Thursday, 19 October 2023

Bills

State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (14:49): It is very nice to get up here this afternoon and speak on the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023. In the 2 minutes that were given to us by the Shadow Treasurer we heard that he is still obsessed with the former Premier, so he is unburdened with the complication of common sense – we do have a new Premier. I guess we heard that some politicians like to make good stories and others like to make change and make history, and that is certainly what this government is about. We are here today to really speak on a bill that contains a raft of minor amendments mostly aimed at ensuring the law reflects the original intent of a policy. For example, if loopholes and such are discovered, we want to seal them up. Just before I go into some content on that, I do want to thank the Treasurer, the Treasurer’s office and his advisers and the Department of Treasury and Finance.

The first change that I would like to focus my remarks on is the vacant residential land tax (VRLT), which is all about increasing housing supply. Remember that: it is all about increasing housing supply. We know the only way to improve housing affordability is to increase supply, so we are making sure that more unoccupied properties can be put up for rent and vacant land developed to build new homes. Who could be against that? The reform provides a financial incentive for owners to rent out empty homes or develop long-term vacant land, providing more homes and more options for Victorians during the housing crisis. The bill before the chamber obviously updates the vacant residential land tax. It creates financial incentives for owners to rent out empty homes or to develop long-term vacant land.

We know that the VRLT is currently imposed on residential properties in 16 LGAs, but what we are doing here is expanding the provisions in the Land Tax Act 2005 to encourage owners of hundreds of unoccupied homes in Melbourne’s outer suburbs and reginal Victoria to make these dwellings available for rent. Under the amendment the period that properties can be deemed vacant will start on 1 January next year, 2024, with a tax change commencing in 2025. Existing exemptions, like for holiday homes, properties recently acquired and those regularly occupied for work purposes, will actually remain in place. Changes will also expand the VRLT to residential land undeveloped for more than five years in established areas of Melbourne to discourage that long-term land banking, which is rampant around Victoria. From 1 January 2026 residential land undeveloped for more than five years in established areas of Melbourne – so since 2021 – will become liable for the VRLT, applying to an estimated 3000 undeveloped properties.

The second change I would like to focus on is the land tax apportionment and windfall gains tax apportionment, which are really protecting homebuyers and new home buyers. The legislation will prohibit the apportionment of land tax and known windfall gains tax liabilities between a vendor and a purchaser under a contract of sale. Essentially what has been happening in Victoria is a vendor can be less than transparent – they can be opaque – and land tax liabilities can end up being paid by the purchaser, who agreed to pay the purchase price but obviously not those taxes. But they become liable for those taxes. This bill will prohibit a contract of sale of land from providing for the apportionment of land tax between the vendor and purchaser, and it makes it an offence for a vendor under a contract of sale to pass on the vendor’s land tax liability to the purchaser under contract.

I have previously said that this tax bill is about making homes available. I did a bit of study last night, and I just want to make it pretty plain that it is very rich for some people in this house to act like they are speaking on behalf of their constituents when they are saying they oppose this bill. It is a bit rich for people in this house to act like they represent their communities when the 128 MPs in the Victorian Parliament between them own 260 properties. Some of those Liberal MPs own more than 15 properties, and they will proudly stand up today in this Parliament. People who own more than 15 properties, 18 properties – and we might not even know how many properties some people own because of the opaqueness of family trusts and whatnot – will stand up today and they will say ‘Even though I own multiple properties, even though I’m one of 128 MPs in the Victorian Parliament, who own between them 260 properties, I will oppose this bill’. The effect of the bill is to increase housing stock for the people in their communities. I do not see too many people in anyone’s community in Victoria saying that they do not want this bill.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, I am not sure how an attack on Minister D’Ambrosio’s or Minister Pearson’s property ownership is relevant to this bill.

The SPEAKER: Order! What is your point of order? There is no point of order.

Paul EDBROOKE: I was speaking about the member for Caulfield. But I do not see too many people who are struggling to find a rental, people who are lining up every day, telling you in your office that they do not want a house or that they do not want the government of the day to put tools in place, legislative tools, to make sure that housing stock is increased so that they might actually get somewhere to live – just one house. I do not begrudge anyone having investment properties in a portfolio. All I am saying is you need to take that into account as possibly a conflict of interest when you get up here saying that this is a bill which will not actually bring about those actions. I say it again: in this house and the other house we have 128 MPs who own 260 properties. So I think maybe all of us should take a step back, look at the housing crisis and look at what effect this will have on releasing housing stock and building new housing. Indeed the second point in my focus as far as apportionment part of the bill goes is that it will have no financial incumbency on anyone. It is really about helping people who want to buy a house not to be liable for taxes that they did not know about that the vendor can pass on.

In the time remaining I just want to make sure that those opposite do know that this house, when this Labor government has been on the government benches, has had a very strong record of ensuring the tax system is fair. We made tax changes in the 2023 budget to expand better targeting of tax concessions that move towards a fairer Victoria. We made sure we would allow a longer land tax exemption where construction or renovation of a principal place of residence is delayed due to builder insolvency, which has become an issue. We have expanded tax concessions for families providing a home for a relative with a disability, which I know is something that many in this house certainly put some priority on. Also the government has a really strong record of delivering tax relief for Victorians and Victorian businesses. This afternoon you will hear a lot about introduced taxes and whatnot, but the fact is that this government has cut or abolished taxes or fees 63 times since coming to government in 2014. We cut the regional payroll tax to 1.2125 per cent, just one-quarter of the metropolitan rate. It is interventions like this that have seen the regional unemployment rate fall to the lowest it has ever been in history.

We will hear words from those opposite talking about their credentials and what they would do. We do need to keep in mind that most of these people were there in 2014, when they were voted out, and they made sure we inherited the highest unemployment on the mainland of Australia. Now, unemployment is one of those business cycle figures that along with growth and whatnot is a good indicator of how the economy is going, and it says a lot that even in the latest ABS data, released today, labour force figures are rising in Victoria still. I think it was 39,000 jobs that those opposite managed to help grow in their four years in office. Our economic growth is reflected in more than 500,000 jobs since the depths of the pandemic, and we are leading the nation for jobs growth.

In conclusion, this government is committed to making housing more accessible for all Victorians and carefully considers Victoria’s taxation mix to balance many competing priorities. Consistent with this approach, the government will continue with the current policy settings and priorities, taking into account the government’s aim for balancing state productivity and competitiveness and building a better future for all Victorians. But I say it again: keep those figures in mind as people step up. You can have a look and see how many properties someone owns and then reflect on what they are saying in this house. I commend the bill to the house.

Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (14:59): I rise to make a contribution on the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023. This bill does a number of things. It expands the vacant residential land tax – currently it is applied to residential properties in Melbourne’s inner and middle suburbs which are empty for more than six months – to unoccupied residential properties across the entire state. It taxes residential land that has been undeveloped for more than five years in established areas of Melbourne to discourage long-term land banking and encourage new housing developments. It prohibits the apportionment of land tax and known windfall gains tax liabilities between vendors and purchasers under a contract of sale of land and makes a number of other technical changes to other acts in line with that.

One of the first acts of the Allan government was to introduce the 51st and the 52nd new tax for this state since Labor was elected to office in 2014. Just days after signing the housing statement with the housing and construction stakeholders, the Treasurer announced to a Property Council of Australia breakfast these two new taxes, to the surprise of many people, including his new Premier. It is clear that the government failed to consult with stakeholders on the introduction of these new taxes, which is why I will move the reasoned amendment in my name. If it could be circulated to the house, please. I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government commits to:

(a) consulting with key housing industry stakeholders on the impact of this bill; and

(b) easing cost-of-living pressures to ensure every Victorian has the best opportunity to enjoy the social and economic benefits home ownership provides’.

In talking to that reasoned amendment and in talking to our opposition to the bill, I would like to quote from Quentin Kilian’s article from the Herald Sun where he talks about:

Yet again, we are left floored by the Victorian government’s ability to disregard industry engagement, ignore expert property sector recommendations and undermine the confidence of one of the state’s most significant economic contributors …

which is the property industry. It goes on further:

Our Treasurer has established a track record of using annual state budgets to pillage the property sector …

…

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 think that comes to the issue. We have a housing crisis in Victoria, and these changes are actually going to make that worse, not make that better. He went on to say to the government:

Carefully considered policy development based on a principle of incentivisation along with some measured implementation will create the required stability, and grow market confidence.

At the moment market confidence is being destroyed because the government keeps introducing new taxes and new rules about the capital investment into the housing market. He said:

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.

I think that sums up very well the reason that the Liberal and National parties have put forward the reasoned amendment that this bill not be read a second time until there is consultation with the industry and until there is something done about the cost-of-living pressures in Victoria, particularly around how more people can actually enjoy the benefits of home ownership in this state.

One of the key aspirations of everyone in Victoria and in Australia for generations has been the ability to own your own home. What we have seen over the life of Labor governments here in Victoria from 2014 to now, and particularly in the last few years as the government has started to run out of money and the state debt has been growing, is that there are more taxes being put in place, there are more rules being put in place around property development, and that just makes it harder for families, for young couples, to actually buy a home. As we go through these new taxes that are being introduced or these increased taxes that are being introduced, somehow the government believes that there is a magic pudding out there. For argument’s sake, when the windfall gains tax was brought in somehow the government did not believe that would flow through to the price of properties. It was very clear at the time that the modelling was done that the windfall gains tax was probably going to put somewhere between $20,000 and $25,000 on the cost of an average block to buy. That is going to be an impediment to new home owners and to anyone that wants to get into the property market and buy a block and build.

It is not magically that people are making a fortune out of development, particularly in regional areas where land has been rezoned because our regional cities actually need more land. This has been a disincentive for development of that land because people are just saying ‘We’re not going to do it. There’s not enough in it for us if we actually have to pay all these additional taxes’. It is going to be very difficult to get that price rise out of people who are wanting to get into the market to buy their first property and build on it.

Steve McGHIE: People are lined up for rezoning – you know that.

Peter WALSH: The member for Melton talks about people lining up to buy houses. People are really struggling to get into the property market. They are taking on debts that will last them a lifetime because it is so expensive to get into the market. For someone that is on a parliamentary salary it may not be such a big issue, but for young families starting out it is a huge issue. What we have seen over time is a bit more tax, a bit more tax, a bit more tax, and all of a sudden that is a lot of tax that people are paying here in Victoria on whatever it may be. In this case at the moment we are talking about taxes that are going onto the cost of home ownership for people here in Victoria. It will drive up the cost. It will make it a lot harder for young families to get into the market.

As I said, the first thing that the Treasurer did after the election of the now Premier was go out and announce two new taxes. The Premier gave a commitment on the eve of the 2014 election that he would not introduce any new taxes in Victoria and he would not increase taxes in Victoria, and here we are, nine years on, talking about the 51st and the 52nd tax. Businesses in Victoria are being driven out of the state. Employers in Victoria are being driven out of the state because the taxation regime here is not as attractive as it is in other states. We have seen that with the increase in WorkCover, and we have seen it with the increase in payroll tax – the disincentives that are there to investing capital in this state or employing people in this state. When you can look at New South Wales or you can look at Queensland, why would you do business in Victoria? The then Premier through COVID made a quip about South Australia: ‘Why would you want to go there?’ The new South Australian Premier is actively courting Victorian businesses to go to South Australia because it is more attractive to do business there. People will invest capital where they can make the best return on it and where there is less risk from government changing rules that will actually undermine the value of that capital, and that is what has been happening in Victoria. The value of their capital, the value of their investment, is constantly being eroded by changes to the tax regime or by changes to legislation here in Victoria. That is a disincentive to doing business here in Victoria.

The Liberals and Nationals would urge the government to support our reasoned amendment, withdraw this legislation and go back and genuinely consult with industry. Work with industry. It is industry that is going to solve the housing issues of this state; it is not a government on its own. Please, go back, talk to industry and come back with a better way of doing this. If you cannot do that, we will be opposing the legislation.

Steve McGHIE (Melton) (15:08): Acting Speaker Tak, it is lovely to see you in the chair. I rise to speak on the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023, and much like many of our twice-yearly tax bills, this bill makes many minor amendments to rectify any drafting errors or loopholes. I would like to focus on a few big ways that this bill supports Victorians in the current housing market through making more homes available to renters, encouraging the development of vacant land, changes to protect Victorians from dodgy property developers and the payroll tax initiatives which are the envy of the nation.

Firstly, I want to raise the issue of the opposition’s lead speaker. I was a bit disappointed, given he spruiked before lunch that he was going to be here, enthusiastic about his 30-minute speech on this bill and how it important it was. He gave us 10 minutes, but he must have had a long lunch because something happened – he did not appear after lunch, which is a bit disappointing. That is how important it is to the lead speaker on the opposition’s side, and it is quite interesting that he could not find the other 20 minutes to be here. I do not know whether he was scheming, doing numbers and doing other things that they do out the back or whether the coffee was too good, but unfortunately the member for Sandringham could not appear. That is okay. The Leader of the Nationals probably picked up part of his speech anyway, so it meant that the Leader of the Nationals filled in his 10 minutes.

One of our key initiatives was reducing the regional payroll tax to 1.2125 per cent, which is just one-quarter of the metropolitan rate and happens to be – and proudly so – the lowest in the entire nation. With strategic interventions like this our regional unemployment rate has plummeted to obviously historic lows, and remarkably despite the challenges posed by the pandemic there has not been a month where regional unemployment was higher under our administration than it was during the previous government’s tenure. We have significantly raised the payroll tax free threshold not once but four times since taking office in 2014, and these substantial changes have already resulted in substantial savings for Victorian businesses totalling around $2 billion up until the fiscal year of 2022–23. The measures represent our commitment to fostering economic growth, supporting businesses and ensuring prosperity for all citizens, and we believe in creating a thriving environment that encourages innovation, investment and employment right across our communities in all of Victoria.

This creates a new era for small businesses in our regions because in the latest budget our government took another bold step to lighten the load for small enterprises. Starting from 1 July 2024 the payroll tax free threshold will rise substantially, climbing from $700,000 to $900,000, and the impact of this change is nothing short of transformative. This adjustment means that 4200 Victorian businesses will no longer have to pay this tax, which is fantastic for those small businesses but also for those local areas where those businesses are operated. Additionally 22,000 businesses will experience a reduction in tax burden and a saving of as much as around about $9700 annually, and from 1 July 2025 the threshold will ascend even higher, reaching a remarkable $1 million. Of course this move will grant another 1500 businesses exemption status. In essence, approximately 6000 businesses, constituting 15 per cent of all current payroll tax paying businesses, will be entirely tax free. The suggestion from those opposite that we do not support business is a complete furphy.

The commitment does not end there, though. Understanding the diverse landscape of businesses is one of the reasons that we are phasing out the payroll tax free threshold for larger enterprises, and it ensures our support is precisely targeted as of this change. The tax-free amount will gradually decrease for each $1 a business pays in wages over $3 million. These changes go beyond mere relief. They are a fundamental shift, easing compliance costs and levelling the playing field. These are not just flippant policies. It is a promise and another demonstration of our government making real differences for Victorians and Victorian businesses, and of course we promised to bolster the backbone of our economy. Our vital, vibrant, diverse small businesses will continue to do that and drive that change.

We know that housing availability is the key to housing affordability, and in response to the housing crisis we have introduced the vacant residential land tax, providing a financial incentive for owners of unoccupied residential properties in Melbourne’s inner and middle suburbs to rent out these homes. The changes in this bill will expand the VRLT provisions to encourage owners of unoccupied homes in Melbourne’s outer suburbs and regional Victoria to make these homes available to rent or to buy, and that is great if more homes become available for people that are finding it difficult to access a roof over their head.

Our runs are on the board. Victoria’s unemployment rate currently sits at a historically low rate of around 3 whole percentage points lower than it was when we came to office, and that is amazing. We have created over 500,000 jobs since the depths of the pandemic. I recall around the pandemic time that those opposite were yelling and screaming that the sky was going to fall in – ‘No jobs, no-one will come and invest in Victoria, it’ll stop Melbourne thriving as a city, no events’ – and yet I walk around Melbourne quite often when I am staying here, and it is thriving. There are plenty of jobs; in fact we cannot fill a lot of positions because there are more jobs than people to fill them.

I constantly talk about dodgy developers. I have had a bit to do with dodgy developers in regard to how they have treated some of my constituents, but there are many honest developers and vendors out there, and I am pleased to say there are more honest developers than dodgy ones. What I mean by ‘dodgy’ is ones that take purchasers for granted, constantly put pressure on them and, I would say, deal with them in a totally inappropriate and unfair way, forcing purchasers or investors to take legal action when maybe they cannot afford to do so when developers sit on their hands and just basically say take me to court.

Our government’s efforts to lower housing costs in Melbourne by releasing large expanses of land on the outskirts are being hindered by major developers who are strategically holding onto land and releasing it gradually to maximise their profits. They release it gradually, they break it up into parcels of land and, again, they are trying to make huge profits out of it. I do not begrudge them making a profit, but when it directly affects the availability of housing or potential housing for people that are in desperate need, I do not think huge profit should put before people’s welfare and people outcomes, and I am always advocating for the better welfare of our communities.

In a land-banking scheme property developers typically acquire land and divide it into smaller parcels and present them to investors. As an investor you can either purchase a specific block of land or acquire an option to buy one, known as an option agreement. It is an investment strategy in the real estate sector where investors purchase extensive parcels of undeveloped land, and that practice has to stop. That is my belief anyway. ASIC has taken action against some of this land banking in the past. A number of organisations were prosecuted by ASIC. I know there was one out my way, 21st Century, who land banked. They were out in the Mount Cottrell area, which falls in the Melton electorate, and I am pleased to say ASIC took action against them.

In the very short period that I have left, this is an important bill in regard to the taxes that the state government applies, but it is about providing availability of housing for our community, which is the number one issue that we have to deal with going forward. I am totally supportive of this bill, and I commend the bill to the house.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (15:18): I rise to speak on the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023. This bill is an important bill because it tells us so much about this new government, this new Jacinta Allan Labor government, because these measures were first announced on day one of Parliament for the new Premier – day one as Premier. For background, only two weeks prior the former Premier, as his last act, with a number of ministers, signed an affordability partnership with industry and talked about a number of measures seeking to address housing issues in Victoria, despite the fact that we know Labor are the architects of the housing crisis. They signed the affordability partnership, and the first term of the partnership was an ‘obligation’ on all parties to ‘agree to work collaboratively to address housing affordability and availability in Victoria’. The first term of the partnership – and on day one of the Premier’s time in Parliament, the first day that the Premier held her new position in Parliament, this government announced a series of taxes which breached the first term of that signed agreement. It was extraordinary.

Members interjecting.

James NEWBURY: And I do not want to take interjections from members across the chamber who are shouting out ‘Says you’, ‘Says you’, ‘Says you’, ‘Says you’.

Tim Richardson interjected.

James NEWBURY: No, not says me, member for Mordialloc, says the industry.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): Through the Chair!

James NEWBURY: On day one the industry called out the fact that the government had broken a written agreement signed only two weeks before. How extraordinary. The Property Council used language like they were shocked at the announcement. They had signed an agreement ‘in good faith’, and on the very first day of the Premier’s time in this place as Premier the government decided to break their written agreement with industry. That says a lot about integrity. That says a lot about character. But it also says a lot about a misunderstanding of how to fix the genuine policy problems we face, because you cannot tax your way out of everything. That is the problem with this Labor government. Their solution to any problem is why don’t we tax it. They think, in the back of their minds, no-one has cottoned on to the fact that the only reason they are taxing it is because they have run out of money. So problems come up: we have run out of money as a government so – what a novel solution – we will tax it. Then we can tell the community we have solved the problem. In fact their solution will always make it worse. They are spending more than they are bringing, so the debt is just getting bigger.

The announcement of these new taxes has caused a shockwave in the sector, and that is why we have seen very well-respected leaders in the sector publicly talk about the fact that they feel that the partnership that was signed has been ‘set on fire’ or that the taxes are ‘a major trust burner’. This is a quote from the Property Council:

Here’s a tip for state governments trying to reach ambitious housing goals in partnership.

Don’t “do a Victoria”.

These are not the words you would ever expect to hear from industry leaders, because they would never use them. Why have they felt the need to use them? Because they know two things: the solutions being proposed by the government are going to do damage, and the government has shown that they lack character or integrity in relation to dealing with the sector itself. I mean, can you imagine in good faith dealing with a government, signing a partnership and within two weeks – the ink on the signature will have only just dried in that time – we have the government breaching that partnership. That is why the language that is being used by industry is so strong. The industry used language calling on the government to consider these proposed taxes more clearly.

You can see organisations like the REIV saying that they call on the government to engage with the sector properly, and that is the genesis of the reasoned amendment that has been moved by the coalition. It is a call again for the government to engage with the sector properly because we know, sadly, that the sector has no trust in the government moving forward. That is a disappointing thing, and that actually helps no-one. What the sector knows now and what it is saying privately is that the government’s solution to everything is to tax it and to not engage or deal in an honest, collaborative way, which they promised to do.

In relation to the taxes – I have not spoken in detail about the taxes. The taxes in relation to second properties are an assault on hardworking Victorians. People work hard. Victorians work hard. Many times they start businesses. They work hard for their money. They save over years. We know – the statistics show it – that the vast majority of people that own investment properties are not rich. We know that more than 80 per cent of the rental market is owned by individuals who the ATO report have a taxable income of less than $100,000. They are not rich; they are people who work hard. The government has come along to these people and said ‘We’re going to slap a new tax on you, and we’re going to spy on you to try and get more money out of you. If you have a second property, we’re going to start looking at how much and when you use water. We will randomly check with you to see when you have been using your property, and you will have to prove it’. The State Revenue Office confirmed that they will be asking owners to show receipts of what they have been purchasing in nearby shops to prove they have been using their property. Seriously? It is just outrageous to think that arms of government now are going to be spying on people and how they use their properties. It is an absolute disgrace. There is little wonder that the industry is appalled by this government and these taxes. There is also little wonder that hardworking Victorians are appalled by the measures – the attacks on hardworking Victorians – contained in this bill and why the coalition at every stage has fought against them, because this is the tipping point. The government has not realised it yet – so much of the community has seen these new taxes as a tipping point. This is a tipping point. I would say to the government: this bill shows your character. This bill shows the character of this new government, and it is absolutely appalling.

Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (15:28): Thank you, Acting Speaker Tak. It is great to see in the chair. You would wonder, listening to the member for Brighton, what their policy is. Is it to have no taxation in Victoria, no revenue base, no solution? Or is it just GST revenue – will we just take it in perpetuity? What a ranting speech that was. I am not sure whether he has a view on the vacant residential land tax. I am not sure; it was just a bit of waffle. Before lunch we had the baritone of Sandringham give us a bit of an account, but he did not move an amendment. And there is a bit of tension between the Leader of the Nationals and the bayside crew.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, if the member does not have anything substantial to say, perhaps he should sit down. This is not relevant to the bill.

Tim RICHARDSON: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, there was a reasoned amendment moved by the Leader of the Nationals. If I cannot talk to the amendment – maybe the member for Brighton does not want the amendment addressed because it was moved by the Leader of the Nationals, I do not know.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): It is a wideranging debate, but I ask the member to come back to the bill.

Tim RICHARDSON: We had basically nothing on the bill before lunch. We had a sledge of the government around taxation policy, but we did not get to the heart of whether there is a particular view on whether we want to encourage more property onto the market. Of course the Andrews–Allan Labor government announced a substantial housing statement, and the member for Kew in assessing that basically said ‘Well, it’s a great idea. We think we need more housing but we don’t think we can quite get there. We don’t want to see more taxation, but don’t move the revenue base’. It is a waffling ebb and flow between endorsing the government but not wanting to. It is incoherent, their housing policy and their strategy at the moment.

This is a bill that incentivises more housing onto the market. If people are land banking, and that has been lawfully what they have been able to do, we are saying you should pay a moderate contribution with the housing crisis that Victoria faces. The housing statement is complementary to all of that: 80,000 houses per year over a decade to get to 800,000 more houses as we support Victorians to get to that Victorian dream of owning a house and of being able to provide for their families and their communities. We know that with where income levels are at the moment the overwhelming majority of Victorians are locked out of housing. It is a real tragedy in that sense as well.

We have not actually heard much, other than another rant about taxation policy again. Before lunch I saw that the lead speaker, the member for Sandringham, had about 7½ minutes. I thought I would go and have lunch, I would go to an event that is really important in the house, and I would come back and get to hear the baritone –

Cindy McLeish: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I think the member on his feet has drifted quite some way from the bill, and I ask you to bring him back.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): There is no point of order. It is a wideranging debate.

Tim RICHARDSON: I do not understand. We are literally talking about the member for Sandringham’s speech. I know that the member for Eildon carries the team on bills over there, but just give the member for Sandringham a go.

We talked a lot about taxation policy, but there was nothing in the lead speaker’s contribution about what they would cut, what they would take out of the housing statement and what changes they would make to taxation policy. It was just another rant, just an open-ended waffle with this reasoned amendment about consulting with key stakeholders and a reference to the cost of living. Well, they are pushing up the cost of living by opposing this bill. How else are you going to get vacant lots on to the market and developed in each and every one of our communities without incentivisation? Ask them at a consultation? Ask? Plead? Suggest? Do a members statement? What do you think the mechanism is to encourage developers to put vacant lots that are land banked onto the market? Maybe in the wisdom of the member for Eildon there might be a suggestion down the track, because it is a waffling policy once again. I go back to that interview just after the housing statement was announced by the now Premier –

Brad Battin interjected.

Tim RICHARDSON: The member for Berwick has found his voice. We do not see him find his voice in question time. He has got a bit of relevance deprivation. Maybe he is still doing that car crash modelling media performance, that stunt which was just outrageous. It is a really strange sort of dark wormhole he has gone down. But he has found his voice today. Maybe he can tell us a little bit about the vacant land tax and put it forward. Maybe we can hear something. But they will not, because again there is no substantive policy narrative from them. There is nothing at all. There is no pathway to 800,000 homes. They say it is a good idea, but they say Labor will not ever achieve it. Well, we will achieve it, and when you see everything that we have achieved in the big build, in delivering more social and affordable housing, you will see that this is just an extension of what we have always done. We have been on the side of Victorians in housing, and we will be on the side of working Victorians for as long as this government serves in this Parliament and in this community – not ranting waffles from the member for Berwick opposed to things, and strange media performances. We have not seen him perform. We have not heard from him. He does not speak on bills anymore. The member for Berwick just goes for strange media opportunities sledging former premiers. It is just absolutely outrageous. So maybe a bit of a contribution would be good.

These policies are just one element of a broader segment of housing affordability and transformation that we are underway with. How do we invest in the future for Victorians and in corridors like the Suburban Rail Loop and see the houses of tomorrow delivered, the communities of tomorrow delivered? How do we make sure that we square up the amount that is being pushed out to growth corridors into more infill community areas and encourage that development and that growth but also maintain our livability and support that with open spaces, with new community parklands and environmental corridors like the south-eastern suburbs green wedge that Acting Speaker Tak and I greatly cherish – protecting the lungs of Melbourne but also welcoming the newest families?

At the moment median house ownership is around 36 or 37 years, and over the coming years that will substantially increase. We know that one in 10 properties in Victoria is sitting empty, so when we think of incentivising policy through taxation, that is one way of doing it, rather than the member for Brighton’s contention that you just endlessly consult, never make a decision and you are on the side of developers. That is what we hear each and every time: on the side of developers. From the shadow cabinet role we saw the defence of property developers. We saw the defence of private schools today in question time. That is what we saw.

Brad Battin interjected.

Tim RICHARDSON: The member for Berwick can rant and waffle all he likes. The relevance deprivation that he has – how many times now? Two times you have had a crack at leadership.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): Through the Chair!

Tim RICHARDSON: Have you got your diagram out for the car now? Have you got your car crash diagram? Mate, you put yourself so far back in the leadership it was embarrassing.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): Through the Chair! Member for Berwick!

Cindy McLeish: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member for Mordialloc has very much now moved from the bill, and I ask you to bring him back to the bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): There is no point of order.

Tim RICHARDSON: He is just barking mad from Berwick. There he is. He is just carrying on. He has gone a bit off course because he had that really strange media performance where even his own team went ‘What on earth is he doing? That wasn’t sanctioned by the Leader of the Opposition’. Now they actually see the member for Malvern as the choice again. Maybe even the member for Bulleen might be back again. But we will see.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): Through the Chair!

Tim RICHARDSON: He will not step up on this bill because he does not make contributions on bills in here. When you see the speaking volume here, he does not make contributions. It is normally Eildon or it is normally Rowville that put forward things.

What we really want to know is: do you support the vacant land tax policy? Do you support the housing statement? Does the coalition have a plan to support people other than what the member for Kew put forward, which was ‘It’s a great idea. We think it’s a really ambitious policy. We just don’t think they’ll get there’. You could not have more of a tacit endorsement of the Allan Labor government. Forget what the member for Brighton said about industry. The member for Kew has given us, on transcript, a strong endorsement of the Allan Labor government’s approach to the housing statement: ‘It’s ambitious. We think it’s a lot. We’re not sure how they’ll get there, but we need to be doing things’. We appreciate that, member for Kew. We really appreciate the endorsement there.

The member for Sandringham was talking about taxation. We challenged the member for Sandringham, the Shadow Treasurer, who had the shortest opposition speech on Treasury policy we have ever seen on a budget. You literally could count the seconds – it did not quite get to 1000 seconds. It was so light, everyone looked around and went ‘Is that it? Maybe there’s a second version coming up’.

This is how he approached this bill today. Give us something on taxation policy and the support that you would put forward for Victorians. That is the key that they want to see, and this is what this bill is all about. It is one layer in a multitude of policies that we are putting forward to support Victorians. We need to house somewhere upwards of 10 million Victorians by 2050, and we need to build for tomorrow. It is about 3 per cent who can afford housing at the moment, and in my community of Mordialloc people are being priced out of their suburbs and their communities. What we want to see is people that were born in suburbs that they love and cherish can have home ownership and work towards that aspiration, where we provide more supply and where we provide a fairer go for renters. We do not hear anything from those opposite about supporting renters at all. They are not even in their frame of reference. It is literally those that own homes and developers, and that is it. That is whom they are on the side of, whereas we are supporting everyone: mortgagees, people who are renting and home owners. It is the fair thing to do, it is the right thing to do, and that is how we get an increase in housing supply.

Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (15:39): To use a phrase put forward by the member for Mordialloc, ‘open-ended waffle’ – goodness me, what a self-description that was. I guess it confirms very much how the Labor government incentivise: wave the big stick, penalise and scare everybody. We are here talking about a taxation bill, the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023, and one thing for sure is a constant: when Labor run out of money, they come after yours. There are a lot of stats here that they should not be proud of. Every two months for the last nine years there has been a new or increased tax. This has ramped up a bit. The average has changed. Recently there have been new or increased taxes every week. That is really quite extraordinary.

What I find equally astonishing is that during the budget a number of taxes were flagged and once the budget was handed down the government again kicked straight into ‘Gosh, we obviously haven’t taxed enough – we need to put some more taxes on’, and they have continued to roll out new and additional taxes. Turning to the taxes that we have before us today, the bill proposes to expand the vacant residential land tax, to tax residential land that has been underdeveloped for more than five years and to prohibit the apportionment of land tax known as windfall gains tax liabilities between a vendor and a purchaser – I will give you a little bit more about that later – and there are some other minor and technical changes.

What is very interesting about these taxes is when and how they were announced. It came as a bit of a surprise to most people. The Treasurer was at a breakfast, and he had not told the Premier that he was going to announce this there. There was a bit of scurrying, some very fast talking and backpedalling in trying to work it out. I do not know if he just jumped the gun a bit deliberately or if he forgot that he had not filled the Premier in, but nevertheless the taxes came out of the blue. What confirmed that it was out of the blue is there was no consultation with anybody. There was no industry engagement. We have experts in this field. We have economic assessors. We have people that work in this field day and night. They are the people that can often have good input. To be told ‘Here’s what’s going to happen’ without engagement – the government can get it wrong.

I have been quite staggered by the tax grab from the Labor government. It seems that they do not know there are other ways to manage the budget. Growing a pie is a good thing, and you can gain a lot there. You do not have to hit everybody, penalise everybody and tax everybody as the only means to build economic prosperity in the state. This is what they have done. The 2022–23 financial report confirmed that Labor’s debt continues to grow, which is why they are taxing everybody: they have run out of money. The debt is rapidly increasing year on year. It has reached at least $115 billion, while the budget deficit for 2022–23 was around $1 billion worse than expected – the ‘b’s just roll off the tongue easily. The total tax revenue was $1.9 billion greater than what was estimated in the 2022–23 state budget. This includes payroll tax being up $662 million, land tax revenue up $531 million and stamp duty revenue on property up $511 million. Victorians no doubt continue to be punished for the financial mismanagement of the Labor government. I am not going to go through all the budget overruns and blowouts that we know the government continue to experience. That is part of their DNA as well – just keep on spending somebody else’s money and then hit businesses and property owners.

The intent of this bill is about increasing housing supply. There is little evidence of how that is going to happen, but something that could happen is that the Minister for Planning could look at signing off the backlog of subdivisions waiting in her office. That would get things moving quickly. In Casey and Cardinia councils there are thousands and thousands of subdivisions that could happen if the minister did her job and signed them off. That would get things moving fairly quickly. That would get the industry making headway pretty quickly. We have got a shortage of housing in every area. People with jobs cannot get houses, people without jobs cannot get houses. To purchase is difficult, to rent is extremely difficult. Social housing – if you are on the waiting list there, good luck with that, because that is not getting better any time soon.

The taxes introduced here today are numbers 51 and 52 since the Andrews and Allan Labor governments were elected. The former Premier said, and we have said it time and time again, that there would be no new or increased taxes under his watch. Well, boy, it is up to 52 now – the next one will be 53. I support the reasoned amendment moved by the Leader of the National Party. We are very sceptical of the government’s continued need to rely on tax revenue, particularly when they have not done the consultation, and our reasoned amendment is about that consultation.

We want the market to have confidence, and that will help stimulate the economy rather than just whacking it with that big stick that the member for Mordialloc has confirmed is their go-to approach. The vacant residential land tax is currently applied to residential properties in Melbourne’s inner and middle suburbs empty for more than six months, and this is going to go to unoccupied residential properties across the entire state. There will be reasons why some properties are vacant, valid reasons, and sometimes the development – which gets onto the second point about residential land that has been underdeveloped for more than five years in established areas of Melbourne, which is to discourage long-term land banking and encourage new housing developments. There are issues that occur that are not land banking. It is pretty easy for them to throw all of the undeveloped land into the land banking package, and that is not the case at all. I can think of quite a number of areas that we have asked about, and I can think of some in my own electorate. Sometimes there are planning issues and changes with council and it takes a long time to go through some of the issues that need to be sorted out. It can go to VCAT and there can be delays in VCAT. We know all of this. So there are reasonable reasons, I guess, why some people can do this. We need to make sure that this is not an open-ended land grab, and I mentioned the prohibition of the apportionment of land tax, known as windfall gain tax, between a vendor and purchaser under a contract of sale of land.

I am going to look at the tax on holiday homes. The existing holiday home exemption is only available for land owned by natural persons and land held on trust for a vested beneficiary. A vested beneficiary is defined as a natural person who has a vested beneficial interest in possession in the trust land or is the principal beneficiary of a special disability trust. Goodness me, these are all quite tricky. And the government has provided written advice stating that the holiday home exemption is not available for land owned by a company, association, organisation or self-managed super fund. You have got to look at why people have self-managed super funds. It is so they are not a burden on the Australian tax system in the future – not going to be on the pension, funded by the government. People are providing their own means of income for themselves in the future.

One of the things that I like – well, I do not like it, I am flabbergasted by it – is the self-reporting and dobbing in of a neighbour. Talk about trying to set neighbour on neighbour and creating a lot of disharmony in streets and suburbs. It came to light that the government does not just want the dobbing in of neighbours. The State Revenue Office may then require home owners to also prove that they have used the property by handing over receipts for things like nearby shopping. I tell you what, a lot of people come into my electorate, and if they are staying for a week, they do not go to the local shops. What really bothers people is that they come with a carload of shopping already, so I can see that there is a big issue there. There was talk about spying on them, having a look at the water usage and things like that. I mean, seriously – water and sewage, having a look? That is Big Brother at its worst. So you have got dobbing in a neighbour, and you have got Big Brother absolutely having a look right down the barrel at you. I certainly support the Leader of the Nationals’ reasoned amendment and hope that the entire chamber does too.

Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (15:49): It gives me great pleasure this afternoon to rise to speak on the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendments Bill 2023, and it also gave me great pleasure to be in here to listen to the member for Eildon’s contribution just then. We are not even 12 months into a term and we are already listening to the slogans being rolled out – ‘When Labor runs out of money, they’ll come after yours’. I reckon the last time that I heard that might have been during the 2022 election. How did that go? We are sitting over here with 55 seats to about, what, 19? Nineteen.

Brad Battin interjected.

Dylan WIGHT: Don’t you start. You’re not leader yet.

In particular I would like to speak on two really important aspects of this bill, and they are the vacant residential land tax reform and the land tax and windfall gains tax apportionment. The bill demonstrates the Allan Labor government’s unwavering commitment to addressing housing affordability and undertaking serious planning reform in this state. We know that Victoria, particularly Melbourne, is growing and rents and prices are going through the roof. Indeed housing affordability in Victoria is a challenge that is becoming more and more difficult, and that is exactly what this bill today aims to address.

We know that over the coming period in this state we will need to be able to build, create or make available 800,000 more homes for Victorians. This bill will play a role in that. It will not do everything that we need to do in that space – indeed that is what the housing statement that we released only a few weeks ago goes to – but it will play an important part in that. We know that the only way to be able to achieve that and get to that 800,000-home goal is to increase supply.

This bill will, in its essence, improve housing affordability. On this side of the house it is a pretty simple equation for us: it is about supply and demand. The more homes that you have available, the more homes that you can build and the more vacant homes that you can get people into on any given day, the more you are going to increase supply and help affordability. That is what this bill is about and why it is so important, and that is why it has been so important that we bring it to the chamber today.

There are a few things that are changing as part of this bill. One of them is geographical expansion. Currently the tax only applies to homes in certain inner-city and middle parts of Melbourne – so not regional Victoria, not your outer suburbs, not down on the peninsula, but only in the inner ring of Melbourne. As we know, housing affordability and housing supply is not just a problem that is confined to metropolitan Melbourne. If you go out to regional Victoria – places like Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo and Gippsland – they are experiencing the exact same pain in terms of supply and affordability as people in metropolitan Melbourne are.

There will be a start date for deeming properties vacant. A property can be deemed vacant starting from 1 January next year, and if it remains unoccupied for more than six months in a year, the owner will owe a tax from 2025 onwards. It is a pretty simple and modest change but one that is incredibly important, as I said before, to addressing the problem that we have with both affordability and supply. Indeed it makes absolutely no sense for somebody that owns a home and is not using it for a designated purpose to leave it there vacant while we have people waiting on public housing lists, we have people who cannot afford their rent and we have people that do not have a roof over their head. Why would it be appropriate for one person to own multiple dwellings, one or more of which they are not using at all, whilst there are people out there without a roof over their head or that cannot afford their rent? The definition of ‘vacant’ will be changed under this bill. Like I said, if a property is unoccupied for more than six months in a calendar year, then it will be considered vacant.

There are the nuts and bolts of this bill, but there is also a far greater picture as well. The broad aim of this bill is pretty simple. It is to get more vacant homes and undeveloped lands into the housing market, helping to alleviate Victoria’s housing crisis so we do not have people banking land and we do not have people with unoccupied homes or with homes unoccupied for longer than six months in the year when we have people without a home at all. The legislation’s main goal is to encourage the optimal use of residential properties and lands, thereby addressing housing shortages and affordability issues, as I have said. My electorate of Tarneit is well aware of the growing pains that come with a sprawl and with housing affordability. In the last few decades Hoppers Crossing has transformed from a quiet little locality down the Princes Highway to a diverse, bustling, vibrant suburb full of life and energy. We have witnessed new neighbourhoods and communities in Tarneit and indeed in Hoppers Crossing emerge and welcomed so many young families and immigrants into our area. It is always a beautiful sight seeing a community flourish and expand, but with growth come inevitable challenges. Our schools are brimming, roads are bustling and public transport is in higher demand than ever, so I understand and share the concerns of many in our community who feel the pinch every single day.

We in this government are deeply committed to ensuring that our infrastructure keeps pace with rapid development. However, the outer suburban and peri-urban communities like Tarneit and Hoppers Crossing cannot be expected to continue to shoulder the burden that comes with growth on their own. So what is the solution? We have to rethink our strategy for housing, which is an integral part of what we are doing in the chamber right now. Our focus must not solely be on expanding outwards into the outskirts and into the outer suburbs. It is time we also look at growing upwards and optimising what infrastructure we already have, like vacant land and vacant homes, to be able to put people looking for a secure roof over their head into a home and into an affordable home.

Consider this: there is potential land right under our nose, land that is strategically located, equipped with amenities and merely waiting to be harnessed. By encouraging landowners to develop vacant properties we create a win–win situation. Not only do we alleviate some pressures on housing, but we also deter speculative practices that do not benefit the larger community and that are against the interests of housing affordability. In essence we are not just asking for growth, we are asking for smart, sustainable and strategic growth. By unlocking the potential of well-located lands, we pave the way for a future where our communities can thrive without compromising on their quality of life. These taxation amendments are not a silver bullet but, as I said, can help go a long way to reducing the cost of finding a home.

As I said, those in my communities of Tarneit and Hoppers Crossing know all too well the ramifications of a lack of foresight at times in planning. It is no longer appropriate that we just look at and support an urban sprawl out to the outskirts. We need to think more laterally than that. That is exactly what this bill does, and I commend it to the house.

Kim O’KEEFFE (Shepparton) (15:59): I rise to speak on the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023. This bill includes the 51st and 52nd new or increased taxes since Labor were elected in 2014. Victorians are now paying the highest taxes per person in Australia. At a time when the cost of living is having a significant impact, Victorians are subject to the highest taxes and highest property tax. Days after announcing and co-signing the housing statement with housing and construction stakeholders, the Treasurer announced these new taxes at a Property Council of Australia breakfast. The first act of the Allan Labor government was to tax Victorians more, an outcome after hearing about this announcement at that breakfast. The government is unclear as to the impact of these new taxes on increasing housing supply and forcing property development and property sale.

The government’s stated policy intent with the introduction of these new taxes is to increase housing supply, but they have failed to provide enough evidence-based modelling to demonstrate that these new taxes will in fact deliver upon this policy intent. In the absence of a detailed plan to end waste and better manage spending, Victorians can have no confidence that any revenue raised from these new taxes will assist with the housing crisis. The government has failed to consult with stakeholders on the introduction of these new taxes set out in the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023. Instead of a fixation on tax, the government need strategies to incentivise investment into Victoria.

Without any warning the Treasurer announced that the government would expand the vacant residential land tax to become a statewide tax. This amendment to the Land Tax Act 2005 will see the vacant residential land tax imposed on residential land that is unoccupied for more than six months in a calendar year. The current suite of exemptions from the vacant residential land tax will continue to apply, which will see homes that are not being rented or occupied in a particular year covered if they are a holiday home, are occupied regularly for work purposes or are under construction or being renovated. There is a lot of interest in regard to how that will work. With many people using their homes for six months of the year and spending six months in their other homes, there are lots of variations, so it is very hard to focus on what that could end up looking like.

In addition, the bill seeks to prevent the 10 per cent concession duty that is charged on eligible corporate reconstruction and consolidation from applying concurrently with the 10 per cent concessional duty. This is charged on either a relevant acquisition by a public landholder or a relevant acquisition arising from certain restructures of listed stapled entities that can result in only 1 per cent of the normal duty payable. Further, the bill makes amendments to the Duties Act 2000 to apply key eligibility requirements for the pensioner and concession card duty reduction to all transfers, not just cardholders who are eligible, like pensioners, who are parties to the transaction. Eligible concession card holders may receive an exemption or concession from duty on a home duty reduction. However, this will only apply to eligible cardholders under the Duties Act 2000 when it is intended to apply to all transferees to the transaction. This bill will amend the First Home Owner Grant and Home Buyer Schemes Act 2000 to ensure the existing requirement to elect either the first home owner grant or the pensioner and concession card duty reduction continues to apply and operate.

As part of the government’s COVID debt repayment plan through the State Taxation Acts Amendment Act 2023, it introduced the COVID-19 debt temporary land tax surcharge, another tax for Victorians to suffer because of the financial mismanagement of this government. The COVID-19 debt temporary land tax surcharge will commence from the 2024 land tax year and will see taxpayers pay an 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.

Victoria is in record debt, which is set to reach at least $165 billion by 2026. It is Victorians that continue to pay for Labor’s incompetence and gross financial mismanagement at a time when the state is experiencing a cost-of-living crisis, yet we continue to be hit with more taxes. No government in history has ever taxed its way to prosperity – not one – yet this government has, on average, introduced a new tax or an increase to an existing tax every two months since 2014. This includes payroll tax; rental tax; taxing downsizers; holiday and tourism tax, which is a huge concern for regional Victoria; health tax; and now, we know, more taxes on schools.

The Windfall Gains Tax Act 2021 provides that windfall gains tax does not apply to a rezoning that causes land to be brought into a contribution area for growth areas infrastructure contribution purposes or to the first rezoning of such land after 1 July 2023 – the commencement date of this tax imposed on Victorians because of this government – if it was in this 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 excluded and therefore not liable for windfall gains tax despite a growth areas infrastructure contribution being payable on the land.

Under the Labor government, Victoria is broke and life continues to get harder. Victoria has higher debt than Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania combined, at a cost of almost $15 million per day in interest. This is astonishing. On top of that, we now have an additional debt of over $500 million from the Commonwealth Games debacle. The final figure is yet to be determined. The wasted taxpayers money could have been spent on our appalling roads and in my electorate on things like the completion stage for GV Health, which has been left unfinished; the development of the Shepparton Sports Stadium; or progressing the much-needed Shepparton bypass. Communities continue to miss out due to this government’s financial mismanagement.

This government proves time and time again that it cannot financially manage the state, and the consequences are more taxes and less investment where it is desperately needed. In the absence of a detailed plan to end waste and better manage spending across the state, Victorians can continue to have no confidence that any revenue raised from these new taxes will assist in addressing and fixing the state’s housing crisis. The government must take responsibility for their financial decisions and the massive detrimental impact their financial mismanagement is having on our state.

The State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023 will further continue to punish Victorians who are already doing it tough. What we see is increased taxes at a time when Victorians can least afford them. In addition, the government should be focusing its efforts on easing the cost-of-living crisis that Victorians are living through by ensuring that every Victorian does not have to live with the stress of not being able to make ends meet. The State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023 continues to punish Victorians for this government’s financial mismanagement and incompetence. Once again Victorians are being asked to pay the price of the incompetence of this Labor government. I also wish to support the reasoned amendment of the Leader of the Nationals, particularly around consulting with key housing industry stakeholders on the impact of this bill and making sure that we have that detail.

Anthony CIANFLONE (Pascoe Vale) (16:06): I rise to speak on the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023. This is a bill which updates a number of taxation, valuation and other acts to maintain the effective operation of Victoria’s taxation and valuation system through a number of measures and a number of reforms.

However, I would like to focus my remarks today on two of the most material changes contained in the bill, both of which aim to support Victorians looking to rent or buy a home to live in and, I believe, can help us facilitate the revitalisation of central Coburg, which I will touch on hopefully in the remainder of my contribution once I get through the substance of the reforms. The first includes changes to the vacant residential land tax to encourage more existing properties being made available to renters right across Victoria and to encourage faster development of vacant land in established areas of Melbourne. The second includes changes to protect consumers by prohibiting property developers and others from passing on their tax liabilities, often to unsuspecting purchasers.

Right across Australia finding an affordable home is becoming harder than ever before. That is why the Victorian Labor government’s housing statement, which we recently released on 27 September, put forward an ambitious plan to tackle the root of the problem when it comes to accessing housing, and that is via housing supply. It is a simple proposition. If we build more homes, there will be more affordable and accessible homes for first home buyers, families, young people, renters and retirees. As part of the plan, we are setting a bold target to build 800,000 homes in Victoria over the next decade. That is 80,000 homes per year. The housing statement provides the pathway for us to begin fostering the conditions needed to stimulate investment and build high-quality homes quickly in places where Victorians want to live.

Complementing the Victorian Labor government’s nation-leading $5.3 billion Big Housing Build program, which is already delivering a pipeline of 12,000 new social, community and affordable homes across the state, through the measures set out in the new housing statement we are getting on with doing the things that matter to deliver more housing that Victorians need. But separately and additionally to the Big Housing Build and the housing statement, we will continue to pursue a whole-of-government approach when it comes to facilitating more housing for homebuyers and renters. For example, our previous commitments to support first home buyers is a case in point, where through our landmark Homes Victoria package first home buyers purchasing a new house that costs $600,000 or less do not have to pay any stamp duty, while concessions apply to purchasing a property costing up to $750,000.

We know the only way to improve housing affordability is to increase supply – it is the main way – so we are making sure, through this bill, that more unoccupied properties can be put up for rent and that more vacant land can be developed to build new homes. Changes to the vacant residential land tax provide a financial incentive for owners to rent out empty homes or develop long-term vacant land, providing more homes and more options for Victorians during the housing crisis. The changes will extend the existing vacant land tax currently imposed on residential properties in 16 of Melbourne’s inner and middle suburban council areas, including my municipality of Merri-bek, to also apply to unoccupied residential properties across the entire state. Expanding the vacant land tax provisions in the Land Tax Act 2005 will encourage owners of unoccupied homes in Melbourne’s outer suburbs and regional Victoria to make these dwellings available for rent or sale. Under the amended vacant land tax reforms the period that properties could be deemed vacant will start from 1 January 2024, with the tax change commencing from 2025. Existing vacant land tax exemptions will continue to apply statewide, including to holiday homes, properties recently acquired or regularly occupied for work purposes and properties being built or renovated.

Changes will also expand vacant land tax to residential land undeveloped for more than five years in established areas of Melbourne to discourage long-term land banking, which I will touch on in my area soon, and spur the development of new housing across thousands of sites, infill and high-demand areas – again, several of which are in my area. This change will close a loophole where vacant land tax did not apply to unimproved land, enabling this valuable land to slip through the cracks despite being appropriate for residential and other development as well. From 1 January 2026 residential land undeveloped for more than five years in established areas of Melbourne – so since 2021 – will become liable for vacant land tax, and that will apply to an estimated 3000 undeveloped properties. Once construction commences, a further two years will be provided before the tax applies, and the State Revenue Office commissioner can extend this in some circumstances.

The second element of this bill I want to focus on relates to the reforms around the prohibition of a portion of land tax known as windfall gains tax liabilities between a vendor and a purchaser under a contract of sale of land. The appropriating of land tax, known as windfall gains tax liabilities, is unfair and can result in these taxes being passed on to purchasers who would not otherwise be subject to these taxes. The changes will protect home purchasers, who will only be required to pay the agreed purchase price for the property and will not be required to pay any portion of the vendor’s land tax or known windfall gains tax liability, so that is an important reform as well. Therefore through that part of the reform, the bill will prohibit a contract of sale of land from providing the apportionment of land between the vendor and purchaser, and it will also make it an offence for a vendor under a contract of sale to pass on the vendor’s land tax liability to a purchaser under the sale.

The government made a commitment at the time of introducing the windfall gains tax that consumers would not pay it; that is why the government will also put beyond doubt whether it can be passed on to purchasers. The spring tax bill will ensure that where the rezoning of land has occurred prior to a contract of sale or option being signed the benefits of the rezoning are captured by the vendor that is selling the rezoned land and it is the vendor that is liable for the associated windfall gains tax liability and not the purchaser.

As I said from the outset of my contribution, in my view these measures will form part of the government’s broader suite of measures, including through the Big Housing Build program and the new housing statement, to help support the revitalisation of central Coburg in my community as a future jobs, skills and homes hub for the growing northern region by incentivising owners of long-term vacant and existing strategic parcels of land through central Coburg to be developed to create more jobs, skills and of course homes.

I was so pleased to welcome the Treasurer on 31 March along with 100 local business and community leaders to the new Pentridge visitor entertainment and cultural precinct for a very positive breakfast and discussion around the record investments the Victorian Labor government has been making to lead, drive and kickstart the revitalisation of Sydney Road, central Coburg and the Upfield transport corridor, which include: the removal of four level crossings along the Upfield line; the construction of two new world-class stations at Moreland and Coburg; the delivery of an outstanding active transport, cycling, walking and open space corridor that has accompanied the level crossing projects; $22.5 million to build a brand new Coburg special development school; $17.5 million to build a new technology hub at Coburg High, $6 million to redevelop the Coburg Lions City Oval historic grandstand and introduce new female-friendly change rooms; planning for a new mental health and wellbeing hub in central Coburg as well as investing in Merri Community Health; protecting the Merri Creek; as well as committing to community batteries in Merri-bek. All the while Merri-bek has been identified as a priority rollout site for the Big Housing Build.

Fundamental to striving towards pursuing this vision for a more livable Coburg, which sits in the heart of my electorate, is to help also ensure that people of all ages and backgrounds across Pascoe Vale, Coburg and Brunswick West have access to safe, secure and affordable housing in our community that is close to family and close to the services they need. According to the 2021 ABS census, currently across my community of Merri-bek we were home to 171,000 residents as of 2021, now around 188,000, and our local housing stock consists of 75,400 dwellings. Eighty-nine per cent of these are considered occupied dwellings and 10 per cent of these are considered unoccupied homes. Fifty-three per cent are considered separate houses, 27 per cent are semidetached homes such as townhouses, and 18 per cent are flats or apartments, and that is compared to 12 per cent across Victoria. Sixty-two per cent of homes are considered family households, 29 per cent are considered lone or single households and 8 per cent are considered group households or shared housing. Thirty-one per cent of homes are owned with a mortgage, 28 per cent of homes are owned outright and 38 per cent of homes are renters, compared to 28 per cent across the rest of Victoria.

With our population forecast to grow by around 23 per cent – an additional 40,000 people between now and 2036, so our population will reach 228,000 people – we will need to keep working to facilitate more local housing in central Coburg in particular, and that is why in this respect I would like to begin with other partners that we need to involve in this process, including council. Merri-bek council are the major landowners and landholders through central Coburg. Utilising ratepayer revenue over the last 20-odd years, council has managed to purchase numerous strategic sites through central Coburg. However, in doing so, it has done very little to contribute towards broader revitalisation or housing efforts to date. Some of these sites include the Russell Street and Harding Street car park, the Louisa Street and Munro Street car park, the Victoria Street and Waterfield Street car park and the Sydney Road Coles building.

However, I am pleased to report that, building on the Victorian Labor government’s record commitments to central Coburg and following my ongoing advocacy as well, Merri-bek council have just recently announced their community consultation to develop a new vision for central Coburg, which I commend and I acknowledge. It considers the future opportunities of those sites that I have just mentioned as well as the future opportunities around the Coburg Library area, the Victoria Street mall and the planned Coburg health precinct on Bell Street. Along with council of course there are a number of other strategically privately owned sites across Coburg that have been under-utilised and frankly land banked for many years, which I am going to run out of time to touch on, but this bill specifically will help encourage and facilitate more housing potentially in the future.

Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (16:16): Since this government has been in this term of nearly 10 years, just over nine years, it has been taxing Victorians. Every two months they have introduced a new tax. Since the May budget this year they have outdone themselves: they have increased that to every single month. Here I am today to stand and speak on the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023. This current Labor government thinks that taxing is the way to get themselves out of trouble, despite the fact that right throughout history there has never been a government that has been able to use taxation to find their way back into prosperity. The state’s debt is extraordinary. It will be over $200 billion within the next couple of years. We are in a state of such serious financial crisis that we have seen the Commonwealth Games cancelled. That, I think, was the real telling tale that this state was in trouble. We saw the budget in May, and we are seeing tax after tax after tax introduced, and today I stand here to speak on a bill where the government wants to introduce the 51st and 52nd new or introduced tax since they were elected in 2014.

We saw the Premier stand down a couple of weeks ago, and our new Premier had been in the job just days before announcing these new taxes. They came out of nowhere. The Property Council of Australia had no idea, and at the breakfast this was announced at, the Treasurer announced these two new taxes to the shock of the community. They had been working with the government, they believed, to find a way forward, and this government then announced two more taxes that they say will increase the housing stock. They said that more properties, as a result of this tax, will come onto the market, but they refuse to outline how. They cannot tell us how many houses will come onto the market, and they cannot tell us by when. So what is the sense of this tax? It will not and it cannot, that we can see, solve the housing problem, and that is why I support the reasoned amendment that says we will not pass this bill – we will oppose this bill – until the government commits to consult with ‘key housing industry stakeholders on the impact of this bill’ and to assist with:

… easing cost-of-living pressures to ensure every Victorian has the best opportunity to enjoy the social and economic benefits home ownership provides’.

Because that is what we are really trying to do. We do need to get more people into homes, we do need people to get into the property market, and people are struggling. These two new taxes – there is no evidence that this will help. There have been 52 new taxes since this government promised under Daniel Andrews the night before the election in 2014 there would be no more new taxes – 52 of them. There is an extraordinary debt that they continue to blame on COVID. However, before COVID, as it is becoming quite clear when you look at the situation financially of this state, it was already a hell of a situation in Victoria because of the debt. Now we have a debt that is greater than that of Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania put together. They all had COVID. They all managed better than what Victoria has managed. We have a debt that is extraordinarily large – $167 billion in the budget and forecast to be way over $200 billion in the next few years. And we all had COVID. Have we in Victoria got more services than the other states? Are we getting better outcomes as community members? Are we feeling like we are getting better services? No. So that indicates failure. Will tax solve the problem? No.

What are businesses telling us, businesses who employ the families that need the funds, that want to strive, that want to invest in property, that want to get home ownership and a roof over their head? They are telling us that they do not want to do business in Victoria. Just this week I met with businesses who said they are putting many of their capital projects on hold. I am meeting with businesses who are talking and thinking about moving interstate, because Victoria is now the worst place to do business.

The way to improve your financial position is to make your money work for you and incentivise your community to actually thrive and have a good go – not punish but reward. This government, like every Labor government before them, cannot manage money. As the old saying goes, when Labor run out of money they come after yours. We have seen 52 of these taxes – an increase in stamp duty on property transfers, an increase in stamp duty on new cars, a widening of the vacant land residential tax. I mean, yes, look at the taxes that they are introducing today – a tax that they introduced some time ago on vacant homes in Melbourne. That is now under this 51st tax going to be expanded right across Victoria. We expected that. When it came in, I thought to myself out in South-West Coast, this will eventually affect us, and sure enough it has. They said to us in the bill briefing that this second tax on vacant land that has not been developed in the last five years will not pertain to land that is not subject to land tax, like primary production land. So if there is a house on a country property that is vacant, this will not apply to that. I do not believe it. I reckon it is just a matter of time, like all these other taxes that have been expanded, and so I would be very uncomfortable if I was the Victorian Farmers Federation, who are assured by the government that this will not affect agricultural property, because the history speaks for itself. They just keep looking for more opportunities to find money from the community, and they put their hands in our constituents’ pockets. They come right out wherever they can find any money, and they just take it because they believe it is theirs. They do not understand the hard work that our community put into providing these taxes for our state, and that is explained by the extraordinary levels of waste – $30 billion in cost overruns from projects that this government has been overseeing.

The new Premier was the minister for major infrastructure projects, and every project she has touched failed or it was delivered late or it was not delivered on time or it was not delivered on budget. She is like the Sisyphean project manager: everything she touches fails. Now we have her as the Premier, and what has she done? Introduced two new taxes in her first actions. Those taxes are for our community’s benefit, not for just plugging massive holes of debt that this government has created. They should be funding our roads. They should be creating safe spaces on the road to get from Melbourne to the South Australian border or the New South Wales border. They should be protecting our community, providing more police, not like we have got in South-West Coast, where our police are very understaffed. The government says that there are more police than ever. The reality is in my police stations there are not enough. The government says that they are doing a great job in health. The reality is it is difficult in South-West Coast to be able to get an ambulance, to be able to get the help that you need when you need it.

These taxes are supposed to do that. As one of my constituents said once, ‘All I want is to know we can get the basics that our taxes should provide.’ That is no longer the case. We cannot have decent roads; we cannot have basics like a drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre in South-West Coast, which every other part of Victoria has and needs or has the budget for and the funding for. We cannot even get that announcement, and these are now fundamental requirements and services that every Victorian should have. But we cannot get that, because this government has been so irresponsible and believes that these two new taxes that are introduced in this bill that we are opposing will fix their problem. Think about other ways to incentivise, because raising taxes is damning. Look at what businesses are telling you. Their WorkCover premiums are not up 40 per cent, they are up 60 per cent and even 80 per cent, and that will stop people being able to be employed. It will not grow our state. I oppose this bill, I oppose these taxes and I have nothing but disdain for this tax bill.

Paul HAMER (Box Hill) (16:26): I too rise to speak today on the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023. It seeks to amend a number of acts, but I will be specifically looking at the changes to the Land Tax Act 2005. At the outset I see that this bill, while talking about taxes, is really about housing and needs to be seen in the context of the broader discussion that we have been having about housing over many, many months in this place and how the cost-of-living pressures have affected people’s ability to find a home to buy or to rent and how as a government we have been trying to put in a range of measures to assist renters, assist industry and assist homebuyers to be able to get into that market, because having a safe place, having a roof over your head, is a human right and is one of the most important policy initiatives that any government can introduce.

When we think about housing and the housing challenge, by the 2050s Melbourne will be home to more than 8 million people and regional Victoria will be home to more than 2.3 million people. At the moment our state is a tick under 7 million people, so that is a huge increase in the population of the state over the next 30 years. That obviously translates into the challenge for housing. I can see in my own electorate of Box Hill the impact of not only previous decisions identifying that activity centre, which has been identified as a major activity centre for many, many years and where residential development has been proposed and encouraged I would say over many years, but also the introduction of the Suburban Rail Loop. Works are now underway with the tram stop relocation to make room for the new station to be built. We see that as part of a bigger picture of what is going to happen to Box Hill and an allowance for more housing in that crucial jobs centre.

Population, housing and employment forecasts prepared by SGS Economics and Planning for the Whitehorse City Council showed that the residential population of the activity centre – that is, the Box Hill activity centre – grew 3 per cent per annum from 2006 to 2016. Even though that is only a small geographic area, that would be amongst the fastest growth rates anywhere in Victoria or Melbourne, and the population growth is particularly focused on working age and tertiary student populations. The resident population is anticipated to grow to between 12,700 and 14,000 people by 2036, requiring some 4000 to 4500 additional dwellings. Therefore I see as invaluable any efforts that government can make to encourage development of under-utilised land, particularly that held by owners and developers who have the ability to develop and build more homes in those areas, and that should be encouraged and incentivised. As part of this suite of amendments, one of the key amendments will be that vacant land within the established areas of Melbourne that has remained inactive for over five years since 2021 will be now subject to a vacant residential land tax.

I want to touch on one particular property which is very well known to my community, and that is the Box Hill brickworks, just to see how this legislation would apply in this context. I want to refer the house to an article which was written in 2009 – so we are talking 14½ years ago – which said that:

Box Hill Standard Brickworks could be replaced with townhouses next year.

That was very optimistic – ‘next year’ referring to 2010.

The 7.2 hectare property at the end of Federation Street … is also mooted for an education centre and place of worship.

The … first stage would fill 1.2ha and include 71 double storey dwellings and eight of three floors.

The developer at the time said that he expected marketing and building to start next year – that is, 2010 – with the balance of the project to take shape in the five years following. So ‘five years following’ was 2015. We are now in 2023, and the site is still completely locked up, blocked, and not a single development has occurred on that site. Understandably, there may be some environmental issues that they need to deal with through previous use of some of the areas of the site, but a portion of that site was rezoned in 2006 as residential land for this exact purpose. The developer has been sitting on that land now for the better part of 20 years, which means that all of these dwellings have not been built and made available for residents who want to come and live in the Box Hill community. We do see time and time again, particularly with the land prices in Box Hill as they are, that developers do take an opportunistic approach to land sometimes and will purchase land and just sit on it and hold it. Sometimes they will even go to the extent of getting a planning permit and just flipping that so that they can increase the value of land without actually developing anything on it. We need to use both the carrot and the stick approach to ensure that as many dwellings as possible can be brought to the market.

I also want to just touch on the existing vacant residential land tax and how it has been applied. It obviously has been applied to the Melbourne metropolitan areas already for several years. If I heard correctly, the member for Eildon seemed to suggest that she was not very happy with the approach that the State Revenue Office is going to be conducting some audits or taking a closer look at whether people are appropriately claiming whether they actually have a vacant property or not. I would encourage the member for Eildon to perhaps talk to some of the Liberal members of the Whitehorse council who are very keen on seeing this tax applied appropriately, because the tax is in existence. I think that we would all agree that whether it is a state tax, a council tax or a federal government tax, there are powers in the ATO, the SRO and council to make sure that we all pay the fair share of tax that is owed. I was quite surprised to hear that view expressed by the member for Eildon on that matter. I do note that the State Revenue Office does take compliance activities very seriously to ensure that the exemptions and thresholds are applied appropriately in identifying the landowners who are required to pay the vacant residential land tax. I do note in this context that in this year’s budget the Victorian government did provide some additional funding to the State Revenue Office to investigate potential unpaid tax, including in particular the vacant residential land tax. As I mentioned, the opportunistic owner that is trying to dodge the tax by not declaring it properly on their tax return should expect to be identified as the compliance activities of the SRO increase. For those reasons, I think it is a really important bill, and I commend the bill to the house.

Sam HIBBINS (Prahran) (16:36): I rise to speak on behalf of the Greens to the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023. This bill contains a number of proposed changes to Victoria’s tax system and amends a number of acts relating to the sale of land. It seeks to extend the vacant residential land tax to include all vacant residential land, subject to carve-outs, across Victoria, whereas previously it had just been for certain metropolitan areas, but it also seeks to extend it to vacant residential land that does not have a residence on it and has been unimproved for five years or more, and it makes a number of other more technical amendments.

Under this bill that has been brought forward, which is the first legislative step in the government’s housing statement, we are still going to see tens of thousands of homes remaining vacant, and this ineffective tax is just going to cover a handful of those. It is not going to have the impact of shifting those houses onto the market – for renters or for people needing to buy their first home – to effectively deal with the housing crisis. Victorians cannot afford for the housing crisis to get worse. The Greens had really hoped for – and we gave the government every opportunity to take it – bolder, stronger action. Implement rent caps. Cap short-stay accommodation. Put in an effective vacancy tax. Instead the housing statement is giving developers everything they wanted, and we are not just going to wave through changes that will see the housing crisis get worse.

Under the current vacant residential land tax, one of the issues that we have is that it has just got poor enforcement and requires property owners to self-report or opt in. Estimates of how many vacant properties there are in Victoria range and vary. One report found in 2019 that there were 69,000 properties that were vacant. Just 1 per cent had opted in to the vacancy tax, and in that year almost as many properties were vacant as there were sold. This is a significant amount of property. What the Greens have been pushing for is that the onus should be on property owners to prove occupancy, with owners liable unless they declare occupancy or lease and provide evidence, and there should be strong penalties for false declarations. When you look at the Vancouver model, failure to declare should result in the property being deemed vacant by default, and we certainly think revenue that is collected through it should be supporting affordable housing in areas where it applies. We recently had a Parliamentary Budget Office costing that looked at stronger enforcement. That meant that the tax would cover not hundreds of properties but thousands of properties, and it would be a much stronger incentive to shift those houses onto the market.

As I said, under the broader housing statement housing affordability is just going to keep getting worse. We are still seeing housing as a commodity, as an investment, rather than as a human right. When it comes to the future, rents are still going to go up. The public housing waiting list is still going to go up. Homelessness is still going to rise. We have got 30,000 people homeless in Victoria every single night. More than half the people that are accessing homelessness services are getting turned away due to lack of government funding. You have got the public housing waiting list above 120,000 people, a quarter of them children. People are waiting years to access public housing, yet the government has got a privatisation agenda for our public housing estates. And what is the increase in social housing that is planned in that? Well, out of 6660 public homes across 44 towers it is an additional 440 social homes – 15 per year over the life of that project.

For renters in general there are unlimited price hikes, record levels of housing stress. You have got landlords reaping windfalls from the overheated private rental market. We have got another year staring down the barrel of massive rent increases. What we have put on the table for the government is to freeze rents, cap them in the long term, but the government is choosing not to. When it comes to the short-stay accommodation for Airbnb we need to cap the number of days properties can be listed on these sites. You have got cities like Tokyo, London, Berlin regulating short-stay in this way. It can be done in Victoria too. We need to shift those houses again onto the market. What the Greens have put forward first of all is the principle that, just like essential services like public health and education, governments have the responsibility to make sure everyone has a secure, affordable, safe place to call home. That is why we have put forward rent controls, that is why we have put forward short-stay regulation with a 90-day cap on how long it could be put on those websites, that is why we have put forward inclusionary zoning, that is why we have put forward stopping plans to privatise public housing and the wholesale demolition of public housing estates, that is why we have put forward a stronger vacant land tax that actually is effective and shifts those houses for renters and first-time home owners, and if the government does not take those actions, again the rents are going to keep rising, the housing waiting list will continue to grow and house prices will remain unaffordable.

So we are not in a position to support this legislation that is going to see the state’s housing crisis get even worse. That said, we are willing to work openly and constructively with the government to solve this state’s worsening housing crisis, not like the Liberals who seem to be in a very fierce competition with the government to see who can cave into property developers the most. When you just hear that constant talk about tax and debt you can only be led to the conclusion that what they are looking for or what they would be putting forward is a permanent state of austerity here in Victoria. That is not what we want, but what we cannot have as well is Victorians in need. They cannot afford for the housing crisis to get worse. You cannot have a housing plan that puts private profit before the public need in our communities. We cannot support a plan that abandons renters to unlimited rent increases. We cannot support a plan that is laying the groundwork for carving up and privatising our public housing estates. We need bold and we need progressive steps to fix our state’s housing crisis.

Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (16:43): I too rise to speak on the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023. It is a great pleasure to be one of the last speakers on this very, very important bill today; I have been sitting here this afternoon for many, many hours it feels like now listening to contributions on all sides of the house. I have come to the conclusion this afternoon, 15 minutes before we go ahead and almost finish up for the day, that there are many arguments about how to solve the housing crisis. I think that all parties here in this place do agree there is a housing crisis and we need to do something about it, but the people sitting here in this chamber are confused – well, some know what we should be doing, and I appreciate that the Greens and our government do not always agree on what should be done to solve different parts of the housing crisis, but I have sat here and I have listened to contributions by those opposite from the Liberal Party and I have sat here and just listened to the member for Prahran, and I appreciate his contribution this evening because I am a renter, would you believe?

Sam Hibbins: Me too.

Sarah CONNOLLY: Well, we should have coffee – lots to talk about.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Through the Chair.

Sarah CONNOLLY: Renters love talking about their landlords, and I do not think there are quite often very many good stories that are shared amongst renters. I understand the Greens position when it comes to the housing crisis and how they talk about fixing the issues facing renters like me in the short term. Labor on this side of the house talks about the long-term game, and certainly increasing supply in the long term, that pipeline of supply, is just so important. But when I listen to contributions from those opposite in the Liberal and National parties – I do not know if I have heard any from the National Party today, but maybe I was not in the chamber.

A member: You missed it.

Sarah CONNOLLY: I missed it, unfortunately. What I will say is that I understand, standing here this afternoon, what the Liberal Party do not think that Labor should be doing to solve this crisis. For renters like me and people trying to get into the housing market of all different ages – and I do not think now that I am considered a young person – what we do not understand is how the Liberal Party think that they will fix this crisis, because not one member from that side over there has put forward a proposition this afternoon about how to solve the crisis. They agree there is a crisis. One of the challenges of being in government is to not only acknowledge there is a crisis but come up with a solution.

This bill that we have put before the house has come, yes, after nine years in government. Many, many things have changed that we have kept up with or tried to keep up with. One of the things I quite often think that those opposite do not understand – and with respect to the member for Prahran, I am not quite sure that the Greens understand it either – is that when you come into places like the outer west, the actual growth that is happening there is on a scale that is unbelievable. We need to keep up with that. The infrastructure that suburbs like mine need is very, very expensive. It is train stations, it is roads, it is level crossing removals and it is bigger, better trains – these are things that we are doing and we have done. These are things that we need to do more of.

The member for South-West Coast referred to our Premier a couple of speakers ago in not so favourable a light regarding her previous role as Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. There is one thing that I am absolutely certain about with our new Premier: she has a vision. She is a woman on a mission. She is building stuff in this state – big stuff. A new train station can cost around $120 million. These are not small things to deliver, these are big projects. These are projects that do not just benefit one or two people, these are projects that are put in place for the next hundred years. These are projects that will assist people in our community for decades and decades to come – generations of people.

What now faces us is a housing crisis. What those opposite fail to understand, which is why we on this side of the house have been in government for the last nine years, is that if you ask the average punter on the street ‘Do you think that developers should be allowed to land bank?’ – and we know that is contributing to issues like the housing crisis – then the average person on the street would say no. Some of them might say it is un-Australian. This bill goes about trying to level the playing field and make some really important changes. In this place when we talk about taxes and we talk about levies they are talked about in such a negative way. Quite often I think it goes to the extent of fearmongering by those opposite, but after the last nine years of being in government on this side of the house we kind of expect that.

This bill makes a number of changes to the way that Victoria’s tax system will operate going forward, for the very good reason of trying to bring on more housing supply here in Victoria to deal with what is an ever-increasing and urgent crisis when it comes to housing in this state. There are two major tax changes which have been highlighted today and talked about in a lot of detail: an expansion of the vacant residential land tax and a change to protect consumers from property developers and others passing on tax liability to purchasers. What it means is that if you have got land and you have been sitting on it and you are thinking that you can keep sitting on it to make more money than you would otherwise make from selling it today, there will be consequences of that. Victorians need you to get on and build housing, and that is what this is about. Under the current legislation this tax only applies to suburbs in Melbourne’s inner and middle ring. Now, the purpose has been clear since the tax was first introduced, and I think, if I am not mistaken, that was in 2019. If you are sitting on vacant residential property, please get someone living there. That is all we are asking. That is what this bill is doing, because that could be another home for a Victorian. It could be a home for me if it was done pretty quickly. It is another home for a Victorian. Victorians are struggling at the moment. They are looking for a place to buy and they are looking for a place to move into.

I know indeed there is a housing crisis and definitely a shortage of rental properties. I have just moved in the last couple of weeks, and I have to tell you there was not a great deal of supply on the market. Although I did not feel like we were in a state of crisis, I was pretty darned nervous and was forced to jump at the first property that came up that could suit our family, and indeed it is not perfect. As I say to the member for Prahran, renters love having coffees together and talking about their naughty landlords. Given the current housing environment we find ourselves in, with some of the lowest vacancy rates for rentals in a generation – in a generation – something has to give. Tough decisions have to be made. We need to do things here in this place. The member for South-West Coast is counting the number of taxes, and I am sure it is handed down to everyone in the member’s party, but something has to give. The one thing that the member for South-West Coast and her colleagues on that side of the chamber have not talked about today is how to assist people like me, how to assist people of all ages, who are trying to get into the housing market to purchase a home. We are not purchasing our 10th, 12th, 17th or whatever home I read that some members on that side of the house own. We are not talking about that; we are talking about just one place. Something has to give. That is what this bill is about.

I would urge you to get behind renters. Get behind the member for Prahran, the member for Laverton, folks like me, folks that are wanting to buy a house – not their 17th or their 10th. Get behind us. Stand for something. Have a vision. Be a party on a mission. It is for many, many reasons that I commend this bill to the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Polwarth to bring us home, I believe.

Richard RIORDAN (Polwarth) (16:53): Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and I am going to bring it home today because it is just a shock to common sense that this legislation was brought before the Parliament this week. It is a shock to common sense that this would be the first act of a new Premier of the state – to bring a 51st and a 52nd tax into the state of Victoria. These increased taxes have been brought to the house because this government is actually trying to tell Victorians that taxing land, taxing landlords, taxing opportunity and taxing potential in the state is the way to get more housing, and it is simply a wrong premise. It is a harebrained, crazy, crazy premise.

But it is also worth noting the context of these increased taxes. Take, for example, regional Victoria – the wonderful seat of Polwarth, where I am from of course. This year, as of when the clock strikes 12 this New Year’s Eve, for the first time all the vacant land and the land and the rental houses right across regional Victoria will incur land tax. They will all incur land tax for the first time. And on top of that they are going to have another two taxes: they are going to have the vacant residential tax and the tax on unimproved land in communities.

In country towns there is lots of vacant land around, and whether it is a small country town or a larger one, it is often sitting there because people have horses on it, or cattle; it is part of their gardens or extended spaces. They can be developed, but they are not necessarily wanted or demanded. It is insane to think we are now going to be taxing people in a way that they could never have possibly imagined. Their home is their kingdom – it is now going to be a revenue-collecting device for this government, and that in fact is completely and utterly unacceptable.

But why are homes often left vacant in regional and rural Victoria? Let us look at some of the examples I know of. What about the people that go to Antarctica for a year? They leave their home. Are we now going to tax people involved in urgent and necessary research on our great unexplored continent? That is a reason people’s homes are left empty. There are homes left empty where they have gone to the outback to work in Indigenous communities and provide education and health care for a year. They have kept a home behind. There are people I know who have gone on missions into Africa and are working in communities in health and education. Their homes are left vacant. Are we going to be taxing them? The government says, ‘Not only are we going to be taxing them but we are actively going to encourage neighbours and communities to spy on you, spy on people to see why their homes are empty and why they’ve not been there.’ Has this government not heard of young people who have gone overseas for work and career opportunities who will buy a home somewhere here in Victoria as a legacy place so when they return back they have got somewhere to go? They can bring their savings from work overseas back into the home they have got here in Australia. Not only that of course – particularly in regional communities people often have family homes. There might be an elderly family member or aunt or somebody in the community, and the family will come back and use that home. Is that going to be considered an empty home? Do the docket police, the supermarket police need to be called in to keep an eye on those occupants of the house? This is just an action and a piece of legislation from an incredibly desperate government that is now stooping so low to create extra revenue for itself. It defies belief. It just makes no sense that the increasing taxes that have been thrown and thrust upon Victorians in the last six months will do anything for the housing crisis.

Yes, there is a housing crisis – one that is 100 per cent generated by this government. Since 2014 they have had ample opportunity to encourage investment and incentivise home owners and developers and builders to build the homes and flats and apartments and townhouses that Victoria needs, and yet they have not done it. Eighty per cent of the homes on the rental market today are owned by mum-and-dad investors, people with just one or two properties. What is this government doing with its incessant attack on those people, those investors that provide a home for someone else? What are they doing? They are fleeing to other investments. Those homes are going back on the market and they are not being made available for renters but in fact are being purchased by other home owners. What does that mean? That means that that capital, that investment, is moving from the rental property market here in Victoria and most likely into the share market and other revenue streams and opportunities.

There is simply no evidence whatsoever that increasing taxes in this way, as this government has done now on numerous occasions since May and again particularly in this bill, will grow apartments. It will not create townhouses. It will not create new homes available for Victorians but in fact will have the complete opposite effect. Whether it is people in the electorate of Polwarth or in the seats of my colleagues and others, we are hearing on a daily basis that investors in property are fleeing Victoria. They are going to Western Australia, where the tax rates are much less. They are going to Queensland. And worst of all for the surplus volume of homes that we need in Victoria, that investment is leaving real estate and going to the share market and other investments. This is a deliberate action by investors as a complete and utter 100-per-cent response to a government that does not understand how to solve the housing crisis, that does not understand basic economics of supply and demand, and I do not and will not support this bill.

The SPEAKER: Order! The time set down for consideration of items on the government business program has arrived, and I am required to interrupt business. The house is considering the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023. The minister has moved that this bill be now read a second time. The Leader of the Nationals has moved a reasoned amendment to this motion. He has proposed to omit all the words after ‘That’ with the view of inserting in their place the words which have been circulated. The question is:

That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Those supporting the reasoned amendment by the Leader of the Nationals should vote no.

Assembly divided on question:

Ayes (50): 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, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, 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, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner

Question agreed to.

The SPEAKER: The question is:

That this bill be now read a second and a third time.

Assembly divided on question:

Ayes (50): 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, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, 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, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner

Question agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The SPEAKER: The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested.