and Plumbing Commission to set industry standards; to reform the places of public entertainment – POPE, as it were – permit regime by moving regulatory detail from primary legislation into regulations and creating a head of power for a mooted risk-based permitting system; to expand emergency powers for building surveyors to enable intervention on condition-altered land; to confer on the Minister for Housing and Building certain powers to designate flood-prone areas, mirroring the existing powers to declare bushfire-prone areas; to extend the civil liability immunity to authorised nominating authorities under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (SOP act); to make transitional and consequential and administrative amendments to a series of other acts; to amend the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund Act 2012 to provide levy exemptions and offsets for Homes Victoria, community housing organisations and eligible volunteers; to allow ministerial declarations about the timing of changes to residential fixed charge and principal place of residence (PPR) concessions; and to amend the Land Tax Act 2005 to extend and clarify principal place of residence land tax relief for owners constructing or renovating homes, including joint owners and owners affected by timing anomalies in the existing exemption and deferral rules.

As I said, there are a number of parts of this bill that are strongly supported, but there are aspects that we do not support either. Some aspects are overdue and in that sense are supported, including the MFR correction, the extension of SOP act immunity, the 10-year insurance framework and the emergency order reforms. The MFR amendment is particularly important in that parts of the industry and the opposition have been calling for that for some time.

The Treasury measures in the bill are also, in some measure, supportable, particularly insofar as they provide levy relief and remove certain unfairnesses in land tax treatment for construction and renovation cases. While the levy commencement element gives effect to the budget update delay, it also leaves the government with a mechanism to defer politically difficult increases in the fixed charge for non-PPR residential land beyond 1 July 2027 if desired.

The recommendation to amend is driven primarily by the POPE provisions, which embed fundamental structural flaws in the legislation without amending them. This has been a longstanding set of arrangements. These places of public entertainment changes that are being made are problematic. We had an important parliamentary inquiry during COVID and towards the end of COVID, looking at a number of the entertainment and other arts and smaller self-employed people and the impact of COVID there. One of the things that came became very clear is the events industry was savagely impacted by COVID, but the government seemed to have little understanding of the events industry. They thought that events are major events, which are one key area, but they are only one area. The whole events industry could be everything from weddings to business conferences to a whole series of other event-related economic activities – community festivals and so forth. The government seems still to have no understanding or proper grappling with the importance of that sector to the Victorian community and the Victorian economy, and it is in that context that a number of our amendments are drafted. If I could perhaps have those circulated, that would be appreciated.

I am indebted – and I will make this very clear to the chamber – to Simon Thewlis, a well-respected person in the events industry, for the support and information he has provided and his briefing notes provided to me and others on the POPE provisions in the Building Legislation and Treasury Legislation (Tax Relief) Amendment Bill. His briefing notes I think are highly instructive. They provide a very clear understanding of what is needed in the events industry. They point to some of the positive steps the government is taking, but they also point to a number of the failures of the government to take the relevant steps. They say, and I am going to quote directly from some sections of this briefing note provided to me on 17 May 2026 by Mr Thewlis:

This is potentially the biggest change to event-related legislation in Victoria in over two decades.

The Bill contains many other matters – building insurance, flood-prone –

et cetera, et cetera –

which may be time-sensitive. We are not asking that the … Bill be blocked. We are asking that the PoPE provisions be amended so that they genuinely improve event safety and reduce unnecessary burden.

Regulatory burden, I think, is what he is saying. He goes on:

THE CORE PROBLEM

The Government says the Bill addresses uncertainty, inconsistency, duplication and late-stage approval risk. Those are the right problems to identify. They are the problems the Event Industry has been raising for many years.

The current PoPE regime has a number of fundamental problems. This Bill – the first major rewrite of PoPE legislation in over two decades – was the opportunity to fix them. Instead, it embeds two of the most fundamental problems further into the Act, potentially locking them in for another generation.

I think this is very instructive, and the evidence provided to that state upper house inquiry, the Economy and Infrastructure Committee inquiry in the last Parliament, actually looked at a lot of these issues and made serious recommendations. The government have not understood what is needed here, they have not understood the events industry and they have not understood how it needs to be looked at within the bureaucracy. There is a lack of focus within the bureaucracy on the events sector, and that is a mistake culturally for the state, but it is also a mistake economically. It means that many important events that could proceed and that could actually provide significant economic outcomes for the state do not.

The first is the building surveyor sign-off over the entirety of events. Mr Thewlis said:

There is no issue with building surveyors assessing buildings and structures at events. That is their area of expertise and their role there is welcome and appropriate. The problem is that a PoPE permit covers not just the structures, but the entirety of … an event – the “place” – including … operational, safety, crowd, traffic and emergency management …

And of course he is right.

This gives a single building surveyor effective sign-off over an entire event, including many matters well outside building surveying training and experience. These same matters are already … assessed – often more comprehensively – through council event permits and other approval processes.

The Bill had the opportunity to separate structures from outdoor event places. It chose not to. It created a new “place of public entertainment permit” that is still applied for to, and decided by, a building surveyor.

I think his point is well made. Mr Thewlis said:

2. NO WORKABLE APPEAL OR REVIEW PROCESS

The current PoPE system has no practical appeal process for event organisers. The Building Appeals Board is a building sector body that operates on building sector timelines. Event builds may take only a day or a week. That a right of appeal … cannot be exercised before the event opens is not a real remedy.

This problem has been raised repeatedly – and was specifically highlighted in the Government’s own briefing on this Bill, with reference to the cancellation of the Esoteric Festival where there was no real way to challenge the ruling of the Municipal Building Surveyor.

DTP’s verbal advice on 14 March 2026 confirmed the standard building appeal process would apply under the new system. The legislation was rewritten and yet the same fundamental flaw was left in place.

These are not problems that can be fixed through Regulations. They are fundamental to the legislative architecture. If they are not addressed in the Act now, they will be embedded in the new framework from day one.

I think he has nailed it in two clear points. That is partially why I am giving reference directly to some of his statements.

THREE YEARS OF REVIEW – AND NO POLICY OUTLINE

A review of event approvals – including PoPE – was announced in 2023. That review has involved … government departments over … three years. Yet the Event Industry does not have a single piece of paper outlining what the new PoPE regime will look like.

The Bill creates a broad enabling framework and leaves the practical detail to future Regulations and Ministerial guidelines.

The Explanatory Memorandum confirms this, stating that the implementation will require a large number of matters to be prescribed in subordinate legislation.

Verbal advice from DTP on 14 May 2026 indicated the Regulations are unlikely to be finished until early to mid 2027 – after the November 2026 state election.

In the events world, we don’t start building an event until we understand the bigger picture of what we are creating and are confident it is viable. This Bill puts the foundations in place before the bigger picture is known.

He said that members are being asked in Parliament:

… to pass the main legislative architecture before anyone has seen the detail that will determine how the … system will actually work.

He asked for four points to be made. Firstly, that the government provide a detailed policy outline. I will do that in the committee stage.

This should explain: which events and gatherings will require PoPE permits and which will be exempt; what thresholds and criteria will apply; whether open-air events and gatherings can be captured; how duplication with council permits can be avoided …

He made a number of other serious points, which I will raise in the committee stage.

He asks a second thing:

… REMOVE OUTDOOR “PLACES” FROM THE BUILDING ACT PoPE FRAMEWORK

The Building Act should regulate buildings and prescribed temporary structures used for public entertainment. That is where building surveyors have genuine expertise.

And that is a fair point. He goes on to say:

Outdoor event sites – the “places” – should not be treated as building matters. They should be assessed through the council event permit, planning permit and public land approval processes that already exist …

He talks about how:

This is the single most important structural change. It removes the main source of duplication. It removes building surveyor sign-off over matters outside their expertise …

This approach is consistent with Option 9.1 of the Government’s own 2017 Regulatory Impact Statement for the Building Regulations.

…

The 2017 RIS noted that some Municipal Building Surveyors had themselves submitted that they did not have adequate or requisite skills to assess events in open spaces.

He says that was nine years ago; the issue was deferred, not resolved; the bill appears not to have dealt with that matter at all.

His ask (3) is that if places remain, guardrails are put around them:

If outdoor places remain in the Bill, the Act must include clear limits on what future Regulations … capture.

The Bill repeals existing Act level limits such as the requirement that limits PoPEs to a place which is enclosed or substantially enclosed; or to which admission can be gained by payment of money or the giving of other consideration …

The Bill replaces them with open definitions – “prescribed places” …

Without guardrails, future Regulations could require PoPE permits for any public gathering of 50 people or more …

If that is not what the government intends, it should say so.

His ask (4) is to create a fast, practical event appeal process:

If PoPE remains under the Building Act, the Act must include a practical review mechanism that operates on event timelines.

The planning of most events happen on a vastly shorter timeframe than construction projects. With a community event with a lot of community stallholders the full detail of structures and other equipment being used at the event may not be known until quite close to the day of the Event.

Similarly, event builds may take only a day or on a large event up to a week.

Some disputes arise and there is a need for appeal or some review. It should be available on the same day or within 24 hours.

For planning … disputes, five business days may be appropriate.

The review panel should include event expertise – not only building and legal …

The key principle: the review … must operate in event time, not construction industry time.

He points to a series of legitimate consultation concerns, and he explains why this matters to the events sector. It is a big sector with many, many thousands of people employed. Our amendments seek to deal with this. We will have more to say about some of the other aspects. We understand that other parties may have amendments, and I am not foreshadowing the detail of those. I will let them talk to those, and we can discuss those either when the bill is in committee or later, but we are aware of those. Ours focus on these other matters directly around the community-based organisation, the prescribed temporary structures and the matters that assist with a review panel.

These are thoughtful clauses that we have put together. They are not attempting to create World War III or trouble, they are actually trying to help an important sector in the economy, in our state, to actually function more effectively: lower cost, more events, more employment, more community activity and all of that through some simple, thoughtful amendments. I am thankful to Mr Thewlis and others in the events sector who have talked to me and to David Southwick in particular and to those who have put forward these sensible and practical ideas. We will put those to the chamber later and seek support.

Sitting suspended 6:29 pm until 7:31 pm.

 Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (19:31): I rise today to speak on behalf of my Greens colleagues with respect to the Building Legislation and Treasury Legislation (Tax Relief) Amendment Bill 2026. The Greens, I will state from the outset, will be supporting this bill. There are a lot of different elements to this piece of legislation, and I will not go over every single one of them, but there are a few changes that I would like to focus on. The first is the setting up of the framework for decennial insurance for apartment buildings over four storeys as an alternative to the current developer bond scheme. Anything that adds protections for apartment owners from defective works and dodgy builders is a good thing, I will just state that from the outset. Adding this first-resort, no-fault type of insurance will make it easier for owners corporations to make a claim for rectification without having to deal with long, difficult battles around fault and responsibility. We would have preferred, I will state, though, that this insurance be managed and run through the state in the same way that the first-resort home warranty scheme covers other residential buildings in the state, and we would encourage the government to consider this in the future. But for the time being, providing the cover to apartment owners in this way is a good thing, and it is an important element of this bill.

Further, I understand there are also some changes within this legislation to be made around designation of flood-prone areas. I think the important thing here to note is that as climate change induced flooding events become more commonplace, we need to ensure that there is centralisation effectively of the flood-mapping processes that allows for more timely decisions and clearer provision of information to people. Flood declarations have very real-world implications for people, and for those that already live in flood-prone areas and for those who might want to live in those areas or in areas that are yet to be designated in this way – flood-prone – we need to make sure that people have certainty and have clarity on how these processes work. I specifically want to put on record my acknowledgement both of constituents within my patch but particularly of lower house colleagues that have been in recent years impacted by changes with respect to flood mapping and what that has meant for their material circumstances and for any financial decisions that they may be making with respect to, for example, buying a home or to insurance costs that they may have to pay. I just want to put that on record for the impacts that they have been facing.

Moving on, though, I now turn to the government’s later addition to this bill, as it exited the Assembly, of the extension of the temporary tax concession for off-the-plan strata dwellings for another six months. This is now the third time that this house has been asked to vote on the same tax concession in less than two years. We were told in 2024 that this concession was both temporary and targeted. We now know that it has been neither of those things. Is it too cynical perhaps to suggest that this Labor government, which is, let us face it, desperate for some good news, keeps on extending this temporary concession for just a few months each time just so that it can put out more media releases and spin on the same housing policy? I just do not believe the hype. Really it appears to be that this is the same old, tired housing policy from a government that has run out of ideas to help renters and first home buyers. But we also know that this particular tax concession, in the way it has been put forward, is not targeted. As has been well reported over the last 12 months, this policy, we were told, would help those struggling to afford a modest first apartment, but it has instead been hijacked by billionaires and investors buying luxury city pads priced $20 million or more, handing them tax concessions of up to a million dollars they neither asked for nor needed.

You have to hand it to this Labor government for its lateral thinking, because I never would have thought during a housing crisis where there are literally zero affordable homes in Victoria right now for a single parent on Centrelink payments, where there is a public housing waitlist with over 120,000 people on it and growing, where renters receive notices of annual rent increases of sometimes 20 per cent or more and where rough sleeping is at record levels and homelessness services are being overwhelmed, that in this context this Labor government could look at all of this and still think, ‘Won’t somebody think of the billionaires? Why should they have to pay their fair share of stamp duty on their multimillion-dollar city apartments?’ – homes that they will not even live in most of the time.

As a result, the state Labor government has actually brought in a tax policy on housing that on one hand demands that Victorian first home buyers buying a modest weatherboard in the burbs at a bit over 750K pay their full share of stamp duty, but on the other hand hands out stamp duty tax concessions of up to a million dollars to billionaire property investors buying a luxury city penthouse off the plan. In response to this injustice, this Labor government parrots the same kind of drip-down economics talking points that we see straight from the Trump administration: by handing millions in tax concessions to the 1 per cent – the billionaires, the wealthiest investors – and making them even more profit, this may somehow lead to them leaving behind some crumbs of cost-of-living support for the tens of thousands of people elsewhere in our community who really need it. As I said earlier, there is not one home classified as affordable in Victoria right now for a single parent on Centrelink payments. I ask: does Labor truly expect anyone to believe that the best way to fix this is by giving stamp duty concessions to billionaire investors?

The Greens have tried several times to amend this particular element of legislation, to direct the stamp duty tax concessions to those who really need it, being first home buyers, people buying family homes. We have a more modest amendment this time, and I ask that that now be circulated. The Greens amendment we introduce this time around is modest. We hope it is sufficiently modest that it may gain support from across the chamber. I have outlined in my contribution some of the much broader problems that my colleagues and I have with the current tax concession settings here. This particular amendment is straightforward. It is quite self-explanatory. It makes the extended stamp duty concession only available to people who will be using the dwelling as their principal place of residence – that is, homes for people to live in, rather than homes being used as financial assets for property investors, corporations or property trusts. I say that because the Greens stand for homes for Victorians to live in, not people hoarding apartments, not luxury penthouses being used as financial assets at the Victorian taxpayer’s expense. With those brief comments all being noted, I commend the bill to the house.

 Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (19:38): I too will make a brief contribution on this legislation. I am pleased to speak on the Building Legislation and Treasury Legislation (Tax Relief) Amendment Bill 2026. Obviously the bill addresses a number of changes that have already been referred to around building. I do want to focus my contribution on the changes that have been made to the emergency services and volunteers levy. The operation of the levy has evolved as a result of the government and MPs listening to the community and listening to CFA and SES members, and the changes do reflect the feedback. I want to firstly make it clear that the emergency services and volunteers levy is an integral part of delivering funding to our emergency services organisations, but it only forms part of the revenue we invest in protecting Victorians during emergencies.

In this past budget the government recorded $1.24 billion more spent on emergency services than was collected through the emergency services and volunteers levy, and that has also contributed to funding for a more inclusive and stronger CFA, building more stations, investing in the fleet and supporting SES units as well.

In relation to volunteers, these investments are all aimed at supporting our emergency services volunteers, and we are also recognising their hard work through the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund rebate for active Country Fire Authority and VICSES volunteers. This means that unlike with the previous fire services levy, eligible volunteers do not pay a levy on their primary place of residence, farmland or single farm enterprise. This exemption was put in place following feedback and suggestions from CFA volunteers. I remember a while back I was a CFA volunteer, and there was discussion about that too.

The Treasurer has announced that the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund variable rates will be frozen for all Victorians, but for farmers this means that the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund variable rate is frozen at the 2024 rate of 28.7 cents per $1000 of the capital improved value. That is a local government rating system, the CIV. This rate is the same as the fire services levy. We have also increased the cap on capital improved value of land for farmers from $5 million to $10 million. This means any farmers who are eligible volunteers are entitled to a full rebate for farms worth up to $10 million. For anything above $10 million their rate is capped at the 2024 rate. So the take-home here is that effectively this means farmers pay the same or less as under the old fire services property levy.

Jess Wilson’s Liberals and Danny O’Brien’s Nationals have a plan to cut $40 billion from services Victorians rely on. This includes them repeatedly stating that they will scrap the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund. This means fewer trucks, fewer stations and no volunteer rebate. Their cuts plan will slash brigade support officers and incident controllers. When the Liberals and Nationals were last in government they cut the CFA. A former Nationals emergency services minister said no government department can be exempt from budget cuts. If given the chance, they will do it again.

This bill makes a number of changes in the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund that are reflective of feedback and that make more sense. The bill makes changes in the land tax space as well. I will conclude my remarks there and just keep it as brief as I have.

 Gaelle BROAD (Northern Victoria) (19:44): I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate about the Building Legislation and Treasury Legislation (Tax Relief) Amendment Bill 2026. There are a couple of elements. I know there have been quite a few issues that have been talked about, because this bill does cover a number of different factors, but there are two that I want to speak to. The first is the change where the bill gives the Minister for Housing and Building power to designate flood-prone areas, creating a parallel to the existing power to declare bushfire-prone areas. Designated areas will be land with a 1 per cent or higher probability of annual flooding. New buildings in designated areas will be subject to additional construction standards, and the designation power interacts with Melbourne Water’s existing flood overlay responsibilities under planning law.

But it does have a bigger impact. I have a particular interest in this because I was part of the flood inquiry. With that, I visited people that were impacted by the floods right across northern Victoria – this was back in 2022 – and I could see the consequences of development in flood-prone areas. Certainly this power is intended to provide a centralised, state-based method for declaring that areas of land are flood-prone. Whilst we are supportive of this bill and we are putting forward amendments, I just want to flag that I am a bit hesitant about this whole statewide, state-based approach and giving so much power to the minister. I know in the flood inquiry part of our recommendations were to better support local councils and catchment management authorities (CMA) to be able to implement some of those changes into the planning scheme, and it is important for people to be aware of where they are building and what may happen. But it is just as important to get the balance right. We do need to encourage housing development, but we do not want housing development in areas that are going to be a constant issue, because that would just increase people’s insurance and make it very difficult. But I know a lot of these flood plains are very attractive to developers because they are cleared and it can be easier for them to actually develop. A lot of developments now have roads that are used as part of the drainage system, and it can be a surprise to people that have bought in a new housing estate to suddenly find they cannot actually exit because the roads are flooded at the time.

It is important that the government do give some insight, because they were not able to provide any indication of the assessment that they undertook to do this. Where is the data coming from? If it is not reliable, what is the process for reviewing that data? As I reached out to different people to talk through some of the concerns that I had with this bill, I was advised that the state has more capacity than local councils. Some local councils do not have the planners in place to be able to cope, and there has been a big backlog and there have been quite big delays with actually getting that flood study data into the planning scheme. Unless it is in there, you cannot take that into account when a council is considering whether or not building can take place.

I have spoken to organisations like the Master Builders Association of Victoria, who held an event recently in Bendigo. There were a number of builders there. I heard some of the challenges they are facing with local councils and significant delays with very straightforward application processes. With some of them, just the permits required for things can cost more than the actual work itself, so there are definitely challenges that need to be addressed, and I guess this element is part of that. But I am still concerned about a Melbourne-based ministerial office making broad plans across the state. It is important that if it is not right there is an avenue for people and councils and CMAs to provide that feedback and ensure that there is transparency when it comes to flood overlays and how often this information is reviewed. I know in Junortoun there have been a number of developments that have been approved very rapidly, but that bigger picture of a number of developments happening at the same time and the impact that that has on the local drainage need to be taken into account, because otherwise it does create a risk of long-term flood exposure for new housing estates. What I have heard as well is that the bushfire overlays have caused additional costs to housing and quite significant delays and uncertainty about how it actually applies, and we certainly do not want to see the same happen with the introduction of these changes.

Another element to this bill that Ms Ermacora referred to is the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund and the amendments that are going to be given effect in this bill from the 2025–26 state budget. I think reference was made to listening to farmers. I think it is important to call that out, because there was a rally in Bendigo that I attended on Sunday that had farmers and CFA volunteers from right across the state, and certainly there were no Labor MPs in attendance to actually hear from them. We even heard the Treasurer today talking about how farmers will not pay more. I spoke on the phone with farmers today that have had it calculated, and it looks like they will be paying about $20,000 more with the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund. So this is putting a lot more pressure on regional areas. It is not a flat rate across the state. This is certainly putting farmers in a very difficult position. Some farms are quite extensive, with numerous different lots, and it certainly does have a big impact.

I was at a CFA meeting just last week with Andrew Lethlean, the Nationals candidate for Bendigo East, and we heard from people that have put in for the rebate on the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund but are not eligible because the property is actually in the name of their partner. These are really practical things. If you are going to say, ‘We’re going to provide a rebate’ – well, it is not actually happening on the ground. It is one thing to defer the pain of increased tax – which I will say is funding services that were previously funded within the state budget, so this is another tax grab. The government have introduced I think about 67 new taxes or increased charges since they have been in government. But that is probably because they have got a debt that is fast approaching $200 billion a day – sorry, not a day. Oh, man, if that was the case! But yes, that is what we are headed towards.

When it comes to interest on that debt, that is significant. A couple of years ago I was raising concerns at the time that it was $15 million a day in interest that we were paying on that debt, but we are now paying over $24 million a day. By the end of the forward estimates, it will be about $32 million in interest every day – just paying the interest, not actually paying for any infrastructure or any service improvements in our state, which we so desperately need, particularly in regional Victoria. When you look at the new infrastructure spending that is allocated from the state budget under Labor to regional Victoria, it is about 12 per cent, but 25 per cent of the population call regional Victoria home, so we want to see a much fairer share of funding coming to regional areas.

This bill tinkers at the edges with the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund. The community right across Victoria have made it very clear it is not enough to defer the pain. They want to see the tax absolutely scrapped, and we have committed to scrapping the tax if we win government in November. I will conclude my remarks here.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (19:53): I am pleased to rise to speak on this legislation that has got a lot of words in its title, the Building Legislation and Treasury Legislation (Tax Relief) Amendment Bill 2026, a bill that makes some important changes to the building system and makes some improvements to the tax law. I was going to go through, in a bit of detail, some of the issues, but I thought it probably best to start where Mrs Broad concluded, and that is, yet again, the Liberal Party and the National Party confirming that it is their intention to cut funding for emergency services in the state of Victoria.

When you get up and you say you are going to scrap the tax, what you actually mean is you are going to cut the funding. The one thing that those who put themselves on the line to help their fellow Victorians at times of fire, times of flood and times of storm should know is that the Liberal Party and the National Party are going to cut funding to emergency services in the state of Victoria, because that is just what the previous speaker from the National Party said. When you scrap the tax, it means you cut the funding, because there is no other logical conclusion from the policy position of the Liberal Party and the policy position of the National Party other than that funding for emergency services will be cut by them. If you remove the revenue stream, you have got to remove the spending, particularly in the context of a supposed 10-year economic plan that says that frontline services are going to be cut across a range of other portfolio areas. The only logical conclusion from the policy position that the Liberal Party and the National Party are taking –

Members interjecting.

Ryan BATCHELOR: If it is nonsense, as those opposite are interjecting, perhaps they can stand up either in this chamber or outside it and explain how it is possible to scrap a tax and not cut the funding it provides. They cannot. They cannot explain how they could scrap a tax without cutting funding. ‘Scrap the tax’ means ‘cut the funding’, and that is all there is to it.

What Labor is doing by investing in our emergency services is making them better prepared for the more intense fire seasons we are having and for the more frequent floods. I do not know if people have caught up on the news today, but we just saw today from the Bureau of Meteorology a warning about the significant, intense and extreme El Niño weather system that is coming for Australia in the coming 12 months. What the scientists are telling us is that our weather systems are becoming more intense and that we are going to experience and expect longer and more severe fire seasons. We have seen in recent years that that is a reality. We have also seen significant flooding across the state of Victoria repeatedly. We saw in January some parts of Victoria experiencing a fire event and a flooding event at the same time. That is how extreme our weather patterns are getting.

The responsible course of action, which is the course of action that this government has initiated, is to ensure that our emergency services are adequately resourced and adequately prepared for the range of emergency situations that we ask them day in, day out to go and confront. That was the position that the Parliament’s own committee reached when we examined the 2022 flooding. Under the previous arrangements that existed under the old fire services property levy, the Victoria State Emergency Service, the primary response agency for floods in the state of Victoria, did not get access to funding out of those arrangements – arrangements that the Liberal Party and the National Party say they want to reintroduce. All we can think is that that will mean that those emergency services agencies are going to be left high and dry by the Liberal Party when they hang them out to dry by cutting their funding after they scrap the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund. The problem we have is that the Liberal Party and the National Party will not come clean. They will not come clean with the community, and they will not tell the truth, which is that their policy to scrap the tax is a policy to cut the funds, and the CFA and the SES are going to bear the brunt of the Liberal and National cuts that are coming.

There was a slight issue with the clock, but I am advised I have still got 8 minutes to go, and perhaps that gives me a good opportunity to talk about other things in the bill. I would not mind just talking about the Liberal and National cuts to emergency services that are coming, because we know that they are. Members opposite continue to exhort by way of interjection that that is not their plan, yet they refuse to stand up and say how they are going to scrap a tax and not cut the funds and not cut the programs and not cancel the orders for new CFA trucks, for example, that this fund is helping to deliver. I think if the National Party and the Liberal Party want to be taken seriously when it comes to emergency services, instead of just propagating mistruths they could actually start articulating a clear policy position that comes clean with the Victorian community. They will not because they cannot, because they know that the only possible answer that they can give is that services will be cut, that new stations will not get built and that new trucks will not get ordered, because that is what the Liberal and National parties’ policy on emergency services will deliver.

The bill does a range of other things in addition to making some amendments to the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund. It makes a series of amendments across the building system, really seeking to improve on and provide reforms, in addition to the existing suite of reforms that this government has made, to ensure the building system itself is protecting the interests of Victorian consumers and delivering the safe, high-quality and affordable homes that Victorians deserve. One of the other things that we are doing is ensuring that for those builders who are doing the right thing we are easing the administrative burden on them so they can continue building. We are improving the enforcement powers, for example, for the new Building and Plumbing Commission, and introducing a decennial insurance product for apartment buildings of four storeys or more.

We know that now, when many choose to buy into the apartment market, there are, sadly, fewer protections if costly building defects arise. We know, particularly in the Southern Metropolitan Region, across my part of Melbourne, that there are increasingly people choosing to live in apartment buildings. This bill delivers additional protections for them and makes sure that the new insurance product for apartment buildings of four storeys or more will provide additional security. It will provide additional peace of mind for those who are increasingly choosing to live in these types of homes. While we are introducing the developer bond scheme next year as an interim measure, we would ultimately like to ensure that apartment owners have the same protections as traditional home owners. The decennial insurance scheme for apartments, once it is operational, will be an alternative for developers who do not want to use the developer bond scheme and will provide better protection for consumers.

We have also heard loud and clear from industry that the proposed minimum financial requirements for builders who want to undertake work in Victoria, which were released for consultation in February, need more lead time if they are to operate as intended. There is therefore another provision in the bill that allows the Building and Plumbing Commission to continue to assess builders’ financial stability in a way that maintains the status quo, with a view to a transition to the more stringent model, which is currently prescribed in legislation, over a period of two years. There are a number of really important improvements this bill makes, and I commend it to the house.

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (20:04): I rise to make a brief contribution to the Building Legislation and Treasury Legislation (Tax Relief) Amendment Bill 2026. We are happy to support the reforms to increase consumer protections in relation to the housing system, and we are very pleased to see the changes to the existing Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund. We do have issues around the reforms to the place-of-public-entertainment (POPE) permit scheme after consulting with various stakeholders in the festivals and events space. I understand this may be subject to a possible house amendment, but unfortunately this has not been circulated in a timely manner such that we can actually see the nature of it, so I am going to waffle on regardless, if I may.

The grand prix and other well-publicised, well-funded big events make up a small proportion of the festival and events held in this state. The vast majority of the economic activity and social benefits derived from events actually comes from more modest events. Community events, music festivals, conferences, expos, brand activations in metropolitan areas and across the regions all contribute to the thriving events ecosystem in this state. While stakeholders have acknowledged that the current POPE scheme has fundamental problems, they have real concerns that the reforms in the bill not only fail to improve event safety and reduce unnecessary burden but will be the death knell for the event sector in Victoria, which is still reeling from the impacts of the COVID lockdowns.

Looking at the role of building surveyors in the place-of-public-entertainment scheme, there is no issue with building surveyors assessing buildings and structures at events. That is what they are qualified to do. They are not necessarily, and very often are not, qualified to sign off on an entire event site – the place – including operational questions, safety, crowd traffic and emergency management matters. Under the current place-of-public-entertainment permit scheme, community festivals with less than 5000 people are exempted from the process. For example, if I have an event in a park – let us say a 420 celebration of cannabis event with just a hundred guests and 60 police and a couple of dogs – I will not be required to have a building surveyor sign off on my marquee or stage.

The reforms in this bill potentially expand the POPE permit scheme to include these smaller events. However, it is hard to know what the scheme will look like as ‘place of public entertainment’ and ‘public entertainment’ are not defined in the legislation. While the minister in their second-reading speech assured us that the reforms would enable ‘a risk-based framework, supporting proportionate regulation and giving event organisers and regulators certainty and clarity for … approvals under the Building Act’, it is hard for event organisers and regulators to have certainty and clarity when, for example, the definitions of ‘place of public entertainment’ and ‘public entertainment’ will be detailed in subsequent building regulations. These regulations will not be developed until some later date, most likely in the next Parliament, and who knows what that will look like then.

There are also binding guidelines that must be considered when assessing permit applications, and they include prescribed conditions that may be imposed by the prescribed approver. Again, we have no idea what this will look like in reality, but we are being asked to again take it on faith, and that is a commodity that is running thin with this government. We are left with no idea about what types of events or places will be impacted by the new regulations and require sign off by a building surveyor. Under these reforms it is possible that community gatherings, Anzac Day services, community markets, school fetes and local festivals could all be pulled into a building permit process which is really designed for buildings, not events.

Another concern is the lack of a practical and timely appeal process for event organisers. Obviously events run on a very different timescale to the building sector, and a right of appeal that cannot be exercised before an event opens does not really work. This is what happened with the Esoteric Festival, which had no way of challenging the ruling of a municipal building surveyor in time and resulted in the festival being cancelled hours before it was due to commence, leaving ticketholders, stallholders and artists all high and dry. We do not believe this can be fixed in subordinate legislation at a later date, and once again we know who will be writing those regulations.

In our opinion the amendments moved by the opposition are modest and practical changes, and we will weigh those up in the context of the government’s proposed house amendment, should we be so privileged as to see it. Many smaller events report that POPE compliance can cost up to 20 per cent of their total budget, making some events unviable. Long-running community festivals have been cancelled because of the complexity and cost of POPE compliance. As I said earlier, stakeholders identified issues with the current POPE legislation, and there is scope in these amendments to fix these issues. Victoria’s event industry contributes billions of dollars to the state economy and employs tens of thousands of Victorians, so we really need to get this right, and this bill, as written with regard to POPE, does not.

 Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (20:10): I want to rise to respond to some of the things that have been said by members of the government today. The first thing is that Ms Ermacora spoke about how the changes in the emergency services tax have been reflective of feedback. When I think about that, I wonder where their feedback is coming from and whether it is from the echo chamber or whether it is from the people that it actually affects, because I remember the day it passed. I remember that day because out on the steps of Parliament there were thousands of farmers. There were thousands. You can google it. I know you were not there, but you can google it. There were thousands of farmers, there were thousands of career firefighters and there were thousands of volunteer firefighters, and the feedback that they were giving was that this was a tax that they rejected, that they could not afford. That is the reality, and it is the truth of the matter. Then on Sunday there was another rally in Bendigo – again, thousands of people. Some came in and even spoke to my colleague Mrs Broad. They had calculated their bills, and they are increasing by up to $20,000. I am not saying that is the cap. That was the reality of what those people had calculated. So the feedback that these people are giving is that they reject this tax.

Another thing Ms Ermacora said was that this tax only reflects part of what we invest in Victoria when we face emergencies. That is interesting, because there are so many CFA trucks that still do not have air conditioning. FRV have not had a pay rise in six years, yet they continue to turn out. I was at a fire station just this week, and they were talking about the investment that has been made into their fire trucks. It was a new perspective and a good one. They said, ‘This isn’t a matter, when we’re talking about the lack of air conditioning in our trucks, of us being sooks and our own comfort.’ What they said was, ‘You know when you’re in a car in the morning and it’s freezing cold, or it’s fogging up because it’s boiling hot, the first thing you’ve got to do as a matter of safety, so you can see out that windscreen, is turn on the air conditioning to make sure it de-fogs.’ It is something as simple as that. They said, ‘You have no idea what it is like when you’re heading into a fire. You’re boiling hot. Yes, it’s uncomfortable, but it’s bearable. But when you’re heading into a fire and because of the lack of air conditioning you cannot see, you’re in a dangerous situation that has all of a sudden escalated.’

They also said that fire trucks need air conditioning because they are not just a vehicle to get from one place to another; they are a safe haven and a place of refuge. One of these firefighters spoke to me about a little girl that had been pulled out of a house fire absolutely dehydrated, boiling hot and distraught, and sitting in that air-conditioned cab for them was the biggest relief that they could ever imagine. I think it is worth knowing about this because, yes, we make decisions in here, but we are not the ones in the trucks going out and fighting these fires and putting our lives on the line. This particular firefighter spoke about a place of refuge. When people are pulled out of buildings that have been burning, they go and they sit in an air-conditioned truck. He also spoke about when one of his colleagues was having a major anxiety attack because it was the first time that somebody had died under their watch, and that was a place of refuge and a place of comfort. These basic things are not getting funded in Victoria, and that is the reality.

During the Dargo fires earlier this year, a good friend of mine from Sale had spent all day up in Dargo fighting these fires in a truck that did not even have the basics. It could not be that place of refuge. He was so sick the next day, so spent. These are the things that we cannot dismiss. So our plan is absolutely not to cut the CFA or to cut the services that people rely on.

I want to talk about the track record of the people that are across the chamber giving financial advice. It is the Labor government –

Members interjecting.

Renee HEATH: I love how they get all excited. But let me just tell you some facts. It is this government that has racked up more debt than New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania combined – fact.

Members interjecting.

Renee HEATH: Well, I think a good thing to do is sometimes just hold up a mirror, because you have been dishing out the advice, so I am just going to reflect some things back. There is more debt. Every child born in this state inherits their own little chunk of debt, about $22,000 a person. If we did not have this exorbitant bill of interest of more than $1 million an hour, I tell you what, we could upgrade some trucks. We could put in some air conditioning, we could get some new ones and we could pay our firefighters. I am wondering where the feedback that you are getting comes from.

I particularly, though, wanted to talk about those things and also the scare tactics. When you were talking about scare tactics and how the Liberal government is always implementing scare tactics, I looked up ‘projection’. Let me read it to you:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

When somebody accuses you of the exact behaviour they are guilty of, it is primarily called projection.

Here is a bit of interesting psychology about those opposite:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

It acts as a defence mechanism where a person subconsciously avoids their own flaws by attributing them to someone else.

So I am going to say this: it is you guys that have been in government for over a decade. It is the Labor government that have caused this monumental mess. It is the Labor government that have mismanaged the budget so much that they have had to put in this emergency services and volunteer levy that is calculated on the value of the land, not the income, which is going to be devastating for farmers once all of –

Jaclyn Symes interjected.

Renee HEATH: I am going to just pick up on what the Treasurer just said. She said, ‘When they own $50 million farms.’ This is exactly the issue. You would think that the Treasurer would know this, coming from a rural and regional area. A lot of farmers, yes, in terms of land, would be considered quite wealthy. In terms of income and cash turnover they are extremely tight. I am glad the Treasurer brought this up, because the week that the government brought in the emergency services levy through the lower house, Victoria was in one of the most critical situations in terms of drought. That week I was in Inverloch.

Jaclyn Symes interjected.

Renee HEATH: Seriously, Treasurer, I know that you like to interject and minimise people’s pain and suffering, but you brought it up. These are the facts. I was in Inverloch, and there was not even enough water for them to hose down their sheds twice per day.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Renee HEATH: You can respond to this if you want, Ms Shing, because the people that are suffering are in your electorate, and you should be standing up for them.

Harriet Shing: Don’t point, mate.

Renee HEATH: Well, you just pointed. What is going on here is that the drought was so bad that these farmers were in tears, literally in tears. There were about 50 of them saying, ‘We do not know how we can make it through. We’ve always had feed. We’ve always had people from other areas to help us. We’ve got none of that.’

Jaclyn Symes interjected.

Renee HEATH: What was that, sorry?

Jaclyn SYMES: Drought relief that you would not be able to afford if you cut the ESVF.

Renee HEATH: Wow. That is unbelievable. These people were broken. Farmers have been on the farm generation after generation after generation, and then, do you know what, they brought in the emergency services levy and they just about broke the spirit of the people that feed us. And all we can hear from the Treasurer just shows her complete disconnect from the plight of the people that feed us, the people that build the homes –

Jaclyn Symes interjected.

Renee HEATH: All she says is, ‘Oh, if they have a $50 million property, if that’s the cost of the land they should then be able to cop whatever we feel like throwing at them.’ Unbelievable. Anyway, I think the reaction of those opposite has really said enough. It has shocked me, and I did not think I could be shocked from them after they –

Jaclyn Symes interjected.

Renee HEATH: Anyway. So the rudeness and the disregard from those opposite does not show any respect to the people that are suffering – the people that serve our state, feed our state and do everything to build it. I am glad that some people here are on five times the average wage in the state of Victoria and that because of that they have become so out of touch with the plight of these people. But I want to say that if you were looking for feedback, you would have turned up on the steps of Parliament. If you were far too busy then, you could have turned up in Bendigo on the weekend, because there are people hurting, and what they do not need when they are being crushed by the burden of tax in this state is people that are on probably 400K a year telling them to suck it up. I will leave it there.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts) (20:22): I will make a few remarks in relation to the bill. I will probably not retaliate to a lot of the material that Dr Heath gave, because frankly she is continuing to use information that suits her narrative without relying on the facts. I do not particularly want to get into a tussle, because if she does not believe facts then I do not think me repeating them to her again will actually have much value.

What I am going to do is focus on the people that are going to benefit from this bill and the reason that we are doing it, rather than play political games. What this bill does is deliver on the government’s commitments announced in the 2025–26 budget update and the 2026–27 budget, including tax relief for more Victorians, and of course we are doing this whilst we have just released our budget, which is all about making life easier, safer and more affordable for every Victorian. The legislation will make a range of amendments to various taxation acts to provide tax relief to community housing organisations, expand the eligibility for our nation-leading emergency services volunteer rebate scheme and make it easier to get land tax exemptions for homes that are under construction or renovation.

At the outset speakers will note that this is a building legislation and Treasury legislation bill. I appreciate the housing and building ministers, both current and former, allowing me as Treasurer to put these tax measures in this bill. There was no need for a standalone tax bill this year, given that there were no new taxes again for the second year, and there are some small amendments that really did fit into this bill quite well. So for the benefit of the chamber and the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel, having one piece of legislation is the way that I was happy to proceed with this.

The minor administrative amendments to the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund are certainly based on feedback, because quite often somebody will have a particular situation where they write to me about the application of the fund and the application of the rebate, and in some of those measures I have been able to provide exemptions or make provision for people who write to me on an individual basis, but when you see that you can make that a universal fix, that is when you do respond to the feedback that you have given, and that is what you will see in this bill today. At the outset, we know that the ESVF is a sustainable funding model for Victoria’s vital emergency services. We talk about it quite a bit in this chamber.

I do want to put a few things on the record. The ESVF is not the only source of income for emergency services. The government does consistently provide more funding than what is collected through the levy. For example, the budget papers show that in 2025–26 there was $1.24 billion more spent on emergency services than was collected through the ESVF. This is just an indication of the expenditure and level of resourcing that it takes to ensure that you have a world-class, well-resourced emergency services system here in the state of Victoria. Much of that is a result of being one of the most fire-prone places and a recipient of the most severe weather events in the world. We know that our firies and our SES volunteers in particular are often stretched in relation to responding to the ever-increasing and more severe events that afflict our state.

As I said, in terms of the additional funding each and every year, you can see the same with the forecasts in the budget that was released. In 2026–27 the forecast emergency management budget is $1.982 billion, and the Forest Fire Management Victoria emergency management output budget is $445.7 million. $1.609 billion is expected to be collected through the levy. So you can see the expenditure for emergency services and how it is so important to have the ESVF to supplement that expenditure for sustainability but also to ensure that you can do so much, because you are wanting not only to equip your emergency services with the resources and the personnel that they need but, when things happen, to make sure that you are able to respond with support for recovery, whether it is drought, whether it is fire or whether it is flood, and ensure that you have a well-resourced emergency services system in recovery is just as important as it is in relation to equipment and preparedness.

There are no changes to the ESVF variable rate for 2026–27 again, and I thank other speakers for their contributions mentioning that for farmers the variable rate for primary production land stays exactly the same as it was under the former fire services property levy. Because of the rebate that we have introduced that can be applied for if you are an eligible volunteer, which you can acquit against your primary place of residence or a farm capped at $10 million of capital improved value, what that actually means is that under the ESVF, if you are a farmer and you are a volunteer, you are paying less or nothing compared to what you were paying under the former FSPL.

The bill does seek to delay the changes for investment properties until the date declared by the Treasurer, providing councils with time to test and finalise the information-sharing arrangements. The bill also, again based on feedback that we have received from the community housing sector, provides a 50 per cent reduction on the fixed charge applied to land owned or managed by community housing, in recognition of the important role of community housing organisations in providing a home for Victorians in need. We are also seeking to broaden the existing ESVF levy exemption for Homes Victoria from just public housing to all land owned by them. The bill also makes it easier to apply for a volunteer rebate, including for those volunteers who hold a resident right in a retirement village. This was literally from the example of a CFA volunteer who wrote to me in relation to his liability for the ESVF through his status as a resident in a retirement village. I fixed it for him, but we are making sure that we can fix it for everyone. I have ensured that we have approved his rebate and ensured that others in a similar situation can just access the normal process.

I want to touch on the land tax exemption changes. We want to make it easier to get land tax exemptions on homes that are being built or under construction, again, based on feedback and experiences of when people bring matters to my attention, rather than using an ex gratia situation to fix this for this cohort of people. Effectively, the general principle is that if you are building or renovating a home that you intend to live in and that you are not drawing a profit from, you should not be liable for land tax. This amendment seeks to ensure the legislation effectively is operating as intended.

We are doing it by updating the ‘work starts’ date to make it more representative of when construction starts and to ensure that the planning or the acquisition of building permits does not get in the way of a person’s exemption. We are also simplifying the timing of the qualifying occupation date to be six months after construction or renovation finishes, and this will, importantly, apply whether construction takes more or less than four years. It is just about fairness, ensuring that in situations where significant time elapses between getting your building permit and starting construction, your exemption covers the actual build. To make it fairer for families, we are also seeking to ensure that home owners whose construction takes place within a single calendar year can access the exemption on the same basis as owners with longer construction periods. This means that if your renovation lasts less than a year, you will be exempt from land tax. We are also making it easier to get an exemption from land tax when you are constructing or moving from one house to another. Those residents will be able to obtain up to two years of exemption on both properties as long as they are not receiving a profit from either of those properties. As I said, this is about fairness, ensuring that the system works as intended and making sure that there is no disadvantage for those that are not moving from a principal place of residence.

Lastly, the bill does seek to extend the temporary off-the-plan concession for another six months. The current concession expires in October 2026, and the legislation extends that out to April next year. The move responds to industry feedback. We are concerned that the interest rates will cause a slowdown in some of the developments getting underway, and we are wanting to continue to incentivise the market. I note some of the comments that Mr Puglielli has made in relation to his concerns about the beneficiaries of this tax. Mr Puglielli, I can assure you this exemption from tax is about generating construction. It is about building more homes. I know we had a conversation last time that the bill was in, and I had some sympathies for the observation that it can benefit people at the top end. One thing that has been borne out in the experience so far is that the average saving for the applications received in the 2024–25 period was $25,000, so that is not an indication that it is multimillion-dollar properties that are benefiting from this but more those around the $600,000 mark.

I am very conscious of continuing to keep an eye on this. I will get new data at the end of this financial year. With this particular exemption and the way it is set up, the fact that I have replicated it for another six months means that it gives me more time to have a look at it. If we were wanting to do something similar again, looking at potential caps and the like is something that I am very open to and something that I will be able to provide more information about when I get more of the data. But at this point in time we still want to generate activity in the building industry. The building industry said this is working for them. Yes, it is a temporary measure. We want it to be popular. I want to send a message: ‘It’ll be really good. You’ve got six months to access it.’ I am looking at what that might look like afterwards. It may not exist in six months – use it or lose it – or if it is working really well, we can look at some of those changes and particularly the issue that you have raised. I take your point in terms of wanting to benefit those that are living in homes, and there is policy merit for those discussions, but this is really about generating construction, building more, adding to supply and having a benefit in relation to having more choice out there in the market. I am sure we can have a bit more of a conversation in committee. I do thank you for your thoughtful contributions. I understand where you are coming from. I do not disagree entirely, but we will not be supporting your amendment for the reasons that I outlined. I commend the bill to the house.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (20:34): I also would like to speak on this bill briefly. The tax components of this bill whereby the government is putting in new rebates and exemptions are effectively a small tax cut. Therefore the Libertarian Party will be supporting this. I am one that will support a tax cut anywhere, for any reason, at any time. However, I do take issue with some of the things said by the government on this. Mr Batchelor said earlier in response to Dr Heath that if you are going to cut taxes, won’t you have to cut services as well? I might point out two ways that you can deal with that. The first is what the government does already, and that is to sell more bonds – the government is racking up bond sales like there is no tomorrow. I note that the last time the Treasurer went to New York to meet these ratings agencies, like S & P and Moody’s, she copped a lot of criticism from the opposition and lots of other people, but I did not criticise the Treasurer. In fact I would be happy if the Treasurer went to New York every week to maintain our credit rating.

A member interjected.

David LIMBRICK: I do not mind. If she wants to go to New York every week to maintain our credit rating, I will support that, because if our credit rating gets downgraded, this state is in deep trouble. With the amount of debt that we have at the moment, with the Treasury Corporation’s bond portfolio rollovers that will happen soon, if that credit rating gets downgraded – I think the opposition was talking about figures like $1 million an hour in interest. I do not know what it is at the moment. But whatever it is, if we get a credit rating downgrade, it is going to be a lot more than that, so it is absolutely essential.

The other thing implicit in what Mr Batchelor was saying – if you cut taxes, then you have to cut services – is that implies that our government is 100 per cent efficient and there is no waste whatsoever that can be removed. We know for a fact that this government wastes money. I mean, let us bring up some minor examples: $70,000 for a plaque. I mean, are we serious here? $589 million –

David Davis: There were two plaques.

David LIMBRICK: Two plaques – I went and saw it myself. $589 million for Commonwealth Games that never existed. I do not know the number, lots of people are saying $15 billion – the government disputes that, maybe they can tell us what the number is – but billions of dollars flooding to organised crime through corruption on our building sites. There is waste left, right and centre that could be removed. This government is not taking serious action to remove waste. We are not raising taxes in this bill, but the idea that you cannot cut taxes while leaving services as they are is ridiculous. That implies 100 per cent efficiency of government, which not a person in this state believes, including all the members of the government. No-one in the government believes that they are fully efficient and that there is no waste to get rid of.

People talk about our state’s debt. One thing that is quite remarkable about the state’s debt – I have been doing a lot of constituent engagement recently, going around to supermarkets and events and lots of different things. One thing that has really surprised me is that average everyday people are worried about state debt. Now, you think of state debt as something a bit removed from the everyday person, something that only people who care about economics and politics think about. But let me tell you, there are a lot of people in this state who understand that we are too far in hock, and they are worried about who is going to pay that off. Of course it is going to be their children and their grandchildren and whoever else until such time as we eventually pay it off.

We should be worried about how many bonds we are selling at the moment through Treasury Corporation. Treasury Corporation do a good job at managing the debt portfolio. They made some really smart decisions during the pandemic. They issued very long-term bonds at very low interest rates, which was a smart decision, but that was only a small portion of the portfolio. There are going to be a lot more that is going to roll over soon. The Treasurer knows that interest rates are on the rise. Semi-government bonds, which is what Victorian bonds are classified as by investors, are a bit on the nose.

Lots of people have asked me how will we know when the state is in real financial trouble. My response has been, and I maintain it, that ultimately it will come down to bond sales. When institutional investors, like our superannuation funds, decide that they are they are waiting until semi-government bonds are tapped out and when international investors like the Chinese government, the Japanese government and others are tapped out, then the state government will be forced to look for new markets to sell those bonds into. When they try and sell them to everyday punters, then that is when you know we are in deep trouble. My answer to those people that ask me ‘How do you know when we’re in real trouble?’ is: when you see advertisements on social media for state government bonds, that is when you know you are in big trouble, because that means that they cannot place them with international investors anymore. That means that the trips to New York have failed and that means that China and others who buy our bonds either do not want to buy more or, worse, have decided to dump them, which could happen.

There is another part of this bill that I was going to spend a lot of time speaking on around event regulation. I have consulted with stakeholders on this. They are unhappy with the status quo. They are unhappy with what the government is doing, and I think it is safe to say that they want the government to relook at this. It is my understanding that the government is actually moving an amendment to remove that part of the bill, which means that if that is successful, at the end of today we will be back to the status quo. The status quo is not great, though. It is not great at all. I hope that the government engages a bit better going forward, because I think everyone in this chamber would agree that events are a very significant part of the Victorian economy. The government extract taxes from these events, which they will need to pay off their bonds at some point. So we want these events to go ahead. We want it to be as easy as possible for people to go ahead with major and smaller events.

I note that the government makes a big deal about big sporting events like the grand prix and this sort of thing. Maybe there should be more of a light shone on some of the other events that happen in Victoria, like corporate events, like conferences and this sort of thing, because they bring in a lot of money to Victoria. Frankly, New South Wales has been cutting our lunch a bit on that, and I think that we should try and get back in the game and get these corporate events back in Victoria. I hope that the government agrees with me there. We need to make sure that these corporate events are being held in Victoria and that New South Wales is not cutting our lunch. Nevertheless that is going to be removed from the bill. I hope that the government handle the consultation and engagement better on whatever they are planning next. Suffice to say I do not think anyone is happy with the status quo. It is very cumbersome. It is very difficult for people to manage.

It is good that we are getting some minor rebates and exemptions for people for taxes, but our state is taxed so badly that people do not want to invest in our state. People are discouraged from investing in our state. I want our state to be known as the lowest taxing state in Australia. I want people to see Victoria as an investment haven where they will flock to and invest money, but we make it so difficult with all of these taxes that discourage investment. It makes me sad when I see the potential of this state. I love Victoria, I want it to be prosperous, but the taxes and debt are holding this state back.

One way of dealing with that is the government cutting waste. There is a lot of waste in this government. The government do a lot of things that are unnecessary, and at the same time they do not seem to be managing the very basic things that we expect of government, like fixing the roads, like getting crime and organised crime under control, like our healthcare system. These sorts of very basic things the government seem to be failing on, yet they want to expand into ever larger machinery. They just cannot manage it all. It is just too big. It is too big for this government to manage. They need to scale it back. I think that there is an appetite in Victoria. I think that a lot of people in Victoria are sick of the government being so big. They want to scale it back. People want us to cut debt. People want us to be more financially sustainable, and they do not want us to be taxing so much. I think that there is a lot of support for that in Victoria. I think that the government could do a lot. There are a lot of people at the moment that want a change of direction. Either the government changes direction or we change the government. One of those things is going to happen. Maybe the government is listening to people now – I do not know – but I would like to see a change in direction too, and part of that should be a large cut in waste.

I note that the government has actually made some attempts here, and I am going to bring it up again because it annoys me so much with VicHealth. The government said that they wanted to get rid of VicHealth. Fifty million dollars a year – that is a pretty small saving in the scheme of things. The Greens and the opposition went absolutely nuts about getting rid of VicHealth. I have no idea what part of VicHealth they think is so essential to Victoria, but seriously, if the government cannot even get the support of the opposition for such tiny, tiny cost-saving measures, we are in deep trouble. The government needs to be bolder on this, and the opposition needs to be called out when they do not support it. I will certainly support the government if they want to cut spending. I think that the opposition should support the government if they want to cut spending, because this debt is getting to the point where everyday people are concerned about it. They are worried about our future, and we need to get it under control.

 Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Health, Minister for Water) (20:45): We have had a panoply of contributions across the chamber today. I just want to put that onto the record. I have been referred to by the Treasurer with a most unsavoury term just now. I am not going to put it on the record or seek to have it withdrawn.

We are creating some nation-leading reforms, and that has been the subject of discussion in this place over a number of iterations of the reforms that are being delivered in latest form by this bill. We want to make sure that, as we continue with our consumer focus on the way in which people can access safe, high-quality and affordable homes, we have a measure of focus and effort and attention in the areas of natural disasters where we know that landslips and floods can have a really devastating impact on local communities. We also want to make sure that in making buildings more resilient we also have that strengthened compliance framework and the work that is occurring across the Building and Plumbing Commission.

The developer bond scheme is something that has been addressed in substantial form this evening and in previous conversations, and also the work that we have done on the minimum financial requirements for builders who want to undertake work in Victoria following the release of measures for consultation. Again I just want to thank people who have provided their feedback, who have provided their position on what the impact of MFRs would mean and the way in which further time was needed in order to enable them to operate as intended. This is therefore part of the provision in the bill that allows the Building and Plumbing Commission to continue to assess financial stability in a way that maintains the status quo, with a view to transitioning to the more stringent model that is currently prescribed in the legislation over the period of two years.

This is something that was brought to my attention on a number of occasions when I had the building portfolio but also as a local member. There were a number of conversations that I had out in Gippsland at Farm World in particular. I note that there were a number of building companies and people who came to speak with me at some length about the impact of MFRs and what that would mean without a transition period as far as hardship was concerned and the viability of their business. The Treasurer has gone to this in relation to the matter she has spoken about this evening. The refinements and the changes that we are making to legislation are, in so many instances, as a direct result of the feedback, the questions and the concerns that we receive from communities. That is, by its very definition, a process of listening, of consideration and of response. That is indeed what part of that particular MFR process is directly geared to address.

Smooth commencement of the first-resort insurance scheme and new rectification orders is also about making sure that we do have that protection to really transition to a new system with a measure of consistency and viability that we need to support our industry as we continue to encourage the building and development of new homes across the state, and to make sure that when consumers – again, back to that consumer focus – choose to invest, they also have protections if costly building defects arise.

The building monitor will have those powers to declare an area to be flood-prone, and that is similar to the existing powers held by Minister Staikos to declare bushfire-prone areas. We are also delivering on commitments, including tax relief for more Victorians, as the Treasurer has spoken to, to make life simpler, easier and more affordable with, again, a significant measure of reform that has been informed directly by communities and their feedback.

There has been some considerable debate on places of public entertainment – POPE – and the way in which the POPE and permit process is run. We believe our position modernises and streamlines that permit process in a way that does benefit industry, does bring Victoria more in line with other jurisdictions and does so in a way that ensures that our calendar remains really full of world-class events. You only have to look at what is happening in Melbourne and indeed the entire state, week to week, month to month, season to season, to see that we have a blockbuster line-up of events, something to appeal to everybody no matter your age, your interests or your location.

Those opposite have tried to block reforms in relation to places of public entertainment and expose young people at festivals to some pretty unacceptable risks from fires and crowd crushes, amongst other risks. We have seen a couple of examples of this in recent times around fundamental challenges to public safety because of a failure to take account of everything from waste separation through to the building and construction of stages. But we are placing those POPE changes that were set in the bill to one side so we can actually move ahead with some key reforms that reduce Victorians’ taxes and protect them from the serious debts which can be incurred when they are forced to self-rectify defects in departments. We are really looking forward to conversations continuing with industry to ensure that those POPE permits continue to protect the value of our nation-leading events schedule. On that basis I would like to circulate the amendments in my name.

We have also heard that changes to the minimum financial requirements scheme are somehow a government backflip. Perhaps I might want to address that as well. We released these regulatory changes for review earlier this year, and we heard really clearly that they needed some changes. Again, this is a further example of the nature of conversation, discussion and consideration of community views. If people see that as somehow a shortcoming, then they do a great disservice to the responsibility of government – that is, to consider impact and to make adjustment or amendment in circumstances where that is possible and where that is able to strike an appropriate balance. The changes in this bill are in fact about response to industry feedback. Again, I suspect that had there not been any change, we would have heard those opposite saying that we had failed to listen to industry. Now that there are changes being made in direct response to industry feedback, they are referred to as a backflip. Surely we can be a little better than that narrative, because we are doing this in a way that lifts the administrative burden for builders without reducing consumer protections – those consumer protections which were blocked and opposed and voted against by those opposite, incidentally – and we know that the changes in this bill have got really strong industry support.

We have also heard a lot from those opposite about flood-prone area declarations. Our current mapping processes, just for the avoidance of any doubt, will not change, despite the concerns of those opposite – only the manner by which flood-prone areas can be declared.

Importantly, I am really proud to see reforms introduced which will protect homebuyers in apartment buildings from costly defects by introducing a 10-year-insurance-period product for apartments. Again, this is further evidence of the consumer focus that we have in making sure, as we move toward home ownership increasingly being realised in the form of an apartment, that people who save, often for a lifetime, to make the biggest purchase of their lives are not left with their hearts broken and their wallets emptied and no recourse available to them.

I am looking forward to the consideration of any matters or questions that may arise in the house. With that and with the amendments as have been circulated, I commend this bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Clause 1 (20:57)

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I have only got a few questions, so I will try and get through them quite quickly and then perhaps give opposition the floor. Just starting with respect to architects, I have had a few architects contact my office, and I would say this is regarding rectification of defects and the like. Can I ask how the government will ensure that architects, engineers and other design professionals are only held liable for defects proportionate to their actual contribution rather than being exposed to claims arising from the actions of developers, builders or certifiers?

Harriet SHING: Just bear with me. I am just looking to see whether this is in fact within the scope of this particular bill. It certainly supports a range of other building system reforms which do go directly to the work of those professions that you have identified. What we are doing with this bill, though, is making a private market insurance scheme possible, so it is not actually about the operation of that scheme as it relates to the professions that you have identified.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: There might be a theme with some of these questions, so I will move quickly. Has government consulted with professional indemnity insurers regarding the impact of the scheme on premiums for architects and engineers, and will that advice be released publicly?

Harriet SHING: Again, this is about the existence of the scheme as a private market insurance pathway and not in fact about the modelling for the purpose of impact on these particular professions. That is not to say that this is not important, but it does sit beyond the scope of this particular bill.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Can I ask: who will ultimately determine whether a defect is considered a relevant defect under the scheme and what safeguards will exist to prevent inconsistent or commercially influenced decision-making here?

Harriet SHING: There will be a process by which regulations are established, and in the course of that creation of regulations for those purposes there will be consultation.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Can I ask: does the government have any intention to establish an independent technical assessment process involving suitably qualified architects and engineers before defects are determined for insurance purposes?

Harriet SHING: Before defects are determined?

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Yes, before.

Harriet SHING: This is actually a private market product, just to be really clear. Again, when and as that product is developed, it will be developed by reference to the scope of a private market product. There is no role for government in preinspection, as it were.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Just on the decennial insurance scheme, what additional documentation, certification and compliance obligations does the government expect architects and other design professionals will have to undertake as a consequence of that scheme?

Harriet SHING: The bill does not actually impose any obligations on architects under the scheme, nor does it actually change any statutory rights or responsibilities that architects currently have. There are a range of standards, obligations and responsibilities that operate by virtue of an architect’s accreditation or recognition in that field of specialisation. They are not disturbed by this, and they continue to operate. But the bill itself does not actually set any obligations under the scheme for architects.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I might move on to building surveyors, on another matter. Situations have been reported to me wherein some large-volume builders are bundling the surveying costs into their packages, which effectively means that if you do not choose the builder’s preferred surveyor you pay extra, as well as other examples wherein a large builder flatly refuses to deal with surveyors that do not meet certain onerous requirements. Can I ask what the government is doing to ensure that customers have true independence when choosing a building surveyor.

Harriet SHING: You have actually asked a question that I myself took a great deal of interest in when I had the portfolio. It is actually really important that we are avoiding any actual or perceived conflicts of interest or any disruption to the obligations that already regulate building surveyors. Again, they are required to acquit their level of skill and expertise with the necessary level of diligence, which is subject to the oversight of their own profession. The Building and Plumbing Commission also does a lot of work in that space, and I think I addressed that in some great detail – mediocre detail perhaps, but some detail nonetheless – when we did the buyer protection legislation and the committee stage of that particular bill. But again, that is something which is subject to oversight within that particular professional regulation.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I believe this is my last one, just on the place-of-public-entertainment (POPE) reforms regarding those events that are now due to be taken out of the bill, pending an amendment in that respect. Acknowledging that that is the government’s intended course of action now and taking that and putting it to the side, as I believe you said, Minister, just to understand timelines, do you anticipate those provisions in some form coming back this term, or is there another timeframe that you could indicate for the house?

Harriet SHING: We are removing the POPE permit work because we would like to have some further conversations with industry on the issues that have been raised. There are not any specific timelines or changes that are being contemplated because that would then mean that we had a preconceived idea about where these conversations might end up, if that provides you with any assurance. It is intended to be a good faith process, and I look forward to it being able to get underway.

David DAVIS: I just want to make some comments about the POPE clauses, and we have said quite a lot already during the second-reading debate about the large set of provisions that were in this bill, the permit system, all the matters around places of public entertainment and so forth. We obviously had amendments. We will no longer move those amendments, because in effect they are superseded by the government’s intention to remove those clauses of the bill. On one level we are pleased about that step so that the entrenchment of errors and mistakes in the bill is avoided. That is a positive, and we put that on the record very clearly.

Equally, this does not resolve the longer term issues for the events sector, and it does seem that somewhere deep in the government there is, I do not know, a gremlin or whatever it is. I am not sure what it is, but there is something that is deeply resistant to reforming the events sector that seems to want to keep a level of control and rigidity that is unnecessary – a level of control and restriction that adds little but adds cost and adds impact on the sector so that the events sector is penalised here. I accept that the government have said that they will talk to the sector. Some of us were on the inquiry of the Economy and Infrastructure Committee in a previous Parliament when the events sector gave a lot of material – this was partially in response to COVID but more broad than COVID – and laid out some ways forward. The government chose not to respond to those recommendations and those entreaties that came from an upper house standing committee, so there is this resistance. There is some group of gremlins, I think – even more than a single one – somewhere deep inside the departments. That is a problem, and it has got to be dealt with.

We lay out a very clear way forward to talk to the sector and to work to solve some of these problems. If elected, we will work closely with the sector – thoughtfully with the department but closely with the sector – to find ways to solve some of these problems. There has been a break or a distance between the department and the events sector, which is a very significant sector. It is not just major events. For some reason the government is obsessed by the major events component, and I am not diminishing the importance of that in any respect. But events is a much broader –

Harriet SHING: You go to most of them.

David DAVIS: Well, I do not actually. I go to one or two, but I have not been to the grand prix for quite a long time. Leaving that aside, the events sector is a much broader part of the economy, and it does seem that the government has not really understood what is required to properly regulate it to achieve the safety and proper regulation objectives that we all want but at the same time not crush the sector in the way that these regulatory imposts have for a long period. I want to put on record my thanks to Simon Thewlis and his supporters, who have worked very hard to try and distil some of the material in a way that can be understood very clearly by people in this chamber and elsewhere. I think his first-rate work has been instrumental in convincing the government to step back from what I think would have been a very unfortunate way forward with a number of the amendments that were in the original bill. So thank you. We appreciate the fact that the government has stepped back, but it is about looking forward. The gremlins have got to be worked with, the department has got to be worked with constructively, and most importantly, the sector has to be engaged with. We cannot have a government that is distant from this events sector given its importance for the Victorian economy and the growth of the Victorian economy. It has the ability to be a very significant generator for the state, and that balance has got to be got right.

Harriet SHING: Thank you, Mr Davis, for that. I am not sure how many times you may have received a challenge from your office to use the word ‘gremlin’ in a 5-minute contribution, but I suspect that someone in your office may just have won a meat tray. The department is going to continue to engage on the detail of the reformed POPE scheme, and it would have done that following passage of the new heads of power in any event. I just want to be really clear about that. We set forth a model that was about increasing flexibility and cutting red tape for industry. We could have moved forward in a really measured way and responded to industry concerns. But the amendments, just to be clear, that were proposed by the opposition that are no longer being pressed, as you have flagged, Mr Davis, would actually have exposed young people in particular to unacceptable risks, and they would also have devalued the very nation-leading events that you have referred to. And I am not talking just about blockbuster events here; I am talking about a range of others. We need to make sure that we are not diluting or damaging community confidence in the safety of people who go to these events, whether they are festivals or whether they are shows.

David Davis interjected.

Harriet SHING: What I would say, Mr Davis, is that we need to strike a balance, but at the heart of every single conversation on any kind of public event, whether it is the smallest of festivals or the largest of blockbuster multiday events, public and community safety has to guide the work that we do. One of the things that I found interesting, though, about your contributions is that you were referring to oversight and to regulation when in fact you opposed the development and delivery of the Building and Plumbing Commission and you have opposed the work that we have done to resource that body to provide it with the powers necessary to enforce compliance with relevant minimum industry standards. So your opposition to that – your opposition to a range of pieces of legislative reform in the building space and what would fall very, very readily into the category of cuts that are being proposed to the tune of $40 billion – would tend to erode the credence of the statements that you have made here this evening, Mr Davis, that you do actually stand by a commitment to make sure that there is the necessary level of regulation and of oversight. But nonetheless I will follow the timbre of the contribution that you made by thanking you for your withdrawal of those amendments on the basis that we will continue to engage with industry. We will continue to have conversations, obviously, without confining ourselves to any foregone conclusions about where they may end. I move:

1.   Clause 1, line 5, omit all words and expressions on this line.

David DAVIS: We will support that amendment as outlined. This removes the POPE section from the bill, and this tests it, so there you are.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: As has been already highlighted, there were initially to be changes regarding place-of-public-entertainment permits within the bill, but this amendment would seek to put them to the side for important industry consultation and feedback. It was apparent, at least from the perspective of my office, that there was not agreement between the sector and the government regarding what these changes ought to look like. While we are not specifically moving forward with those changes in the bill as it would proceed following this amendment today, I am pleased that the government is committing clearly on the record to continue to consult with the sector to update the event permit system so that it works for everyone and that it ensures smoothly run and safe events and festivals.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (21:16)

 Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Health, Minister for Water) (21:16): I move:

2.   Division heading preceding clause 3, omit this heading.

Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 44 negatived.

Clauses 45 to 81 agreed to.

Clause 82 (21:18)

 Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Health, Minister for Water) (21:18): I move:

4.   Clause 82, lines 16 to 22, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 83 negatived.

Clause 84 agreed to.

Clauses 85 to 88 negatived.

Clause 89 agreed to.

Clause 90 negatived.

Clauses 91 to 147 agreed to.

Clause 147A (21:20)

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I move:

1.   Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly –

Clause 147A, lines 4 and 5, omit all words and expressions on those lines and insert –

‘After section 21AA(2) of the Duties Act 2000 insert –

“(2A) Despite section 21(2), the consideration for a transfer of dutiable property is to be adjusted under section 21(3) or (4) if –

(a)   the dutiable property is residential property consisting of a single dwelling; and

(b)   the residential property is a lot in a strata subdivision that has common property; and

(c)   the transfer meets all the requirements to receive a concessional rate of duty under section 57J other than the requirement that the dutiable value of the dutiable property is not more than $550 000; and

(d)   the contract for the purchase of the dutiable property is entered into on or after 21 October 2026 and before 21 April 2027.”.’.

Jaclyn SYMES: I thank Mr Puglielli for his ongoing interest in this matter. It was discussed in my summing up. This amendment that we are seeking to maintain, as opposed to change, is something that I am keen to do for another six months to bring projects to market sooner, boost housing supply, support the construction sector and grow the amount of houses available, whether they are to purchase or to rent. As I have indicated to you, I am alive to the concerns that you have and will be more than happy to have ongoing conversations with you about this, particularly as the data becomes more available.

David DAVIS: This is an on-balance decision for the Liberals and the Nationals. We have looked closely at what Mr Puglielli has brought forward, and there is some merit in it. We are persuaded by the government’s points to us on this occasion, because we think there is some fragility in the sector and we are conscious that an extension for a six-month period is a modest step, and it is lower tax in that sense. On this occasion we will support that extension in the current form. We understand the points you have made. There is merit, and we are certainly open to that discussion.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarian Party will not be supporting the Greens amendments on this. I take a bit of issue with something said by Mr Davis just now. Actually, what we should be saying here is that adding any stock to the housing stock will help overall supply. It does not matter whether it is the low or the top end of the market. This is a basic economic principle, because if it is at the top end of the market, it will push everything else out underneath. If it is at the bottom end of the market, it will do the same. Adding anything to the market is good. Therefore this artificial limiting saying, ‘Oh, well, only these people should get a tax concession, and other people shouldn’t because of the value of the property,’ I think is displaying an underlying ignorance of the economic principle that we have here. We have heard lots of things like this from the Greens about rental caps and that sort of thing. Thankfully the government has not been crazy enough to listen to any of that stuff. The Greens always talk about lived experience and evidence-based policy. Well, the evidence base for this sort of stuff is pretty awful – like for rental caps – wherever you look. If you listened to the lived experience of people who have lived in socialist hellholes that have actually implemented policies like this, you would understand that they are not very popular now. So I do not buy that this limitation, making it even more limiting, is going to somehow help people who need to buy a property, because it will not at all. If houses get built at this level – indeed if they get built at a higher level – it will still help overall supply in the market, which will help availability for everyone. I think the government should be raising this rate, frankly, for anything new. If people want to build a new house in Victoria, what sort of moral case does anyone have to stand in their way at the moment? Housing is the issue that is causing our society to fracture at the moment. We are seeing political extremism all over the place. No-one should be standing in the way of any housing whatsoever being built in this state.

Council divided on suggested amendment:

Suggested amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 148 to 153 agreed to.

Long title (21:31)

Harriet SHING: I move:

8.   Long title, omit “places of public entertainment,”.

Amendment agreed to; amended long title agreed to.

Reported to house with amendments, including amended long title.

 Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Health, Minister for Water) (21:32): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Health, Minister for Water) (21:32): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill with amendments.