Wednesday, 26 August 2026

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (14:32): I move:

That this house:

(1)   notes:

(a) that in relation to the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) (Extractive Industries) Amendment (Fees) Regulations 2026:

(i) the notice of decision on the fees was gazetted on 14 August 2025;

(ii) statutory rule no. 111 was made on 18 August 2026 and tabled in this house on 25 August 2026;

(b) that in relation to the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) (Mineral Industries) Amendment (Fees) Regulations 2026:

(i) the notice of decision on the fees was gazetted on 14 August 2025;

(ii) statutory rule no. 112 was made on 18 August 2026 and tabled in this house on 25 August 2026;

(c) the extraordinary increase to fees averaging 234 per cent; and

(2)   disallows statutory rule nos. 111 and 112, pursuant to section 124(4) of the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 and section 23 of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994.

This is in one sense very simple but in another sense more complex. Essentially what has happened here is the government has introduced a massive, massive, massive increase in fees for the mining sector and for the quarrying sector and has done so in a way that I think gives the sector real cause for concern. These costs will be passed through to consumers. They will be passed through in two forms, really. There will be less mining, less opportunity for mining, and less available quarrying material because of the huge increase in costs. I think that this has a process behind it that I do not think people in this chamber, or more broadly in the community and certainly in the sector, could or should support. The idea that this is driven by pure cost recovery – and the now Minister for Energy and Resources, then Treasurer, pushed, I understand, as always and understandably, for new revenue and wants cost recovery for the resources sector of the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, in doing so putting massive new charges onto the sector.

To questions in the chamber this week the minister said that this had been going for some time and there had not been increases for a long period. Well, that may be true, but the decision to do this came as a bolt from the blue, and the sector was surprised and the scale of the decision did surprise the sector. There was a regulatory impact statement that was put out, again pushing heavily for the full cost recovery option. There have been some adjustments, I will indicate, to the particular fees, which followed the RIS, but the aggregate is still the same. What lowering the fees in one area has meant is that the fees have gone up for other items. It is worth putting these on record so that people understand what is required here.

I think if the situation was that this went up by CPI, people would have one view, but that is not what is going on here. This is a massive increase. This applies to application fees, fees for varying work authority, fees for transfer of work authority, fees for lodging work plans, fees for very varying work plans and the amendment of fees. The notices given in the gazette on these two occasions deal with 55 existing fees that were increased, the two new fees created, the 42 fees that increased by approximately 297 per cent and the 13 fees that increased by approximately 40 per cent. On average each fee increased by $22,240.80, and the two new fees impose an average cost of $137,139.

I am going to choose a number of these at random so that people can see the size of the increase. An application fee for an exploration licence goes from 145 fee units – and bear in mind the fee units are adjusted every year; the current 2026–27 fee amount is $2518 – and the adjusted fee units will be 204. That is $3524.80. This new fee begins on 1 January. That is a 40 per cent increase. An application for a mining licence goes from 262 fee units, which is $4529, to 1041 fee units, which is $17,983 – a 297 per cent increase. An application for a retention licence is similar. There is an additional fee for native title assessment. There is a tourist fossicking application fee going from 6.4 fee units, $110, to 25.4, which is $438. That is a very significant increase as well. The mining licence fee renewal is going from 76 to 304 fee units. That is a 297 per cent increase to $5258. Likewise, a lodgement of a work plan for a mining lease in respect of a mine that is not a declared mine with no blasting involved and has no sensitive locations within 200 metres goes from 1233 fee units to 4898 – $21,307 to $84,591.

These are truly massive increases. The clobbering is so remarkable, and the impact is so great that there is no doubt that these costs either must force some mines or some operations to close or they have got to be passed through in some way. That would not be easy for many newer mines or mines in an earlier stage of development. In the case of world prices, you cannot easily just increase prices; you are effectively a price taker on many of these matters. Even for the rehabilitation of a declared mine, it goes from zero at the moment to $142,330. The fee for the variation of a declared mine is going from zero at the moment to $131,948. These are huge fees. They are taxes by another name. Let us call them what they are: they are taxes imposed by the minister and by the Ben Carroll government. One of its first acts is to impose a new set of taxes on mines and a new set of taxes on quarries.

I want to say something here about the impact particularly on the quarrying sector. The quarrying sector has a hugely important role in providing rock and the inputs for much of our construction sector, whether you are building a new home or you are repairing a road. We know the situation of Victoria with its potholes at the moment. The opposition have indicated we will spend more money and set out a proper plan to deal with these massive pothole problems. But let us be clear: these new fees will make the rock more expensive. They will make the rock more expensive for pothole repair and road repair around the state. If you were building a big tunnel in the eastern suburbs – the Suburban Rail Loop, just to pick an example that is a bit prominent today – you would find that the cost of the rock that you need to make the concrete to build the tunnel will increase substantially because of the fees that have been imposed here. Massive new fees passed straight through – that is going to make large construction projects even more expensive.

We know the Suburban Rail Loop has already blown out massively and the government is imposing new taxes everywhere, including on public transport today – secret new taxes on public transport.

Michael Galea: It’s not a tax, it’s a fare.

David DAVIS: No, actually it is not a fare, it is a tax on the fare. You pay it as part of being able to go on the train or the tram or the bus. You have to pay that. They knew about it in 2021, but they did nothing about it. They did not announce it. When the new arrangements were actually introduced into operation on 1 January 2025, did they tell anyone? No, they did not tell anyone. They lifted them again in 2026. Did they tell anyone? No, they did not tell anyone. They kept it secret – a secret tax imposed on every public transport traveller – absolutely outrageous. The government knew. They kept it secret. Even in your area, Acting President Ermacora, if you were catching the train from Warrnambool you were clobbered with an additional tax by this government starting on –

Michael Galea: Sorry, didn’t we reduce regional fares to the metro level?

David DAVIS: No, you are actually paying the additional amount, and in the metro area you will pay. Actually, we led the way on lower fares for the regional areas.

Michael Galea: No you didn’t.

David DAVIS: Yes, we did. In the election we did.

Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, Acting President, Mr Davis should direct his comments through the Chair.

David DAVIS: On the point of order, Acting President, I actually was directing it through the Chair. I was very clearly talking through the Chair; I was actually talking about her area.

Sonja Terpstra: Further to the point of order, Acting President, I sat here and very carefully observed Mr Davis’s contribution, and there was pointing and gesticulating and direct commenting towards Mr Galea. So I ask that you remind Mr Davis that he should direct his comments through you.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): I uphold the point of order. Please direct your comments through the Chair, but do not try and debate with the Chair.

David DAVIS: I am just informing you, Chair, making sure that you are fully aware of the new charges that have been imposed on your electorate. Let me just return to the key points that I want to make here. Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia said to the Herald Sun a couple of days ago:

… heavy construction materials already made up an average of 29 per cent of project costs.

