Thursday, 5 October 2023
Bills
State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023
Bills
State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023
Statement of compatibility
Tim PALLAS (Werribee – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Economic Growth) (10:08): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023.
Opening paragraphs
In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023.
In my opinion, the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023 (Bill), as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with the human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this Statement.
Overview
This Bill introduces a number of amendments to the Duties Act 2000 (Duties Act), the First Home Owner Grant and Home Buyer Schemes Act 2000, the Local Government Act 1989 (Local Government Act), the Property Law Act 1958, the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Sale of Land Act), the Treasury Corporation of Victoria Act 1992, the Valuation of Land Act 1960 (Valuation of Land Act), the Windfall Gains Tax Act 2021, and the Land Tax Act 2005 (Land Tax Act).
Many amendments made by the Bill do not engage the human rights listed in the Charter because they either do not affect natural persons, or they operate beneficially in relation to natural persons.
Human rights issues
The rights under the Charter that are relevant to the Bill are the right to property and the presumption of innocence.
Right to property: section 20
Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law. This right is not limited where there is a law that authorises a deprivation of property, and that law is adequately accessible, clear and certain, and sufficiently precise to enable a person to regulate their conduct.
Duties Act amendments
Clauses 9 to 11 of the Bill address an anomaly in the Duties Act relating to the pensioner and concession card duty reduction to provide that the requirements of this concession apply to all transferees of a transfer rather than only the eligible cardholder. The right to property may be engaged by these amendments as natural persons may be required to pay duty or an increased amount of duty where currently an exemption or higher concession applies.
To the extent that people’s property rights are affected by the above amendments to the Duties Act, any limit is in accordance with the law, which is clearly articulated, not arbitrary, and sufficiently precise to enable affected natural person taxpayers to inform themselves of their legal obligations and to regulate their conduct accordingly.
Local Government Act and Valuation of Land Act amendments
Clauses 15 and 19 of the Bill amend the Local Government Act and the Valuation of Land Act respectively to provide that the capital improved value of land includes the value of any item affixed to the land whether or not it constitutes a fixture at law. The right to property may be engaged by these amendments as natural persons may be required to pay increased amounts of taxes, levies, rates and/or similar charges based on the value of items affixed to their land which are not fixtures at law. To the extent that people’s property rights are affected, any limit is in accordance with the law, which is clearly articulated, not arbitrary, and sufficiently precise to enable affected natural person taxpayers to inform themselves of their legal obligations and to regulate their conduct accordingly. Any limit on this right is further justified as these provisions are anti-avoidance in nature.
Land Tax Act amendments
Division 1 of Part 10 of the Bill relevantly extends vacant residential land tax (VRLT) liability to all vacant residential land in Victoria and to unimproved residential land which has been unimproved for five years or more in established areas of metropolitan Melbourne. The right to property may be engaged by these amendments as natural persons may be required to pay VRLT where they were previously not required to do so.
Clause 43 of the Bill amends the BTR special land tax formula in section 50B of the Land Tax Act to take into account the new top ordinary land tax rate and new absentee owner surcharge rate provided for by the State Taxation Acts Amendment Act 2023. The right to property may be engaged by these amendments as natural persons may be required to pay a higher rate of BTR special land tax.
To the extent that people’s property rights are affected by the above amendments to the Land Tax Act, any limit is in accordance with the law, which is clearly articulated, not arbitrary, and sufficiently precise to enable affected natural person taxpayers to inform themselves of their legal obligations and to regulate their conduct accordingly. The amendments to VRLT are central to the policy intent, which is to improve housing affordability for Victorians and to encourage the use and occupation of residential land in Victoria for residential purposes.
Presumption of innocence: s 25(1)
The right in section 25(1) is engaged where a statutory provision shifts the burden of proof onto an accused in a criminal proceeding, so that the accused is required to prove matters to establish, or raise evidence to suggest, that the accused person is not guilty of an offence.
Sale of Land Act amendments
Clause 17 of the Bill introduces offences into the Sale of Land Act to enforce the new prohibition on passing on land tax and windfall gains tax under certain arrangements over land, e.g. contracts of sale. The right to be presumed innocent may be considered relevant to these strict liability offences which place an evidential burden on the defendant to rely on a defence such as the defence of honest and reasonable mistake.
Although these provisions require a defendant to raise evidence of a matter to rely on a defence, I am satisfied that the provisions impose an evidential, rather than legal burden. Courts in other jurisdictions have generally taken the approach that an evidential onus on a defendant to raise a defence does not limit the presumption of innocence. The available defences relate to matters within the knowledge of the defendant, which is appropriate in circumstances where placing the onus on the prosecution would involve the proof of a negative which would be very difficult.
For the above reasons, I am satisfied that the Bill’s offence provisions do not limit the right to be presumed innocent in section 25(1) of the Charter.
For these reasons, in my opinion, the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the rights contained in sections 20 and 25(1) of the Charter.
TIM PALLAS MP
Treasurer
Second reading
That this bill be now read a second time.
I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.
Incorporated speech as follows:
It is my pleasure to introduce this Bill, which updates a number of taxation, valuation and other Acts to maintain the effective operation of Victoria’s taxation and valuation system.
Vacant residential land tax reform
The Bill makes changes to the vacant residential land tax provisions in the Land Tax Act 2005 (Land Tax Act) to help ease pressure on rents and prices and free up available housing stock. The Bill extends vacant residential land tax to all vacant residential land across Victoria from 1 January 2025, with the period that properties could be deemed vacant starting on 1 January 2024, and expands vacant residential land tax to unimproved residential land in established areas of metropolitan Melbourne from 1 January 2026.
Vacant residential land tax is imposed on residential land that is unoccupied for more than 6 months in a calendar year. Currently, the tax only applies to residential land in a specified area covering the inner and middle suburbs of Melbourne. As the issue of housing affordability remains acute across the whole of the state, expanding vacant residential land tax to the whole of Victoria will encourage all owners of long-term vacant and unoccupied homes in the outer suburbs of Melbourne and in regional Victoria to make their homes available for rent or occupation. The existing suite of exemptions from vacant residential land tax will continue to apply, covering homes that are not rented or occupied in a particular year because they are holiday homes; are occupied regularly for work purposes; are under construction or renovation; or are recently acquired. In addition, vacant residential land tax will not apply in any situation where the property is exempt from the general land tax.
Vacant residential land tax does not currently apply to unimproved land – vacant land without a residence on it – unless the land previously contained a former residence which has been demolished. Unimproved land can therefore remain outside the vacant residential land tax net indefinitely even if it is capable of residential development. To incentivise the development of empty blocks in metropolitan Melbourne and increase the supply of housing, the Bill extends vacant residential land tax to unimproved residential land that has remained unimproved for 5 years or more. This is similar to how land currently becomes subject to vacant residential land tax after 2 years if construction or renovation of a residence is unfinished after that time, or if a residence is left uninhabitable for that time. Consistent with existing law, the Commissioner of State Revenue (Commissioner) will have discretion to extend the period of non-application beyond 2 years if there are acceptable reasons for not improving the land, such as genuine delays outside the owner’s control. The residential status of land will be determined by its zoning under the relevant planning scheme and will exclude any land currently used for, or under development for, a non-residential purpose (such as commercial or industrial use). Two exemptions for unimproved residential land will be available, in relation to unimproved residential land contiguous to a person’s principal place of residence, and land that is incapable of or prevented from being developed for residential use. This measure will take effect from 1 January 2026.
Land tax and windfall gains tax apportionment
Under a typical contract of sale of land, land tax payable in relation to the year of sale is apportioned between the vendor and purchaser. Contracts generally provide that the vendor will pay for land tax (and other outgoings) up to, and including, the day of settlement, and that land tax for the remainder of the year is contributed by the purchaser as an adjustment to the purchase price. This practice can reduce transparency, as the apportioned land tax is not directly reflected in the purchase price, and often results in land tax being passed on to purchasers who are subject to little or no actual land tax liability once the property has been transferred.
Similar issues arise with the windfall gains tax, which is payable by the owner of land when a rezoning occurs. A contract of sale of land may provide that any known or future windfall gains tax liability is either wholly payable by the vendor, or passed on to the purchaser in whole or in part, by way of a special condition under the contract. Such provisions are necessary to deal with potentially unknown future liabilities. However, a windfall gains tax liability that is known prior to the contract should be directly reflected into the purchase price. For example, once the vendor has been served with a windfall gains tax assessment, the vendor would know their tax liability and would generally have received the entire benefit of the rezoning at this stage. Therefore, the value uplift of the land resulting from the rezoning and the resulting windfall gains tax liability should be reflected in the purchase price.
The Bill therefore amends the Sale of Land Act 1962 to prohibit the passing on of a land tax liability (inclusive of absentee owner surcharge and vacant residential land tax) or a known windfall gains tax liability under a contract of sale of land. Under these changes, a provision of a contract or the grant of an option to enter into a contract (for windfall gains tax only) which provides for the adjustment will be void. Offence provisions with significant penalties will also apply to a vendor who enters into a contract, or grants an option to enter into a contract which provides for such adjustment. The Bill also amends the Property Law Act 1958 to remove references to the apportionment of land tax between vendor and purchaser in the general conditions of sale, which may be adopted into a contract not under the operation of the Transfer of Land Act 1958. The amendments will apply to contracts of sale entered into or options granted (as the case requires) on or after 1 January 2024.
Capital improved value and fixtures
The Bill amends the definition of capital improved value under the Valuation of Land Act 1960 to ensure all items affixed to land are included in the capital improved value of land, regardless of who owns the items and whether the items are considered fixtures at law. The Bill also makes a consequential amendment to the Local Government Act 1989 to refer to the updated Valuation of Land Act 1960 definition. The Valuer-General Victoria is responsible for determining capital improved value, which is intended to include the value of land and any improvements. The amendment extends capital improved value to include anything fixed to land, regardless of whether the item constitutes a fixture at common law and regardless of who owns the item. This largely removes the need to apply the common law test distinguishing fixtures and chattels for the purposes of council rates, fire services property levy, vacant residential land tax and windfall gains tax, and will provide greater certainty to owners of land about what forms part of the land for valuation purposes. The amendment takes effect from the day after Royal Assent.
Duties amendments
The Bill makes a number of amendments to the corporate reconstruction and consolidation provisions in the Duties Act 2000 (Duties Act), which provide concessions for certain transactions involving corporate group members, to facilitate corporate groups adopting a more economically efficient corporate structure. The amendments correct technical issues with the provisions. Firstly, the corporate reconstruction and consolidation concession will be extended to sub-sale arrangements where a subsequent purchaser of property acquires a transfer right from the first purchaser under a contract or option arrangement, and a transfer is deemed to occur because there has been additional consideration or land development. Certain exemptions and concessions currently apply to these deemed transfers, but not the corporate reconstruction and consolidation concession. Secondly, the Bill prevents the 10% concessional duty charged on an eligible corporate reconstruction and consolidation from applying concurrently with the 10% concessional duty charged either on a relevant acquisition in a public landholder or a relevant acquisition arising from certain restructures of listed stapled entities, which can erroneously result in only 1% of the normal duty being payable. The amendment ensures that no less than 10% of duty otherwise chargeable is imposed. Thirdly, the Bill corrects the timing of the 30-day period in which subsequent transactions can occur under a multi-step reconstruction or consolidation without incurring further duty. The amendment clarifies that the period begins on the day of the first transaction, rather than the day after the day of the first transaction, so that any transactions occurring later on the same day as the first transaction are fully exempt from duty. The amendments are proposed to take effect from the day after Royal Assent.
The Bill amends the Duties Act to apply key eligibility requirements for the pensioner and concession card duty reduction to all transferees, not just eligible cardholders (i.e. pensioners) who are parties to the transaction. Eligible concession cardholders, including pensioners, may receive an exemption or concession from duty on a home purchased as a principal place of residence. Some of the existing eligibility requirements of the duty reduction, however, apply only to the eligible cardholder under the Duties Act when they are intended to apply to all transferees to the transaction. The First Home Owner Grant and Home Buyer Schemes Act 2000 will also be amended to ensure the existing requirement to elect either the first home owner grant or the pensioner and concession card duty reduction continues to apply. The amendment takes effect from the day after Royal Assent.
Foreign purchaser additional duty and absentee owner surcharge
The Bill amends the Duties Act 2000 and Land Tax Act 2005 to require the Treasurer to table reports of the number and value of exemptions granted from the absentee owner surcharge (AOS) and the foreign purchaser additional duty (FPAD) every 12 months rather than every 6 months. Under the Land Tax Act 2005 an absentee corporation or trust may be exempted from the AOS if the Treasurer, or the Commissioner where delegated, is satisfied the corporation or trust meets requirements set out in guidelines made by the Treasurer and published in the Government Gazette. Similarly, a foreign corporation or trust may be exempted from the FPAD if the Treasurer (or Commissioner where delegated) is satisfied it meets the requirements set out in Treasurer’s guidelines. The Bill amends both reporting requirements to require annual reporting, meaning reports are only tabled in Parliament every 12 months. This better reflects the ongoing, annual nature of land tax, and better aligns the exemption for both AOS and FPAD with revenue and other financial reporting requirements. The amendment takes effect from the day after Royal Assent.
Land tax amendments
The Bill amends the Land Tax Act to ensure continued concessional treatment for some taxpayers who pay land tax on a single holding basis. Land tax is generally calculated on the aggregate taxable value of a landowner’s landholdings, but, some charitable, municipal, public land and principal place of residence (PPR) land for nominated PPR beneficiaries of unit trust schemes and discretionary trusts is eligible for a concessional benefit, where each separate piece of land is assessed as if it is the only land owned by the owner – resulting in a lower marginal rate of land tax being applied. This is known as assessment on a single holding basis. As part of the COVID Debt Repayment Plan, the State Taxation Acts Amendment Act 2023 introduced the COVID-19 debt temporary land tax surcharge (the surcharge). The surcharge commences from the 2024 land tax year, as part of which taxpayers will pay a temporary additional fixed charge of $500 for aggregated landholdings between $50,000 and $100,000, and $975 for aggregated landholdings above $100,000, until the temporary surcharge ends in 2033. However, for owners of charitable, municipal, public land and nominated PPR beneficiaries of unit trust schemes and discretionary trusts, the existing wording of the Land Tax Act applies the $500 or $975 fixed component of the surcharge for each of the lands assessed on a single holding basis, reducing or in some cases eliminating the effect of the concession. The Bill restores the concessional treatment for these taxpayers by applying the surcharge once, based on the aggregated taxable value of affected taxpayers’ landholdings, rather than multiple times. The amendment ensures eligible taxpayers continue to receive a concessional benefit under the land tax regime.
Under the Land Tax Act, eligible build-to-rent (BTR) residential developments may receive benefits including a 50% reduction on the taxable value of land and an exemption from AOS (if it applies) for a period of up to 30 years. A ‘BTR special land tax’ formula is applied to calculate any claw back of tax benefits, if circumstances change and a BTR development no longer satisfies the requirements of the benefit. The formula for BTR special land tax incorporates the top ordinary land tax rate (with the intention to claw back the benefit obtained from the 50% discount for land tax) and adds the applicable AOS rate where the owner is also an absentee owner. The Bill updates the BTR special land tax formula to incorporate the surcharge and the increased AOS rates which apply from 1 January 2024, pursuant to the State Taxation Acts Amendment Act 2023.
Windfall gains tax
The Bill amends the Windfall Gains Tax Act 2021 (WGT Act) to expand the circumstances in which land rezoned to correct obvious or technical planning errors may be exempt from windfall gains tax. Currently, an exemption is only available if the Minister for Planning prepares the correcting amendment to a planning scheme under section 20A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. However, an exemption is not available for planning corrections undertaken by councils – contrary to the policy intent that correcting rezonings should not result in windfall gains tax consequences. The existing exemption in the WGT Act will be broadened to include any rezoning that the Commissioner is satisfied is for the purpose of correcting an obvious or technical error in the Victorian Planning Provisions or a planning scheme. The amendment takes effect from the day after Royal Assent.
The Bill amends the WGT Act to clarify the definition of excluded rezonings related to the operation of the growth areas infrastructure contribution (GAIC). In recognition that GAIC and windfall gains tax serve similar purposes, the WGT Act provides that windfall gains tax does not apply to a rezoning that causes land to be brought into the contribution area for GAIC purposes, or to the first rezoning of such land after 1 July 2023 (the commencement date of the tax) if it was in the contribution area immediately before that date. However, if land is only brought into the contribution area after 1 July 2023, it is unclear whether the first subsequent rezoning is an excluded rezoning and therefore not liable for windfall gains tax, despite GAIC being payable on the land. To remove the ambiguity and ensure the intent of the exemption is achieved, the Bill clarifies that the first rezoning of land that was in a GAIC contribution area immediately before that rezoning is excluded from the windfall gains tax. The amendment takes effect from the day after Royal Assent.
The Bill amends the windfall gains tax waiver for charitable land so that the waiver can apply proportionately to any tax attributable to a part of land used for charitable purposes at the time of the rezoning. The waiver currently applies if land is used and occupied by a charity exclusively for charitable purposes for 15 years after a rezoning that gives rise to a windfall gains tax liability. However, the existing wording of the WGT Act prevents the waiver from applying if only part of the relevant land was being used for charitable purposes. To align the provision with the intent of the policy, the Bill amends the waiver to apply if only part of land is used for charitable purposes at the time of the rezoning. That is, if the land is used for a charitable purpose and a non-charitable purpose, the windfall gains tax attributable to the part of the land used for a charitable purpose will be able to qualify for a waiver. The amendment takes effect from the day after Royal Assent.
I commend the Bill to the house.
Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (10:09): I move:
That the debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
That debate be adjourned for two weeks.
James NEWBURY (Brighton) (10:09): The Treasurer has just moved that 100 pages of new taxes be introduced into this place with a two-week layover after the entire industry has called out that the government provided no consultation. They snuck in an assault of new taxes only two weeks after signing an agreement with industry to not do exactly that. In fact industry has said that the agreement that was signed only two weeks ago has been set on fire, has been a major trust burner. I move:
That all the words after ‘two weeks’ be omitted and replaced with ‘28 days’.
On this occasion Victorians, industry and mum-and-dad home owners deserve an opportunity to understand the 100 pages of new taxes in this bill – 100 pages of new taxes. How many are in there? I do not know. This raft of new taxes has just been handed to the Shadow Treasurer and me. We have not even had an opportunity to open the front page of this new tax bill. We know that industry has made it very clear over the last two days that the bill should be laid on the table for more than two weeks, because they deserve an opportunity to see it. I note that in the rush the attendants, who do a wonderful job in this place to pass around the bills, have actually handed me two copies. There are 50 pages in the bill, but the clerks were doing such a good job to run the new bill around the chamber that they handed me two. I am sure that the bill is pernicious enough in its 50 pages that it does the damage that all of industry and all Victorians expected.
Industry has made it clear that they have seen the most outrageous tax attack in anyone’s memory. Certainly it is the only instance where a new Premier on their first day in Parliament has introduced new taxes. Now, I suspect that the Treasurer did that without letting the Premier’s office know, although the Premier did stand up in question time and say that of course she did know. Well, only the other side will know, and when we read the biographies in a couple of years we will all find out. I will be buying the Treasurer’s, don’t you worry. I will be one of the first purchasers of it. I will get him to sign it for me – yes, the forgotten Treasurer.
This bill is important in terms of the capacity of industry to understand what is being proposed. We have seen today the Real Estate Institute of Victoria state in an unprecedented way that the introduction of these bills shows Labor’s determination:
… to destroy the confidence of thousands of mum and dad property investors through increasing regulation and constantly increasing costs.
It has formally and publicly called on the Victorian government to engage the sector properly. A couple of hours ago industry asked for the government to engage properly. And what have they done? The first thing they have done since reading those words is they have tried to ram through a bill in this place that industry has asked for more time to read and asked for more time to understand. It is not too much to ask, and yet we see the government doing exactly that today. So I would say to the Treasurer: consider the amendment moved by the opposition but also consider the words of industry who have called, Treasurer, on you to engage properly – to live up to the agreement that the government signed two weeks ago with its own pen. I would ask the government to consider the amendment and deal with it properly.
Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (10:14): It is indeed a pleasure to rise to speak on this procedural motion, which I would ask those opposite to just have a look at now. Could you please just pick up the bill? Just pick up the bill – we are talking about a procedural motion.
A member: We have just been handed it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Though the Chair, member for Frankston.
Paul EDBROOKE: Yes, we have been handed it, but you identified that this was 100 pages of taxes. Can someone on the other side of this chamber tell me how many pages –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, this is a tight procedural debate, and I do not think it is fair to have a go at the attendants for passing out additional copies to members. That is outrageous. It is an outrageous slur. They were rushing because of the bill being introduced in a rushed fashion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. It is a tight procedural debate, and the member for Frankston –
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Without assistance, member for Brighton. The member for Frankston to continue on the procedural matter.
Paul EDBROOKE: You are right, there is no point of order. You are just a charlatan, and you cannot count.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind the member for Frankston that the word ‘you’ refers to the Chair, and reflections on the Chair are disorderly.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the speaker was clearly reflecting on me, and I would ask you to ask him to withdraw.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In response to the point of order, as the word ‘you’ is a reflection on the Chair, the speaker was referring to me, which is disorderly, and I encourage the member not to do that again or I will sit him down.
Paul EDBROOKE: You know I have got nothing but the utmost respect for you, Deputy Speaker, but my point is that whether it be two weeks, two years, 20 years, if you cannot count, you have got a real problem, especially when you are talking – sorry, not you, Deputy Speaker. If the opposition cannot count, they have got a real problem. They need to find someone in this chamber, in their party, that can actually look at the pages, count the pages for one, and then look at this bill, which is dealing with the economy of this state. We have people of course that are constantly trying to circumnavigate the systems in place in this house, and we understand that. But we have a Treasurer sitting here who was able to circumnavigate a one-in-100-year event, and we are on a pathway – we have got a 10-year plan – to get out of that. This bill is part of that. This bill is what Victorians have allowed this government, or given this government, the confidence to do. Today to hear people saying, ‘We want two more weeks, we want this, we want that,’ does not really make sense to me. You can use that time to go out and speak to people. But the one thing I will say is that going out to your stakeholders, going out to your friends, going out to anyone, if the start of the sentence is a mistruth like ‘This is 100 pages of taxes’ – if that is what you say, then you are getting off on the wrong foot.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the ongoing attacks on the attendants in this place for handing out additional copies is outrageous. It was stated in my speech that the attendants had passed out more copies because of the rush.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is?
James Newbury: Deputy Speaker, this is a tight procedural debate, and the member should not be reflecting on the staff of this chamber.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: On relevance, I bring the member back to the procedural motion.
Paul EDBROOKE: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The only thing I have found totally outrageous this week is hearing that we have got a Shadow Minister for Cost of Living with 17 investment properties. That is outrageous.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Brighton, I have a feeling I can take this one. The member for Frankston is warned to stay on the procedural debate, or his time will end early.
Paul EDBROOKE: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and I will be guided by your suggestions. Look, the member for Brighton and I – I think there is a mutual respect there – can agree to disagree on this one. I believe it is reasonable and it is fair that two weeks is the period that we should stick to for this bill. That it has been a long-running convention of this house, and it has served us well. To suggest anything other is wrong, and to suggest that the opposition need more time really is just trying to obfuscate this house. It is trying to interrupt long-running conventions. We have seen it before. We are seeing it here today. I do not think it is going to work. I can count, and there might be more people on this side of the house and over that side of the house that might actually win this if it went to a division, but certainly I think that extending out any kind of, I guess, term for looking at a bill, creating a period where that time is not needed, is not required.
Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (10:19): I also rise to address the procedural motion in support of the member for Brighton’s amendment, being that this bill return for consideration of this place in 28 days instead of 14 days. Ordinarily this side of the chamber would be satisfied with 14 days consideration, but on this occasion we are severely not. I will tell you why: we are giving the government, through this motion, an opportunity to do the right thing not just by industry but by the Victorian people, who will be affected by 42 pages of new taxes that they have just introduced into this place.
Yesterday was an absolute shambles for the government, and the day before was even worse. On Tuesday morning the Treasurer faced a Property Council of Australia breakfast and without the knowledge of the Premier’s office announced two new taxes – two new taxes that ended up being four new taxes 24 hours later. And yet yesterday the Treasurer found himself briefing the media just before question time, saying that these revenue measures would not raise a dime. Well, if you believe that, if anyone in this chamber believes that, I will go he. Victorians know that over the last nine years this government has introduced more than 50 new taxes. They know it because they are hurting because of it. It is the only trick in their kitbag to deal with an economic circumstance that they have made, that this government have made. On Tuesday what we had from the Assistant Treasurer was a very insightful and instructive quote. He said to media on Tuesday:
… we need to look at increasing –
Paul Edbrooke: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, this is not a history lesson. This is a tight procedural debate. It is not about this member’s opinions and quoting people. This is a tight debate, and I ask you to bring him back to it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has strayed somewhat from the procedural debate, and I ask him to come back.
Brad ROWSWELL: We need 28 days to look at this bill to consider it together with industry because that is what industry has asked for. The head of the REIV Quentin Kilian in today’s Herald Sun said the following:
The REIV anticipates even more investors will leave Victoria over the next year, with a chorus of concern about a loss of control over assets, courtesy of the increased taxation and ongoing disincentives to invest.
I add, for the purposes of accurately quoting Quentin and adding my reflection at this point, perhaps to the member for Frankston’s disagreement, that that is because of the actions of the Labor government, a tired government – a new Premier but a tired Labor government. To the point I have just raised quoting the head of the REIV, the Assistant Treasurer on Tuesday said:
… we need to look at increasing our tax base. We need to look at reducing our expenditure.
I will most happily provide the audio of that quote, from the lips of the Assistant Treasurer, to Hansard when they send the email to illustrate that point. What the Assistant Treasurer said is absolutely extraordinary through this lens. The Assistant Treasurer said on Tuesday, and to the head of the REIV’s point in today’s Herald Sun, that this Labor government wants to do two things. Firstly, they want to increase taxes at a time when Victorians can least afford it, at a time when we are in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, at a time when people are paying more than they have ever paid before for their energy bills, for their school bills, for their grocery bills. Everything that this government touches or does not touch is going up, and Victorians are paying the price for that. But at the same time the Assistant Treasurer said, ‘We need to look at reducing our expenditure.’ Let me debunk, let me simplify that for the chamber, especially for those members opposite: we need to cut services. That is what he is saying.
Paul Edbrooke: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, again, this is not a debate about the member for Sandringham making an allegation then trying to substantiate it. This is a very tight procedural debate about a period of time.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member. Yes, I fear you may be starting to debate something but not necessarily the procedural debate. Please come back.
Brad ROWSWELL: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and I will in the time I have left quote the head of the REIV just one more time, because this is absolutely relevant to why I support the member for Brighton’s motion:
The REIV is calling on the Victorian government to engage the sector properly, so together we can work on better policy development that benefits all property participants.
Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (10:24): I am very happy to speak to this procedural motion. It probably was not a great start for the opposition to embellish on the nature of the bill per se. That does not lend itself to the credibility of the arguments that they are putting forward – just putting that out there. On the one hand they have said this week per se, yes, we want to debate more bills. And yet we put one in front of them – ‘Oh, no, run for the hills! Run for the hills! Put it off. Put it off as long as you can. Four weeks – try for four weeks. Whatever we can get, we are going for it,’ because reform – deer in headlights. This is not who they are. Vision here? Delivering here? Reform? ‘Oh, no, hide. We don’t want to know about it.’ How about we see some courage by those opposite. Actually read the bill, invest –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance, I am not sure what is happening, but it clearly is not relevant to the motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member to continue on the procedural motion.
Nina TAYLOR: I did think this was a procedural debate, and I am absolutely just putting out there exactly what I am interpreting based on what we are seeing by those opposite, and that is a fear and an angst about any kind of reform, because it is much better to just sit on your hands and do nothing and just say ‘Yes, sir, no, sir’. No. On this side of the house we are actually driving forward. We are listening to the community. And I should say: commendations to our Treasurer. He is listening to community, and we are addressing the specific needs here and now.
I do not want to go into actually debating the bill per se, so I am just pulling back a little from that and adhering to the procedural motion we have at hand. On one hand they say, ‘Tax, tax, tax.’ They never, never, never speak to the underlying purposive element of a tax. Because on the one hand we know taxes help to provide services for community, don’t they? It is not a tax for a tax’s sake. It is always about revenue that is helping actually to take forward and advance the essential services and needs of community. Hence this taxation amendment is helping to address specific needs and requirements of our community, noting the dearth of open space that we have, noting the specific issues we have with housing.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member is debating the substance rather than the procedural matter.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. I remind the member that the debate is on the length of the adjournment in question. That is the procedural matter, and please come back to that.
Nina TAYLOR: Yes, and I thank you for the very sound advice on that matter and that element. I am just simply saying that on the one hand those opposite call out issues of cost of living – that has very well been raised in the debate – but then shy away from that when it comes to –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, you gave a ruling which is being ignored.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Albert Park needs to relate her debate to the length of time of the adjournment in question.
Nina TAYLOR: Yes. Sorry. I absolutely respect your ruling, and I completely understand the premise on which you are delivering that ruling. It was purely to allude to various commentary that had been made by the opposition, who on the one hand say adhere to the procedural debate, but yet want to talk about cost of living. So, you know, there is a little bit of a contradiction there. It was a little bit confusing. I just thought for the benefit of the chamber it was important to clarify that particular point, and hence that is why I spoke to that particular issue, not to take this debate anywhere other than on the premise of the issue of the procedural debate.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, you have ruled twice.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have.
James Newbury: And what the member is doing is actually reflecting on your ruling.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the member for Albert Park to consider that I do not need to be necessarily told why you were saying what you were saying. I wish you to come back to the length of the adjournment – now, please.
Nina TAYLOR: Thank you very much, and I thank you very much for your sound wisdom and clarification in that regard. It was purely for the avoidance of doubt, and I hope that that is understood by the chamber, and not in any way to give you advice, because you are –
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Albert Park is reflecting on the Chair now. Time.
Jess WILSON (Kew) (10:29:149:): It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Albert Park, and let me help clarify exactly what this motion is about today. We have seen the government put forward and introduce a bill today that will dramatically change the property taxes in Victoria, and to give only 14 days notice is simply not acceptable when this week these new taxes have been announced without any consultation with the property industry. We have seen that today from various industry groups, including the REIV, and I will speak to what the Shadow Treasurer noted in the Herald Sun today:
The REIV is calling on the Victorian Government to engage the sector properly, so together we can work to better policy development that benefits all property participants.
That follows earlier in the week a release from the Property Council of Australia – the property council that very, very recently signed up to the government’s housing statement. It said:
Here’s a tip for state governments trying to reach ambitious housing goals in partnership.
Don’t “do a Victoria”.
The fact that these taxes were announced this week at a breakfast for the Property Council, blindsiding the Property Council but also blindsiding the Premier and the Premier’s office, means that there has been no consultation with the property industry. Less than two weeks ago – I see the former Minister for Housing at the table here today – the government introduced and announced their housing statement. We have heard a lot from the member for Frankston today, talking about the ability to count, and when I look at the housing statement and the lack of detail in it and the simple question of how on earth this will be delivered –
Nina Taylor: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I feel we are straying from the central tenets of this debate, which is a procedural debate, and I think that we would be recommended to perhaps return to that.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member could come back to the debate in question.
Jess WILSON: I will not debate it, unlike the member for Albert Park. The motion from the member for Brighton today, the amendment to shift the period in which the bill can be debated in this place to 28 days, is to allow for the fact that this is a significant change to our state taxation laws. We heard the Treasurer over recent days, in fact just yesterday afternoon when he held a press conference, saying there would be no revenue impact to these measures. Yet it is very, very clear that there will be significant revenue impacts to these measures: $37 million from the vacancy tax itself will be raised from these measures, and these measures have not been consulted about with the property industry. When you look at the housing statement that was handed down just two weeks ago, there was no suggestion that property taxes would be introduced as part of the government’s attempt to increase the supply of housing. They asked the Property Council and they asked many of the industry peak bodies to sign up to this housing statement, but at that time they were not up-front and said, ‘No, there is nothing else to come. There is nothing further. This is it. We want to work with you’. Then they blindsided them at a breakfast this week saying, ‘Actually we’re going to introduce a raft of new taxes that will only make it harder to increase the supply of homes in Victoria.’
A member: How’s that?
Jess WILSON: How is that? When you put pressure on the developers who want to build more homes, they will pass that through to the Victorian people. We saw in the budget just this year an increase to land tax.
Nina Taylor: On a point of order, Speaker, I fear that the learned member may be straying away from the central tenets of this debate, which is a procedural debate. I respect that they may not like the particular reforms, but this is a procedural debate.
The SPEAKER: Order! Many members have strayed from the procedural debate this morning. The member for Kew to continue.
Jess WILSON: Thank you, Speaker. The reason why the member for Brighton has moved the 28-day amendment today is to allow for sufficient time to consult with the property industry, the property industry that has a partnership with this government to actually deliver the homes that have been outlined in the housing statement – 800,000 new homes over the next decade, more than 200 a day. I do not understand how the government expects those homes to be built if we cannot –
Colin Brooks: On a point of order, Speaker, I admire the member for Kew’s tenacity in trying to take this debate away from the tight procedural debate that it is, but quite clearly talking about the budget and the housing statement is not aligned to the debate before the house.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.
Sam HIBBINS (Prahran) (10:34): (By leave) We consider so many bills in this place that have a profound effect on so many people’s lives, and not just tax bills but many other bills as well. We supported obviously the opposition when they opposed a bill just going for 13 days in consideration. We certainly think there has been a trend away from proper community engagement with many pieces of legislation in this place. We certainly would like to see more community engagement and more opportunity for bills to go into a third reading in this place, which has not been a trend in this place. So certainly there is a case for more consideration of bills. But honestly, in the debate that I am hearing today, it seems like it is a competition between the government and the opposition about who can give the property industry everything that they want. I mean, honestly, we have just had a housing statement that the government announced that gives the property industry basically everything they want. Some days later we have got, on the face of it – and we will consider it – a modest tax, and apparently the world is falling in now. You have got the opposition, the Liberal–National parties, trying to give them everything they want and give them special treatment that is not afforded to everybody else in this state when legislation comes before this chamber.
The Greens will consider this bill. We will examine it in the time allocated to see whether it actually does what it says it is going to do and whether it will help the pressing housing crisis that so many people are facing or whether it does not meet that challenge or makes it worse. We will consider that, but if you think we are going to come in here and give the property industry everything they want and more special treatment that is not afforded –
Colin Brooks: On a point of order, Speaker, I just think the member is way off the procedural motion that is before the house.
The SPEAKER: Member for Prahran, I ask you to come back to the procedural motion.
Sam HIBBINS: Thank you, Speaker. I am going to the point about why I believe this Liberal motion should be opposed and we should have the standard 14-day consideration of this bill. It is because we do not believe that the property industry should be given special treatment over every other Victorian when bills come into this place that affect their lives. We are in a housing crisis, and we will be examining this bill in the normal course to determine whether it actually meets the challenges that are facing so many. But no, we are not giving the property industry special treatment.
The SPEAKER: Order! The minister has moved that the debate be adjourned for two weeks. The member for Brighton has moved an amendment that the words ‘two weeks’ be omitted with the view of inserting in their place the words ‘28 days’. The question is:
That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Those that support the amendment should vote no.
Assembly divided on question:
Ayes (52): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Sam Hibbins, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Meng Heang Tak, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson
Noes (24): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Emma Kealy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson
Question agreed to.
Assembly divided on motion:
Ayes (52): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Sam Hibbins, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Meng Heang Tak, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson
Noes (25): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Emma Kealy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until Thursday 19 October.