The increase in quarrying fees:

… comes as Victoria grapples with a housing affordability crisis, a multibillion-dollar infrastructure pipeline, and already soaring costs for road construction and maintenance works.

Mr Kilgariff said the higher quarry charges would ultimately be felt well beyond the resources industry.

“Costs imposed at the quarry gate will flow through to homebuyers, infrastructure budgets, renewable energy developers and taxpayers …

“Victoria cannot improve housing affordability, deliver infrastructure efficiently or lower the cost of the energy transition while making essential construction materials more expensive.”

I think this is a very basic point that he has made, and it is a very fair point. He also warned that:

… increased costs could discourage investment in quarrying operations, potentially reducing local production capacity and increasing transport costs.

“Capital is mobile. Continuing increases in energy, labour, transport, insurance, WorkCover, taxes and regulatory costs are making it harder to justify investment in Victoria,” he said.

“Adding another substantial government charge will push marginal expansion projects and investment towards jurisdictions with lower costs, faster approvals and more predictable regulatory settings.

“Over time, that means less local production capacity, fewer regional jobs, longer transport distances and higher construction costs.”

If you are trying to lower greenhouse impacts, you do not want to be dragging quarried rock huge distances from interstate; you actually want to mine it in a reasonably proximate place, and you want reasonable fees on the quarry so that they are viable and able to deliver the materials that are needed. Think about Victoria’s critical infrastructure sector. We want to see critical infrastructure put in place, and that requires rock and other support. Then think of the minerals sector. If we want to see mining occur for the various critical minerals that are needed, that will actually require exploration and development, and all of these fees will come in like a cascade, compressing and depressing the ability of proponents to get their material and get their particular projects off the ground.

These are very bad outcomes for Victoria, and I notice a number of the industry associations have spoken strongly about this. I have written to a number of the unions and actually have had a conversation already with one member. People in the union movement will want to do something about this, because this will not help unionists. It will not help those who want real jobs with real pay in country Victoria to put new fees on the operation, on the quarry or on the mine; this will not in any way assist.

I see that the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies said, about the government’s announcement today:

Changes to the fees structure were first announced as part of a Regulatory Impact Statement … with the intention to introduce them in October that year. AMEC’s submission to government as part of the RIS detailed the objections of our members and the impact to activity levels that would result from the proposed increases which at the time were levied at 234%.

These new changes go beyond that and push Victoria into being the most expensive jurisdiction in Australia in which to explore and mine.

I think that should ring in people’s ears. The fees and charges are now out of touch and out of kilter with other jurisdictions with which we compete. James Sorahan, the executive director of the Minerals Council of Australia, made a number of points as well:

Now the government is planning to increase exploration licence fees by 40% and work plan fees by an extraordinary 400%.

These are just huge amounts. It is just ridiculous. It is absurd. He also said:

Much of Victoria is underexplored for gold and critical minerals. Applying full cost recovery is harsh for exploration companies that work to find resources which are then subject to royalties.

Bear in mind you will make it less likely that the state will bring in royalties too. If you crush the exploration side of things, which means that mines cannot expand and cannot produce as much and cannot sell the stuff overseas, there will be less royalties for Victoria. So it is actually a self-defeating approach that the government has adopted here. I do not see anything in their figure work that suggests they have thought about the impact long-term on royalties. James Sorahan said:

Instead of punishing our world-class explorers with high fees, fee increases should be linked to service improvements and delayed until 2027 when regulatory reforms under the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act remove work plans and replace them with a less process intensive duties-based model.

There are some issues with that process, and many in the sector have pointed out that the resources section of the department is not yet ready for this, and many are very firmly of the view that the government has not done the background work with the sector to actually meet that timeline. That is another challenge, another burden, that is being laid upon the sector concurrent with this one. He said:

The Victorian Government and Opposition should implement MCA Victoria’s policy proposal to introduce co-funded exploration grants on offer in other states, given that Victoria is the only jurisdiction without a competitive grants program to encourage exploration spending.

They are talking about assistance for exploration. Actually, this government is doing the opposite: it is loading more and loading more and loading more onto the sector, making exploration harder and making decisions to proceed harder. The minerals council made the point:

When combined with the Federal Government’s damaging capital gains tax changes, Victoria’s failure to provide exploration grants and the prospect of massive fee hikes will discourage mining exploration in Victoria.

I am just going to quote a little further from Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia, who, in ‘Victorian quarry fees put investment and building costs at risk’, their statement of 18 August:

… warned that higher minerals and extractive-industry fees will increase the cost of essential construction materials, adding to housing, infrastructure and renewable energy project costs while further weakening Victoria’s competitiveness as a destination for investment.

It should be very clear now that the sector realises that this is a very large threat. It is not going to be easy, the way this is proceeding. What I have sought to do today is to bring to the chamber a disallowance motion. This will allow the government to go back, to rethink this and to come forward with a more moderate offer, a more moderate approach – an approach that might deal with some of the CPI issues. I understand that. But at the same time 300 per cent, 40 per cent and 250 per cent are gigantic increases in fees, and they will not help a sector that is important for Victoria’s recovery. We already have the highest unemployment in the country at 5.1 per cent. We already have a deteriorating position relative to other states. We are already building a deficit that is causing huge risk for the state going forward. Yet this government’s approach is to put more and more taxes onto the situation. There are 66 new taxes and one more today on public transport – a special public transport tax to pay for the Suburban Rail Loop. This is another new layer of taxes and charges that has been laid on the minerals and aggregates sector, the mining sector. This will not help the state’s recovery. This will not help the state rebuild. It will not help the state’s unemployment problem. It will not help the state’s debt.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister for Environment, Minister for Climate Action, Minister for the State Electricity Commission) (14:52): I just have a few remarks in relation to the motion before the house today. Obviously I have returned to the resources portfolio as the Minister for Energy and Resources after some time since the last time I was in the portfolio as the Minister for Resources on its own. It is a fantastic portfolio. What I really liked about the first time – and indeed it is turning out to be true the second time – was that the people in this sector are incredible, and their contribution to industry, particularly in regional Victoria, is something that we as Victorians can be proud of. It is a great sector. They are great people, and it is a great place for young aspiring people to work in.

It is fair to say that there are some changes that are the topic of the motion today. This is about the government improving cost recovery for regulatory services provided to the exploration, mining and quarrying sectors from 1 January. The changes follow a comprehensive pricing review which found the current fees covered only one-third of the industry’s regulatory costs to government. When I say ‘regulatory costs to government’, it is not just government; it is the people of Victoria. These are funds that we hope to replenish to be able to redirect to other areas of community priority. Before this, it is important to note, fees had not increased for 12 years. That is quite some time that an industry has been benefiting from not having an increase in their regulatory fee environment. Of course this has facilitated a lot of activity, but it is time to catch up to that.

The fees, as I said, have been subjected to an extended period of consultation, including via a regulatory impact statement in 2025 and a review that commenced in 2022. It is fundamentally good government policy to recover the costs of regulating the private sector to ensure regulatory services are efficient, effective and sustainable. This is consistent with previous governments in Victoria. Under the previous coalition government, in 2014, minister Russell Northe noted in his gazettal notice that an amendment to the fees was necessary to align the cost of regulation with cost recovery guidelines. What is not similar between that gazettal and the gazettal that this government has recently made is the percentage increases. The fees brought in by Russell Northe, the former minister, were significantly higher than those that have been gazetted recently. On extractives our fee increase is 250 per cent compared to the minimum 1000 per cent brought in by the coalition.

The revenue that has been brought in allows Resources Victoria to respond faster to demand for quarrying materials through the Resources Victoria approvals coordination (RVAC) team. They act as a kind of concierge service for the extractive industry, if you like. This team actively case manage state-significant quarry approvals to bring materials to market sooner, which can apply to both new quarries and expansions. If you speak to anyone in the industry, certainty and time are what are important to them. Time is money when you make money by being able to start your work and work through the approvals.

There is one other thing to point out, too. I think, Mr Davis, you acknowledged the exploration stage of projects, recognising that you do not make revenue in the exploration stage. This was raised through the public consultation and accepted in the final regulations, with fee increases not being as high as what had originally been proposed, recognising the risks associated with exploration and that delayed revenue generation. The final fee increase, therefore, was a 40 per cent increase, which had come down significantly from a proposal that was sitting around the 200 per cent mark.

Mr Davis, you have made some good points. I do not agree with everything you have said. I do have to take issue with your reflection that this is a bolt from the blue. Even the stakeholder quote that you read out acknowledged that while they were not necessarily happy with where they ended up, people have been heavily engaged for a long time in relation to this matter. As I have just indicated, in consultation with industry there was a recognition of a proposal that was then measured down. So there has been a lot of consultation to get here. Not liking an outcome is not the same as saying it is a surprise.

Back to the RVAC team, as I said, they are concierge. They help bring projects on more quickly and deal with a range of issues. They case manage quarry development opportunities from the pre-application phase through to a final approval, including providing assistance in developing work plan applications, facilitating approvals from co-regulators and working through any barriers or issues that arise. Since 2022 RVAC has supported the approval of close to 480 million tonnes of raw quarry materials, which exceeds targeted approvals over the same period by 100 per cent. During the 2024–‍25 financial year quarry approval times improved by more than a third. This includes 300 million tonnes of hard rock and 170 million tonnes of sand, which are key inputs for building new homes, schools, hospitals and transport infrastructure – significant increases in time, money and benefit to the industry from those services. We want to make sure that those successes continue. That is why we announced in the Economic Growth Statement a continuation of the RVAC until at least 2027. RVAC also support new critical mineral projects, including developing maps and identifying areas that have the highest likelihood of developing successful operations and providing dedicated support to facilitate engagement with community and traditional owners. These changes that are occurring are not a money grab; they are ensuring that revenue brought in by the changes has tangible value to the state and value to industry.

I want to put on record that the government completely agrees that quarries are crucial to Victoria’s continued growth. Quarry-based construction material such as crushed rock, sand and gravel are essential inputs for building the infrastructure I referenced earlier. Victoria’s quarry sector makes vital contributions to the state economy and delivers gross product value of around $1.15 billion. Fifty-eight million tonnes of rock and sand were produced last year alone. This sustained high demand for extractive materials over the last five years has meant that government’s focus has been on securing enough materials to deliver on our unprecedented housing and infrastructure commitments.

Just to touch on some of the housing figures, which I often do, we comfortably lead the nation in first home buyers, with almost 40,000 new home loan commitments in the last year, over 10,000 more than New South Wales and 16,000 more than Queensland. We continue to lead the nation not just in first home buyers but in housing approvals, housing commencements and housing completions, and a lot of that is thanks to the ability to obtain those materials from the sector that we are talking about today. We have secured over 1.4 billion tonnes of extractive materials to support Victoria’s continued growth. In 2024–25, 12 new quarries were approved and 17 work plans were amended to deliver an additional 93 million tonnes of resource, building on the 300 million tonnes added in the previous year. This is all thanks to the support of Resources Victoria. It is the kind of value that these guys deliver to industry and the Victorian economy. It is only fair and reasonable that they are sustainably funded by the industry that is the beneficiary.

We are committed to driving new investment in sustainable quarry resource development. Our plan is to prioritise quarry resource development focused on facilitating timely approvals, long-term future supply and building social licence to operate in partnership with the resources sector, communities and traditional owner groups. We need a fully funded Resources Victoria to do that.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (15:02): The Greens will not be supporting this motion today. From a purely practical point of view, the fee increase is essentially just keeping up with the cost of regulating mining and mine rehabilitation. The need for tight regulation of this industry really cannot be overstated. The risks associated with mining while the mines are operating and the potential long-term harm from inadequate rehabilitation are very real. In fact we would argue that they are not adequately regulated as it stands. We are still waiting for the government’s response to the oil and gas decommissioning inquiry, for example. Given the widespread concern about the explosion of mining, particularly in rural Victoria, this motion might actually come as a bit of a surprise given that the Liberal and National parties do come out and say that they care about farmers and rural communities, and this seems to be putting the interests of the mining industry before those communities.

The Greens have long raised concerns about dangerous mining activities across Victoria. For example, right now there is an important community campaign that is currently fighting against another expansion of the local Boral quarry in Montrose. This expansion would destroy more than 8 hectares of native vegetation and habitat. It further pollutes the air and increases the health and environmental risks to the community. My colleague Aiv Puglielli has been supporting this community campaign and has sponsored a parliamentary petition calling on the government to oppose the expansion of this quarry. It is worth noting that the opposition have also sponsored a petition in the lower house on the topic of the expansion of the Montrose quarry, parading around their apparent support for the community’s fight against the quarry. Rather incongruously, here we are debating this opposition motion to try and keep quarrying in this state as cheap and easy as possible.

While we are on the topic, I want to touch on a few disastrously bad extraction projects that I would be more than happy to see pay more for the damage that they do. In June 2025 a licence was granted to Falcon Metals to explore for gold in a 94-square kilometre area to the east of Bendigo, including an area that is under a new housing development. The mine’s operations also sit just a kilometre away from the Campaspe River, a key water source for both irrigation and domestic use, and there is a very real risk of water being used in the mine tailings dam leaking into the Campaspe. Leaks from the tailings dam from the site have already led to arsenic and other pollutants being found in the local groundwater, and given the size of Falcon’s mining exploration licence, many local residents are concerned that this could happen on a greater scale if gold is found at this new site. Tailings dams like these are banned in a number of other countries due to the risks posed to people, rivers and the environment should they fail. This includes Brazil, where the collapse of a tailings dam at an iron ore mine in 2019 caused over 250 fatalities and continues to have catastrophic impacts on the environment.

There is a long history of environmental damage and impacts to human health caused by historic and current goldmining. For example, the Bendigo & District Environment Council has for years been ringing alarm bells about plans to expand a toxic tailings dam at Fosterville Gold Mine, the same mine where arsenic dust pollution resulting from mining operations has meant that residents cannot drink their tank water. Community groups in Ballarat have also raised concerns about the Victory Minerals Ballarat Gold Mine after repeated infringement notices being issued from Resources Victoria for environmental and safety breaches. Violations include the tailings dam discharge into the Yarrowee River, which I have previously raised; failing to report a mine fire within reasonable timeframes; and unauthorised vegetation removal. Then there is the zombie Fingerboards mineral sands project in East Gippsland, which communities thought was dead after an unsuccessful environment effects statement but now rises from the grave. The initial EES found the mine project would have unacceptable environmental effects and should not proceed. In fact it found that mining simply was not compatible with surrounding agricultural industries and the important horticultural fields of the Lindenow Valley. Last year the Greens tabled a petition on behalf of Mine-Free Glenaladale, which secured over 3000 signatures to stop the project. Jump forward a year, and Mine-Free Glenaladale says that the community are being treated like guinea pigs, with the Department of Transport and Planning piloting a new approach to ease processes. Back to the west, and there is Astron corporation’s Donald rare earth mines and mineral sands project in the Wimmera town of Minyip. It is set to become the fourth largest rare earth mine outside of China, and the project has been given the go-ahead despite major community distress regarding its impacts, including concerns that it exposes a loophole in our laws in Victoria prohibiting uranium mining.

There are countless more developments like this, but what these examples highlight are the genuine concerns and costs of mining for rural and regional communities who have to live nearby – the health risks they bear, the impact on agriculture, the disruption and the long-term risk to the local ecology and environment. We know that mining companies do not have any financial incentive to mitigate risks to surrounding communities or the environment or to properly rehabilitate sites once they are done. Even where there are requirements to do so, the drive will always be towards doing the bare minimum they think they can get away with, because for them every extra bit they have to pay eats into their bottom line, which is why stringent regulation is so, so important.

The Greens have opposed watering-down and fast-tracking of mining approvals in Victoria over recent years. For example, three years ago, when the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Bill 2023 was debated, we raised the alarm bell about scrapping of work plans for mining applications. This cut out a key step in ensuring proper planning to mitigate risks, as well as community engagement and transparency. We also railed against the backward step in that bill of allowing mining companies to self-assess environmental risks through a duty-of-care framework and called for environmental impact assessments to be mandatory for all new mines. But the major parties were not interested. Then last year, when the National Electricity (Victoria) Amendment (VicGrid Stage 2 Reform) Bill 2025 was introduced, we fought to amend the legislation to expand the tailings liability scheme to all mining projects and offshore oil and gas in Victoria, not just the three big mines in the Latrobe Valley. This is critical to ensure that mining companies cannot just walk away from their liabilities to clean up once they are done extracting and leave taxpayers footing the bill. The major parties again rejected these amendments.

What this motion shows is that if the Liberals and Nationals were ever to be in power, they would be just as, if not more, beholden to the corporate interests of the mining lobby. They have made it clear they want to make mining cheaper and easier. The mining industry is who they will put first, not farmers, not communities who have to live with these mines and certainly not the planet on which everything we do depends.

 Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (15:09): Well, the one thing you can be sure of in this place is that this government will apply taxes on anything they possibly can. I heard the minister say she loves this portfolio and she loves this sector. Then why kill it off? Let us not mince our words here – this government also hates the private sector. They have an ideological objection to those who take risks and grow the economy. The minister referred to cost recovery. This is not cost recovery; this is taxation on steroids, and all at a time when industry and the housing sector can least afford it. Let us not talk about the potholes that need to be fixed, which we need extractive product for. The minister mentioned certainty. The only thing certain in this government is exorbitant taxation and interference in markets with a complete aversion to wealth creation in the private sector.

I welcome this opportunity to speak in support of Mr Davis’s motion to disallow statutory rules 111 and 112, which impose the government’s new fee regime on Victoria’s quarrying, mining and exploration industries. As we have heard, these are not modest adjustments. The government consulted on an average increase of 234 per cent. Under the final regulations some increases will be higher still. A mining application rises from $4529.90 to $17,983.30 – a 297 per cent increase – while quarrying and extractive industry fees also rise dramatically. The government says this is simply cost recovery. It is supposed to make it sound fair and reasonable – just a trivial accounting adjustment somewhere inside government, paid by an industry somewhere else. But there is no magic category of money called ‘industry money’. That is what Labor never understands. Every cost imposed on a productive business has to land somewhere: in lower returns, lower investment, lower employment or higher prices. Someone pays, and in this case Victorians – every one of them – will pay.

That is clearest in roads. The government’s own Resources Victoria website says:

Victoria needs a steady supply of rock, sand and gravel to build homes, roads, rail lines and other infrastructure.

Mr Davis mentioned that hole in the ground, the Suburban Rail Link. Heaven help us, knowing how much rock and sand that needs. It forecasts that demand for extractive resources will exceed 90 million tonnes by 2034. It warns that if local supply is inadequate and materials must travel further, construction becomes even more expensive. So the government understands the principle; it has written it down. Yet, having acknowledged that reliable local quarry materials are essential to affordable infrastructure, it turns around and deliberately increases the cost of producing them. You cannot write this stuff.

This is extraordinary, given the state of Victoria’s roads in particular. The government has announced a $1 billion road maintenance program and says it is attacking potholes. Yet its own budget papers provide for less regional patching and less resurfacing and rehabilitation than in the previous year. The RACV says around 7 to 8 per cent of roads should be resurfaced each year to prevent deterioration. The actual figure is around 2 per cent. Rock aggregate, crushed stone, concrete and asphalt inputs do not appear by magic on the side of a road. They are quarried, processed, transported and paid for. Increase costs at the quarry gate, and you increase the cost of road building and road repair. That means taxpayers either pay more for the same amount of road work or pay for the same and get less road work. Unsurprisingly, neither of these helps the motorist dodging our crater-like potholes.

The same applies to housing. Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia says heavy construction materials represent around 29 per cent of project costs. The average new home uses around 110 tonnes of aggregate and more than 50 cubic metres of concrete. We are in a housing crisis. Young Victorians are struggling to buy their first home, builders are under pressure, construction costs have risen enormously, and Labor’s response is to make the basic materials used to build a house more expensive. The CCAA says costs imposed at the quarry gate will flow through to homebuyers’ infrastructure budgets, renewable energy developers and taxpayers. That should not be controversial. It is economics at its most basic, but this government has developed a habit of pretending indirect costs are somehow less real than direct ones.

We see it with payroll tax. The tax is paid by the employer, but the economic consequences do not stop at the employer’s door. We see it with land tax, where costs imposed on investment do not disappear because the assessment is sent to a landlord. We see it particularly in electricity. The Australian Energy Regulator has approved $45.4 million in AusNet transmission easement land tax costs to be passed through to network users in 2026–27. The state collects the land tax. The permitted cost is passed through. Victorians ultimately pay through their energy bills.

Tom McIntosh interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: That tax did not magically disappear; it just took a longer route to get to the household, Mr McIntosh.

We see the same political instinct with the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund. It is a state government levy, but councils are required to collect it through council rates notices. The bill bears the council’s name. The money goes to the state. Local government sees the same phenomenon in cost shifting. State responsibilities and regulatory burdens are pushed downwards. Councils bear the cost, and eventually ratepayers or local services bear the consequence. There is a pattern here. Labor asks first, and who will get blamed? If a tax arrives directly from Spring Street, there may be a political cost. If it can be imposed on an employer, a landlord, a quarry or transmission company or collected through a council, the political trail is less obvious, but the economic cost is exactly as real.

That is the deeper problem with these regulations. They reflect a government more concerned with the appearance of a decision than with its consequences. Even the design is difficult to defend. CCAA says the allocation of regulatory costs relies on estimates of regulatory effort from 2013 and 2014 rather than current activity-based costing. The fees commence on 1 January 2027, yet only six months later the government moves to a new duty-based model which removes the existing work plan requirement and requires another review of the fee structure. Businesses are being hit with enormous increases under a regulatory architecture the government is already replacing.

The mining side is equally concerning. The minerals council says Victoria already has the highest exploration licence application fee and the second-highest renewal fee of any state or territory. It says every dollar in government fees, charges and taxes is a dollar less put into the ground of exploration. Capital is mobile. That is another thing our Labor friends do not seem to recognise. Companies can choose where to explore, expand and invest. CCAA warns marginal investment will move to jurisdictions with lower costs and more predictable regulation. This is not happening in an economic vacuum. The Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has warned that Victoria is underperforming other states.

 Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (15:20): I rise today to make a contribution in opposition to the motion moved by Mr Davis. This motion before us seeks to disallow statutory rule 111 and statutory rule 112, namely the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) (Extractive Industries) Amendment (Fees) Regulations 2026 and the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) (Mineral Industries) Amendment (Fees) Regulations 2026. Let me be completely clear about what we are debating here. On our side the Carroll Labor government is doing the responsible, methodical work of ensuring that industry pays for the regulation and oversight of its own commercial activities. We are executing a long-established, fair and transparent cost recovery framework.

On the other side we see an opposition indulging in really what I consider as some theatre, whipping up some manufactured outrage and displaying an extraordinary amount of selective memory about their own record when they sat on the government benches. Under Victorian government policy our departments and agencies regularly review fees and charges across all sectors. It is an essential principle of good governance that commercial industries generating significant profit must cover the actual cost of compliance, enforcement and approvals required to regulate them safely, sustainably and ethically. Victorians, indeed everyday taxpayers and families across the state, should not be the ones forced to foot the bill to subsidise the administrative and regulatory processes of private commercial enterprises.

When we look at the resources sector the simple reality is that those fees have not undergone a comprehensive review since 2014, and for more than a decade the fee schedule sat completely unchanged. Over that same decade the volume, complexity, environmental standards and technical requirements of regulatory oversight grew substantially. That is why the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action commissioned the independent review in 2022, which clearly identified a widening, unsustainable gap between the fees charged to exploration, mining and quarrying companies and the true cost incurred by the state in delivering those regulatory services.

Following that independent review, the department ran an extensive, transparent public consultation process through 2025, releasing the draft regulations and a comprehensive regulatory impact statement through Engage Victoria. We received nearly 100 detailed submissions from operators, peak bodies, community groups and local stakeholders, and can I thank them for their contributions. Unlike those opposite, when we go about consultation we actually listen to the feedback we receive. The final regulations gazetted in August differ directly from the original proposals set out in the RIS because we listened to industry. Peak bodies and exploration companies made a clear evidence-based argument: exploration carries significant commercial risk, does not generate immediate revenue and forms the vital pipeline for future investment in our state. We accept that argument. We reduced the proposed fee increases for exploration activities from the 234 per cent originally modelled in the RIS down to just 40 per cent in the final rules. That is what collaborative government looks like.

I am going to spend some time looking at the record of the coalition, because I have heard the contributions of both Mrs McArthur and Mr Davis. It is worth reflecting on when Mr Russell Northe was the minister for resources. He amended these exact same fees in 2014 under the coalition government. They passed their regulations without a single change or compromise. What they did do to extractive industries back in 2014 was increase the application fee for an extractive industry work authority from a baseline of just over $100 to $1135, representing an increase of between 126 and 828 per cent. They created brand new annual fees, reaching up to nearly $11,000 every single year. They introduced new application fees for work plans, averaging over $6100, compared to the existing $379 fee, which was a massive, eye-watering increase of over 1500 per cent, and their variation fees jumped by nearly 1000 per cent. So when the coalition sat in government they slapped 1000 to 1500 per cent hikes onto quarries without batting an eyelid and without amending them based on what I assume was some strong advice from the sector. Yet today when our government brings in a new average adjustment, after 12 long years of frozen fees, what we have got before us is a motion to disallow the entire framework.

To my mind, it is hypocrisy or it is a covert plan to scrap regulations now so that they can conduct their own review and perhaps jack them up higher if they happen to get to this side of the chamber. Let me just say that the updated revenue does not disappear into general revenue; it directly funds faster, better regulatory services that the sector itself relies upon. I think that is an important point for everyone here. It absolutely powers the Resources Victoria approval coordination team, known as RVAC. RVAC was established to actively case manage state-significant quarry applications, from the very initial preapplication discussions right through to final statutory approval. They work side by side with proponents to prepare compliant work plans, break down interagency roadblocks and coordinate across the co-regulators to bring these projects online faster. In its first year alone RVAC facilitated the approval of 93 million tonnes of quarry materials, which is quite extraordinary, representing over $2 billion in gross production value for Victoria’s economy. Through our Economic Growth Statement we have extended through to 2027 so that our builders and contractors have access to the materials they need without costly delays. We have also provided dedicated mapping and tailored support for critical minerals, helping projects engage respectfully with traditional owners and local communities from day one.

Victoria’s resources sector is essential to our state’s economic strength. Our quarry industry alone produced 58 million tonnes of rock, sand and gravel last year, delivering over $1 billion in production values. That is an extraordinary number. These materials are the literal foundation of our record build. They are building our suburban rail upgrades, our regional hospital expansions, our new schools and our homes. Victoria absolutely leads the nation in housing approvals, commencements and completions. We lead the nation in first home buyers, with nearly 40,000 new loan commitments over the last year alone. We outperform New South Wales and Queensland by significant margins, and we ensure that our home builders are not squeezed by material shortages. Our Labor government has secured over 1.4 billion tonnes of extractive resources and introduced strategic extractive resource areas across Oaklands Junction, Trafalgar and Lang Lang.

At the same time, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity in our critical mineral deposits, with over $200 billion in estimated in-ground value across north-west Victoria alone. Some of these materials are new to me, so excuse my pronunciation. Antimony and zirconium – there we go; I did ask for approval beforehand, because these are not a regular feature of my day, I must confess – are crucial for renewable energy infrastructure, solar batteries, grid batteries and high-tech manufacturing. I love what they are after they come out of the ground, but I must confess they are new ones for me. They will be well known by Victorians right across the state in the years to come.

We have got before us a disallowance motion which would tear away the resources needed to keep our regulatory approvals running smoothly. It would harm the very sector that those opposite are claiming to defend. Can I just say that the Carroll Labor government is proud to support our workers, our regional communities and a well-regulated, sustainable and funded resource sector.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:28): I am also pleased to speak on this motion by Mr Davis regarding disallowance of the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) (Extractive Industries) Amendment (Fees) Regulations 2026. I am sick to death of hearing from businesses and different organisations that they do not want to do business in Victoria because we are uncompetitive. We have taxes, fees and regulations that are uncompetitive in many areas, and unfortunately, the fees put forward by the government here make extractive industries, at least for exploration and mining licences, uncompetitive in Victoria as well. Victoria has enormous potential for many new industries such as mineral sands et cetera but also, as has been mentioned, for many things that people consider not as exciting but are absolutely necessary from quarries for our construction sector.

David Davis interjected.

David LIMBRICK: Yes, sand and rock and these sorts of things that are absolutely essential. The government says that these fees are a cost recovery mechanism. I actually accept that that is the government’s explanation, but the problem is that the costs are created by the government. I do not accept that, for some reason, the costs in Victoria are vastly more expensive than other states. Why can’t the costs be less? I do not accept that the government is doing things as efficiently as possible. We have got to think about how much effect this has on Victoria. If some explorer decides to do business in another state, the potential impact and loss of potential revenue in the future for the long term are enormous for Victoria. These explorers do not produce revenue. They run on capital from investors who are taking large risks and they have already been slammed by some of the federal government’s recent tax changes, and now we are going to make ourselves more unattractive in Victoria through these fees. I think that it is absolutely wrong, what the government is doing. If they want to force up these costs, rather than increasing cost recovery mechanisms and costs, maybe they should think about lowering the costs in the first place. The other states seem to be able to do it – why can’t we?

 Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:31): I will make a brief contribution on this simply as Shadow Minister for Industry. I endorse all the previous speakers simply talking about cost and Victoria’s competitiveness. It is clearly established empirically that Victoria is the least competitive state in Australia. Our productivity has also been lagging the nation for a decade. These things have not happened by accident. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of economics understands that the cost of doing business in Victoria is higher than any other state, and that has a direct impact on anyone’s ability to do business in Victoria. It affects employment, it affects investment, it affects margins and it affects returns to working capital that can be reinvested into additional business. The part that seems to escape the government more than any other point is that if you need to grow state revenues – which the government does, because we are so deeply in debt – then the only sustainable economic way to do that is to grow economic growth and the output and the economic capacity of the state. If you do not do that, if you are trying to spend your way or tax your way into economic growth and into economic prosperity, what you end up doing is spending so much from state coffers that you exceed the actual economic capacity of the state – that is, you are trying to get the state to do more than it can actually do economically. And the immediate economic result of that is inflation, because you are prime pumping the state with demand that it cannot actually fulfil. You can see that in any economic model where if there are more people demanding land than there is land, then the land will go up. That is exactly the same mechanism for inflation, when you are not growing the economic capacity of the state.

Growing the economic capacity of the state can happen in a number of different ways, but certainly productivity is a way, and certainly lowering the tax burden of the state is another way, because it frees up working capital that can be reallocated for productive purposes. In Victoria we seem to have completely lost our minds about these very fundamental economics 101 matters, and we seem to be obsessed with the idea that we can tax our way to prosperity – we cannot. We are at the end of that road. The credit card is used up. The tax is already at maximum. There is already a clear premium for doing business in Victoria across almost every single metric that we have. And until this state changes direction economically, it is only going to get worse. We already know that the single fastest growing line item in the state budget is interest expense. It is growing faster than the revenue line. That is clearly unsustainable.

If one dollar out of every 10 is being spent simply to service revenue and the only way we seem intent on generating additional revenue is to tax people, that is clearly a lose–lose endgame or zero-sum game economic solution. Putting these punitive taxes on an industry that has the temerity to want to invest in and expand operations in Victoria is extraordinarily wrongheaded. In Victoria I think universally the community might say ‘Wouldn’t it be great to have the car industry back?’ or ‘Wouldn’t it be great to have manufacturing back in Victoria?’ Yet, when economic conditions present themselves to say, ‘This is an achievable thing. We’ve got an industry here that could expand and could generate wealth for the state,’ the immediate, almost Pavlovian response from the government is, ‘Let’s tax it some more. Let’s make it a little bit more difficult to get your licence. Let’s make the regulatory burden more. Let’s consume more of your productive effort in compliance. Let’s do everything to make it harder rather than to make it easier.’ There is a well-known engineering phrase that says the biggest mistake an engineer can make is optimising the thing that should not exist, and I think we are at that point in Victoria too. The government now, because it has no other approach, is actually outside its field of vision and cannot comprehend a different approach on building state competitiveness, so its reflex is, ‘We’ll tax.’ But there is actually a world outside this. There is a world in the rest of Australia and in the rest of the globe where people understand fundamental economics – that if you want more of something, you tax it less. If you want productivity, companies have to have working capital and need to spend more time building their businesses than they do filling out compliance forms.

I commend the motion to the house. My prayer for Victoria is that we have a new government in November, that we have a completely fresh start, that we demonstrate to the rest of Australia that Victoria is open for business and that we demonstrate that not just in words but in simply how we construct the tax system, how we incentivise people to take risks and how we incentivise capital to come into Victoria. That is the only way we are going to grow our way out of $200 billion of debt.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (15:37): I am pleased to rise to speak on Mr Davis’s motion. As the minister outlined in her contribution earlier in the debate, the government opposes the motion. One of the things that strikes me in the context of the debate is how a regular and routine review of fees and charges to ensure cost recovery in a sector that has been subject to fees and charges for the operation of the resources that it extracts almost as long as the colony that preceded this state has existed has somehow turned, in the minds of the opposition and the Liberal Party speakers in this debate, to be the greatest assault on the Victorian economy that they have ever seen. I think they need to stop exaggerating absolutely everything all of the time, because it stretches credulity that anything that they say has any substance.

David Davis interjected.

Ryan BATCHELOR: Just on a point of order, Acting President, Mr Davis used an unparliamentary expression, and I ask him to withdraw it.

David Davis interjected.

Ryan BATCHELOR: You know what you said, and you should withdraw it.

David Davis: In the spirit of moving forward, I withdraw the word ‘goose’.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): Thank you. Mr Batchelor, please continue.

Ryan BATCHELOR: He is very sensitive to a critique of how absurd this disallowance motion is and the arguments that the opposition have when they are really clutching at straws. What we have got before us, very simply, as the minister outlined, is a government review of fees and charges to ensure that they cover the cost of compliance activities for the industries that they regulate, consistent with government policy. Almost one of the most routine things that you can think of that government should be doing is ensuring that the fees and charges that are used to oversee a regulated authority cover the costs of the compliance associated with the regulation of that authority. It is enough to send you to sleep sometimes, and yet what we see is the opposition trying to confect outrage about something that is so routine. These fees were last reviewed in 2014, and this review was commissioned by the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Change in 2022 because they had identified the substantial gap that had grown between the fees charged to the exploration, mining and quarrying industries and the costs for delivering regulatory services.

There has been extensive feedback that the department has sought through releasing draft regulations and a regulatory impact statement and through public consultation. As the minister said in her contribution, of all the things that you could say, this review, these fees and these changes have been thoroughly consulted on with the industry. So yet again the sort of language that we hear from the opposition that tries to stretch everything routine and well consulted into the greatest threat to the Victorian economy in a generation that was sprung on people at the last minute makes them out for the Chicken Littles that they are. Almost 100 responses were received from industry stakeholders, representative bodies and community members, which helped shape the final regulations. As a result, the final regulations differ from the original proposal, which is the whole point of a consultative exercise, in my view. The opposition regularly critique the government for not engaging in genuine consultation, but if you go out with a draft process, with a draft proposal, and you put it through an extensive consultation process and that changes, then it demonstrates there actually has been a genuine consultative process. Maybe the Liberals just are not familiar with that, because the last time they sat on the government benches, which was the last time that these fees were reviewed, there was no consultation. The last set of regulations were made without amendment. They were made without the feedback that the sector had given them. Perhaps if the people in this state decide that the opposition is fit and proper to form government after the election, maybe this is a taste of what is to come if they ever get the chance to be in government in this state again.

I think that what we should see from the opposition is at least some degree of appreciation of the extensive work that has gone into the regulatory process and of the absolute hypocrisy of bringing forward a proposal to disallow these fees. All we can surmise is that they want to potentially jack them up even further if they are to win. Maybe the opposition simply does not want to have a new set of fees in place this side of the election. Maybe they have a plan to increase these fees without consultation even more after the election. That is a logical conclusion that one can draw from the disallowance motion that is before us today – that what the opposition want is no change so that they can jack them up even further after the election. That is their cunning plan.

Richard Welch: Yes, that’s our cunning plan.

Ryan BATCHELOR: That is what Mr Welch just said. Mr Welch by interjection into this chamber said that that is their plan. That is their cunning plan. I heard it, and the government members heard it. What you have seen right now from Mr Welch, a shadow minister, is that they have got a plan to jack up resource fees after the election.

Members interjecting.

Ryan BATCHELOR: I was merely speculating that the genius of David Davis –

Renee Heath: On a point of order, Acting President, I believe that the current speaker is trying to mislead the house, and I just ask you to bring him back to the bill.

Michael Galea: Further to the point of order, Acting President, you cannot mislead by directly quoting someone.

David Davis: On the point of order, Acting President, actually you can, because it was said by Mr Welch in irony. It was dripping in irony. He was pointing to the fact that we would not be doing that. Indeed the opposite would be the case.

Richard Welch: On the point of order, Acting President, if it helps the house, I was really just saying with irony how incredibly ridiculous the proposition being made was, just for the clarity of the house.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): I will bring Mr Batchelor back to the debate.

Ryan BATCHELOR: I think it has been very clear through that whole exchange that Mr Davis has moved this disallowance motion to ensure there is no increase to these fees ahead of the election, because as Mr Welch said by way of interjection, they have got a cunning plan to jack them up after. That is why Mr Davis is moving this disallowance motion right here. That is what they are doing. They did not want to say it. Mr Welch let the cat out of the bag. Who knows what else they have got planned. All we know is that this government has spent the last four years since 2022 consulting with the sector through an extensive regulatory impact statement process about adjustments to fees to make sure that the fees charged cover the costs of the compliance activities, consistent with government policy that compliance and regulatory activities should have their costs covered by the fee structures. It is not complicated and it is not controversial; it is very straightforward. It has been the subject of extensive consultation. The motion should be opposed.

 Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (15:47): I am very pleased to support Mr Davis’s motion 1586 on the notice paper, a disallowance motion of statutory rules 111 and 112. You know that the government are getting desperate, and you know that they are reading the tea leaves and that they are looking at the polling and getting very nervous, because they have asked all of their members to hyperbole, to be dramatic, to be outrageous and to try and knit some prefabrication of a story out of absolutely nothing, which is what we heard from the former speaker. Let me give you some context. We heard from the former speaker about the threat to Victorian people and that there is going to be a threat to Victorian people. Well, let me say that we are living in that threat right now. The former Premier looked down the barrel in 2014 and said, ‘There will be no new or increased taxes.’ The Premier, coming into government, looked down the barrel of the camera and said, ‘No new taxes.’ Well, we are up to about our 67th new or increased tax, and let us just see, there are more on the table.

Let me also give some context around the $200 billion in debt that this state will have in a few short years. That is an existential threat to the Victorian people. Let me also give some other reality. If there is one thing that I know the Deputy President has spoken about in her contributions, as we all have over here, it is consultation. So many Victorians feel that they have been consultold by this government in many forays and many, many areas.

I will provide some other context around this. The government in 2017 brought in a thing called the coal royalties tax. They tripled the coal royalties tax. Apparently it was up for review and all of that, but they tripled it. What did that do? That pushed Hazelwood coalmine over the gangplank. It made it shut rapidly. It put thousands of people out of work in my electorate, and it ensured that there were power prices going up.

Going back to this particular motion, I want to talk about some of those regulations. They have risen by up to 297 per cent. What does that look like? The mining licence application has gone up from $4500 to $17,900. The exploration licence renewal has gone up from $1300 to $5200. The tourist fossicking authority has gone up from $110 to $400. Mining licence rent per 10 hectares has gone up from $250 to almost $1000. These are not marginal. These are fundamental changes to how costs operate in this space in Victoria.

What it also shows is that the timing around this creates a serious problem for Labor and for Victoria. In terms of the increased fees, they commence on 1 January next year. Six months later, in July, Victoria moves to a new duty-based regulatory framework. Under that framework the statutory work plan approvals will no longer be required, and the government’s own regulatory impact statement acknowledges that work plans will no longer be required under a duty-based model and that the fee structure will need to be reviewed again. So we have a review, we have got prices being pushed up –

David Davis: There will be more charging.

Melina BATH: Absolutely more charges. What does that mean for Victorians? We heard the former speaker speak about threats to Victorian people. That is what the former speaker said. Well, let us look at some of those threats. Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia has warned that there will be a higher quarry price, and that will have to flow on. If you have input costs to business and industry – they are not a charity – they have to pass on those costs. They absorb and absorb and absorb, but they have to pass them on. That is going to flow on to construction materials, to housing, to roads and infrastructure and to other projects, including renewable energy projects. It is going to put pressure on local production. It is going to put pressure on regional jobs – something that I feel very passionately about, as do my colleagues. It is going to bump up prices across the board.

I worry very gravely about the state of our roads. Under this, with those increased prices, we are going to see less again. It is going to be more expensive. We know this government has cut road maintenance – the actual filling, the actual work done and the actual area covered – dramatically in the last few years. Simply put, you cannot fix a pothole without rock, and the Liberals and Nationals have a plan to solve that. We are going to increase the number of potholes that are not just filled but eliminated – 1 million. We are going to have over four years an uplift of 25 per cent in road funding to ensure that we get rid of 1 million potholes. We are also going to introduce Better Roads Victoria, which is about establishing the actual work that needs to be done to fix those potholes and to eliminate them entirely as well as reviewing construction standards to increase department and contractor accountability. We want to see actual action being done.

The other thing that I am quite concerned about – the minerals council has been very strong on this – is that Victoria already has some of the highest exploration licence fees and application fees. It has the second-highest exploration licence renewal fees among Australian jurisdictions. We know that it is just dearer and dearer not only to do business as a small business in this country but to generate the activity that is required to construct, to build and to make. I also want to point out that in terms of the prospectors and fossickers, it is not just the larger companies that are going to be hit with this, then a review next year and then potentially more of an increase; in actual fact it is those everyday people. The prospectors and fossickers will also be hit. The tourist fossicking authority is going to have an increase. We know that the miners rights are also having an increase. These are concerns because we want to ensure people are out enjoying that activity. It is a very traditional activity. In fact Victoria was built on the back of prospecting and goldmining – many of the fantastic towns that we know of like Bendigo, Ballarat, Maryborough and all of those – and this house has gold lining all through it because of that particular industry and pastime. We want to see that continue. We know that this government has actually been very keen to lock prospectors and fossickers out of public land. They have reduced access to 70,00 hectares of national park over a range of spaces out to the west near Wombat State Forest. We know that has curtailed the Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria and their members of the opportunity to go prospecting, and we see that this also is a concern.

When the road washes out in East Gippsland, we need construction material in my electorate. When a road fails in Wellington, we need roads, road base and aggregate. When new homes are built in Baw Baw and Cardinia, we need concrete, aggregate, drainage and roads. It is one of the fastest growing regions in the world – in the state, without a doubt. It might be in the world; I have not done that checking, but I know that it is one of the fastest growing municipalities, and a great one too. We do not want to see that curtailed, and we need this disallowance. I am very pleased that my colleague David Davis has brought this on, and I support him entirely.

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (15:57): I am pleased to sum up on this motion, and I thank members for their contributions. I think this is actually a very important motion, because we do not necessarily, on every occasion, support full cost recovery. I think this is a set of statements that the member over there has made, that we are going to push things higher. No, we are not pushing them higher. Actually, if we are elected, we are going to get rid of these fees. We are open to CPI, but we are not open to 300 per cent. Nobody thinks that 300 per cent is even remotely reasonable. Nobody thinks that, if the aim is just cost recovery. This is what the former Treasurer, now Minister for Energy and Resources, is pushing for, but this is not what we agree with. We say the fees should be lower. This lot of changes should be removed. The government ought to go back to the drawing board, and they could if the motion is carried. But we are not going to increase these fees by the sorts of numbers that are proposed.

The reason we are bringing this motion is because we disagree with those fees and disagree with those massive increases, and we know what this will do. This will make mining less competitive. It will make our critical mining sector less competitive. It will mean that those who are out exploring are going to face higher charges to go and find the new resources, the new minerals that the state needs, and that has a consequence. There will be less new mines, there will be less new resources, and do you know what, there will be less royalties too. So this is a government cutting off its nose to spite its face. It puts a barrier in front of groups going out to try and create new development and new royalties. It is actually a counterproductive tax, a tax that leads to a negative outcome for the state, so we will scrap it. We will get rid of these fees and charges, make no mistake about it.

Beyond that, we also are aware of the importance of this sector for construction, for housing, for new roads and even for the Suburban Rail Loop, with all its costs and charges that are in there now – the Suburban Rail Loop, with its new taxes, its new charges and the new corrupt payments. I mean, we have got people in there, we have learned today, who knew what was going on and who are awarding consultancies corruptly. We know what is going on, and we know the way that that project is operating. But let us be clear: if you are going to build tunnels and roads, you need rock, you need sand – you need the input. If you are taxing it, if you are making the taxes higher on it, it is going to make the projects more expensive. But it also hits everyday families. An everyday family that wants a new home in Baw Baw Shire is going to have to pay more because of Jaclyn Symes and because of Ben Carroll’s new taxes – Ben Carroll’s new housing tax, Ben Carroll’s new tax on roads, Ben Carroll’s new tax on every piece of construction in the state.

It is a shocking new tax that makes it harder for families and makes it harder for explorers, harder for miners and harder for the state to get off its back, which it has fallen onto. Our state is in a terrible position and it needs help to get up, and a new tax like this will not make it easier. All of the industry associations understand the importance of this. All of them understand it makes Victoria less competitive and it is a mistake. This is a terrible mistake, this new nasty tax on housing, on roads and on mining and new development in the state. You want to get the state up, you want to get the state moving – well, do not put a dirty big new tax on it.

Council divided on motion: