Wednesday, 15 May 2024

State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Tim Pallas:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (14:58): I rise to speak on the State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024. Tuesday’s budget last week was an opportunity for this Labor government in its 10th year, delivering its 10th budget, to axe tax and not to increase it, to end blowouts, to maintain frontline services, to make housing more affordable, to fix roads, to keep communities safe and finally, and perhaps most importantly for future generations of Victorians not yet born, this government’s opportunity in last Tuesday’s budget was to outline a credible plan to pay down Labor’s record debt. I am sorry to say that on all of those counts, after 10 years of a Labor government, on Treasurer Pallas’s 10th budget he failed. This government failed. That is a very, very poor outcome for the state of Victoria and for the 6.7 million residents of Victoria as well.

I understand that in this budget, that in this state taxation bill, there are two taxes that will be increased. Those taxes are the fire services levy and the waste services levy as well – Labor’s bin tax. Those increased taxes total about $1 billion in additional revenue over the next four years. The thing is, $1 billion might not seem a lot to some people in this place – it might simply be numbers on a page. But the reality of that $1 billion in additional revenue is that someone has to pay it – someone has to pay that additional $1 billion in revenue. The people that have to pay that additional $1 billion in revenue that this government has booked in this year’s budget are the Victorian people – in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis when they are paying more for grocery bills, they are paying more for power bills, they are paying more for fuel, they are paying more for education and they are paying more to keep a roof over their head with increases to interest rates. At a time when Victorians can least afford it, what this government is doing through last Tuesday’s budget is increasing the tax burden on Victorians. Someone has to pay that additional $1 billion in revenue, and that is Victorians. At the worst possible time in our state’s history, more taxes are being charged to Victorians. These two increased taxes are number 54 and number 55 of the new and increased taxes since this Labor government were elected 10 years ago. That is right, 55 new or increased taxes at the hands of a state Labor government over the last 10 years. Again, these numbers, these taxes, these increases might simply be numbers on a page buried somewhere deep within a budget book, but the reality of it is that someone has got to pay those new or increased taxes. The people that have to pay those new or increased taxes are Victorians. I am deeply concerned at the missed opportunity by this government in their budget to reduce tax – to axe tax – instead of increasing it; that was the opportunity. The greatest cost-of-living measure that any government can offer their people, their citizens, is to cut tax, is to axe tax, is to reduce tax – but no, that opportunity was missed.

I am deeply concerned, especially when it comes to property taxes, that of the 55 new or increased taxes that this government has burdened Victorians with in the last 10 years, around half of them are on property. People may wonder why we are in the middle of a housing crisis and why we are in the middle of a housing affordability crisis. It is not just supply, but there are further reasons behind that. I argue that one of the very real reasons behind our current crisis when it comes to housing availability and affordability is the new taxes imposed or increased on housing by the state Labor government. I do not think that there would be any member in this place or in the other place that would disagree with the principle of a Victorian who needs a roof over their head getting a roof over their head. I do not think there would be any member in this place or the other place who would disagree with the principle that having a roof over your head provides you with the stability and certainty that you need and you require in order to be a net contributor to the community around you. To give you that stability, to give you that certainty and to give you that confidence to be able to be a net contributor to your community, to take care of yourself, to take care of your family, to find a job, to earn a wage, to pay your way in life and to provide opportunities potentially for other people around you – those are the missed opportunities in last Tuesday’s budget. That is the missed opportunity that this government has actually set aside by not axing taxes but increasing taxes and by introducing new taxes over the last 10 years. I think it is great shame that this opportunity was missed – a great shame.

There was no movement from this government in last Tuesday’s budget to axe their schools tax. The Shadow Minister for Education is currently sitting at the table. She will agree with me, I am sure, that Tuesday’s budget last week was an opportunity to axe Labor’s schools tax. But they did not do that. The basic principle of educational choice that has been the hallmark of bipartisanship agreement within this state –

Jess Wilson interjected.

Brad ROWSWELL: and within the country – thank you, member for Kew – for decades, if not more, has been completely undermined by the missed opportunity in last Tuesday’s budget to axe Labor’s schools tax.

When the Labor government introduced their schools tax in last year’s budget, what they did was effectively declare class warfare. What they did was effectively say to those parents around the state, ‘We want to tax aspiration. We want to tax your opportunity to send your kids to the best school for them on your terms. We want to make it harder for you to make that choice for yourself and for your family and for your children.’ There is a myth in this state at the moment, and the myth is an insidious myth. The myth is that only rich people, only people who can afford it, send their kids to an independent school or to a high fee paying Catholic school. That is an absolute myth. I have heard stories, having spoken to principals right around the state, that some of the parents of the children that go to some of those independent schools are working second shifts in taxis in order to pay the fees, in order to give their kids the opportunity of a lifetime to have the best education that they can possibly have. And Labor’s response to that is to tax them more. We know, because we have heard from some of these schools, that Labor’s schools tax is adding around $1000 in additional fees to the price of education in independent and some high fee paying Catholic schools. That is not good, because again someone has to pay, and again it is Victorians who are paying the price of the economic mismanagement and the economic recklessness of 10 years of the state Labor government.

The thing here is that with the poor economic decisions that have quite clearly been the hallmark of this government over the last decade, if we translated poor economic decisions and economic recklessness to a family budget or if we translated poor economic management and reckless economic decisions to a business budget, it would be the family who paid the price for the decisions that they made and it would be the business that paid the price for the decisions that they made. But the great injustice of this budget is that when this Labor government, after 10 years of Labor and after 10 years of Labor budgets, makes a poor economic decision, a reckless economic decision – and there are any number of those that I can think of – it is the Victorian people that pay the price for the poor economic management of this Labor government.

It is simply not fair. It is simply not fair on Victorians, who are at the moment finding it hard to make ends meet, who are putting their kids to bed and then sitting around the kitchen table and figuring out how in the hell they are going to pay the bills. These are the stories, this is the truth, of the conversations that are happening around kitchen tables right now, and they just do not get it. They say they care. This government says they care, but their actions tell a very, very different story. If they did care, they would have used the opportunity of last Tuesday’s budget to axe tax and not to increase it, to provide that cost-of-living support that Victorians right around this state – not just in metropolitan Melbourne but right around the state, in growth suburbs, in country areas and right to the borders of the state – absolutely need right now. It was a missed opportunity. They did not take it up, and Victorians are paying the price for 10 years of Labor.

There was an opportunity in last Tuesday’s budget for this Labor government to axe their health tax. They did not axe their health tax. In fact they will deny that such a thing exists. I would love the Minister for Health or the Premier to meet Dr Hussain – who I met with – with me and tell him that their health tax is nothing but an imaginary thing. It is far from it. Dr Hussain, who services the Tullamarine region of Melbourne and who has 40,000 patients on his books, told me, with tears in his eyes, the story of receiving a payroll tax bill from the State Revenue Office not just for that financial year but backdated for five financial years, and the bill arrived at one time in one piece. The truth of the matter is this: Dr Hussain could not pay that bill, a bill that this Labor government denies actually exists in the first place. The great tragedy of this is for those 40,000 patients that Dr Hussain and the group of his general practitioners see and provide that important, essential and primary health care for. He has had to close down his practice as a result, because if he cannot pay the bill, then he is trading as insolvent, which then voids his insurance, which puts 40,000 people – 40,000 of our fellow Victorians – in and around the Tullamarine region at greater health risk because of decisions that this government has made.

What happens in this place matters. Decisions that are taken in this place matter. The words that are said in this place matter. But this government, after 10 years of governing and after 10 Labor budgets, simply cannot compute that. The impact of that decision on those 40,000 patients in that area of Melbourne is this: when they are sick they will not go to see another GP, where no doubt Medicare bulk-billing will not even be available to them. They may not go to see a GP because they cannot afford the price of a non-bulk-billed GP appointment, so they will delay their health care, or what they will do is go to an emergency department at a public hospital and clog up an existing system that is already under pressure and already under strain because of the mismanagement of this government over the last 10 years. Whichever way you look at it, this is a bad decision and a bad outcome. Again, last Tuesday’s budget was an opportunity to axe tax, not to increase it. It was an opportunity to axe Labor’s schools tax and it was an opportunity to axe Labor’s health tax, and they did neither. Victorians are paying the price for the poor economic management, the reckless economic management, of this Labor government after 10 years.

There was an opportunity in last Tuesday’s budget to increase funding for roads. But, no, the Labor government did not do that. In fact the Labor government reduced road maintenance funding again. That is a great shame. Having driven to a number of regional communities in the last little while – I was in Shepparton and Bendigo only last week – I can tell you firsthand that dodge the pothole is a dangerous game often played by Victorians when they are driving between regional communities in this state. It is not good enough for this Labor government to simply say that they will reduce the speed limit on regional roads as a safety measure, acknowledging that there are potholes on those roads which are dangerous and which are unsafe. That is unacceptable. That is most definitely unacceptable. Reducing the speed limit on a dangerous road is not fixing the road. Fixing the road is getting a work crew out there to fix the road. But again, in this budget, instead of axing taxes they have also axed road maintenance funding, which means that those bad roads in regional communities will again not be fixed.

Budgets are so much more than numbers on a page. They are so much more than spreadsheets, percentages, charts and words. They are so much more than thousands of pages of documentation. They actually demonstrate to the Victorian community the heart and soul of a government, the priorities of a government, what actually makes up the DNA of a government and what its priorities are. My view is, my strong contention is, that in this budget this government has got that all so, so wrong. They say that this government is about families, but as I said yesterday in my budget reply, they are spending more on servicing debt than they are on the entire suite of families, fairness and housing portfolio projects and commitments. That tells you in one neat sentence that their priorities are debt instead of what they say their priorities are, which is helping families. Families around this state know it because they are experiencing it and they have had to experience it over the last 10 years. This is a terrible circumstance, and Victorians are paying the price after 10 years of Labor.

In the property sector there have been $21.5 billion in taxes crippling the property sector. That take in this budget includes $7.8 billion in land tax, $10.1 billion in land transfer duties, $1.49 billion in COVID debt levy landholdings, $1 billion in the fire services property levy, $127 million in the congestion levy, $221 million in the metropolitan improvement levy, $125 million in the windfall gains tax, $25 million in the metropolitan planning levy, $278 million in the financial accommodation levy and $250 million in the growth area infrastructure contribution levy – $21.5 billion of crippling taxes on the property sector, and we wonder why the cost of housing is going up, up, up instead of stabilising and perhaps even at some point in the future going down, down, down. But this Labor government quite clearly, not by their words but by their actions, is simply not interested in doing that. They are not interested in making life easier for Victorians; they are interested in making life hard for Victorians. And I do not just say that because it is a nice two-line statement that could quite easily fit into a social media clip at some point in the future; I say that because it is the absolute, hand-on-heart truth that Victorians know, and Victorians know it because they are on the receiving end of it.

In one year the average electricity bill has gone up by 24 per cent. In one year the average gas bill has gone up by 35 per cent. In one year the average rent bill has gone up by almost 17 per cent. WorkCover bills have skyrocketed under this government. Transportation costs have skyrocketed. Port of Melbourne fees have skyrocketed, adding to the cost of importing and exporting goods. The payroll tax threshold is simply not competitive, certainly when you compare it to New South Wales. Insurance costs have skyrocketed. The cost of building and maintenance works is higher than ever, if you can in fact find a tradie to undertake the work that needs to be done. On top of this, the government has increased its bin tax and its fire services levy.

Last week I was in Bendigo and I spoke at a post-budget breakfast there on Thursday morning. It was an early start to the day. I made my way to the budget breakfast and I sat down. I was introduced to the table that I was sitting at, and there was one lady there who I spoke to, and she seemed to be quite alert for 7 o’clock in the morning and quite with it, which was surprising as I had not yet had my morning coffee. I spoke to her; I wanted to understand her story. She has told me that because of the increasing taxes on her business, because of the increasing costs for her to do business, she was up at 3 o’clock in the morning at her business before this breakfast to get on top of the orders that she had. Because of the taxes, because of the charges and because of the increasing cost to business, she has had to lay off a staff member, so instead she gets to her business at 3 o’clock in the morning to get on top of those orders, and then she came to the business breakfast. This is the experience of Victorians around this state.

Last year in my budget reply I spoke of the Highett Charcoal Chicken place, and I look forward to getting back there at some time in the near future. The cost of spuds has gone up by 20 per cent, the cost of cooking oil has gone up by about the same amount and the price of chooks has gone up by about 18 per cent, adding to the cost of doing business. I highly recommend to any member of this chamber that if you want a decent feed, Highett Charcoal Chicken is the place to be.

There are critical CFA projects that have been delayed because Labor are increasing their fire tax. I am joined at the table by the member for Polwarth, Shadow Minister for Emergency Services and Shadow Minister for Housing. Earlier today we put out a media statement together which outlined the parlous state of the CFA projects that have been delayed despite Labor’s increases to their fire services levy. Regional Victorians will pay the price of Labor’s financial mismanagement with a massive fire service levy increase revealed in the state budget. Despite this tax increase, the Labor government have decided to delay 83 per cent of existing CFA capital projects by one year. Only 0.5 per cent of the entire tax take of 188 million bucks is actually being spent on critical CFA projects. It begs the obvious question: as this tax is going up and as Victorians are paying out of their hip pockets for this tax increase delivered in this budget through the State Taxation Amendment Bill that this chamber is discussing at the moment, where is that money going if not to support critical CFA projects around this state? Where is it going? We know where it is going. It is quite obvious where it is going. It is going to feed Labor’s debt beast; that is where it is going. It is like they get the money in in wheelbarrows, in buckets, and they have got the minions lined up there with shovels, and the debt fire is raging, and they have got the money that comes in and it is being picked up with shovels and it is being shoved into the debt fire. That is exactly what this government does. It does not invest back in critical services and critical projects – critical CFA projects that are needed around the state. No, it only spends 0.5 per cent of the entire tax take on those projects and it does not spend any more than that. What it does with the rest of the money that it takes out of the pockets of hardworking Victorians ‍– singles, families and businesses – is it feeds the debt beast created by this government.

This government will have you believe that their debt position in this state is because of COVID. They will have you believe that. But I encourage you, I encourage those opposite and I encourage every Victorian to understand the truth of this matter: Labor’s financial mismanagement is not because of debt caused by COVID, it is because of economic mismanagement and economic recklessness after 10 years of Labor and after 10 Labor budgets. That is the truth of it. We now have the highest debt in the nation – 188 billion bucks – and this government has a plan to pay back around $31 billion only. So by their own admission they have no plan, diddly squat plan, to pay back around $150 billion.

Why am I concerned by this? I am concerned by this not only as a Victorian but because it is not just my kids but it is their kids who will be saddled with the consequences of the decisions that are made by this government today in this chamber. This is the truth of the matter. This generational theft under the hands of this Labor government is an absolute and utter disgrace. It is absolutely and utterly shameless. Sure, if you believe this government, they have a plan to pay back $31 billion. They are paying that back by increasing taxes on Victorians, making life harder for Victorians at a time that they can least afford it, with their jobs tax, with their rent tax, with their taxes on aspiration, with their schools tax, with their health tax, with their increases to the fire services levy and with their increases to their bin tax. That is the consequence of 10 years of Labor; that is the consequence of 10 Labor budgets.

There are so many things that I could talk about at this time. I will in the time that I have remaining just address some of the other matters in this bill. Although the opposition is broadly supportive of a couple of the changes proposed in this bill – specifically in relation to Trust for Nature and specifically in relation to the changes to land tax under various ownership structures – the opposition indicates quite clearly, not just for this chamber but for every Victorian, that we oppose this bill. We oppose this bill on the basis that it was an opportunity for Labor to axe tax not to increase it. We oppose this bill because this was an opportunity for Labor to wind back their schools tax, to wind back their health tax, to wind back their rent tax and to wind back their taxes on aspiration and their taxes on Victorian businesses, and they missed that opportunity. Whatever good might be in this bill, it is far outweighed by the missed opportunity, it is far outweighed by the bad and it is far outweighed by the impost of these insidious Labor taxes on the hip pockets of Victorian singles, families and businesses in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis and at a time when they can least afford it. We oppose this bill.

In the time that I have remaining I just want to, for this chamber’s edification, put into context –

Natalie Suleyman interjected.

Brad ROWSWELL: I am happy to go, Minister for Veterans, for another 10 minutes, I really am. I am only warming up. Let me put this into context in another way. For last Saturday’s TattsLotto super draw, the jackpot was $20 million. Now, that prize is usually shared amongst a number of winners. But just think for a moment, Acting Speaker, if you or one of the other members of this chamber was the sole recipient of that $20 million, that Tatts super draw first division prize. Think about the impact that it would have on your family – no more financial worries, your house paid off and your kids taken care of. You could buy practically whatever you wanted to buy. On 8 March this year ratings agency Standard and Poor’s reported that it expects Victoria’s net debt to rise to $247.2 billion by 2027. We are now talking about a quarter of a trillion dollars of potential debt, according to this internationally renowned and respected ratings agency. Well, let us put that 20 million bucks into context. To repay the projected 2027 Victorian state net debt you would need to win a $20 million Tatts super draw on your own every Saturday, every week, every year for 237 years ‍– 237 ‍years of consistently winning a $20 million Tatts super draw. That is the price that Labor has committed Victorians to. That is the price of their debt. That is the impact of their debt laid bare on the shoulders of every Victorian man, woman and child.

Our state’s daily interest payments of $26 million could pay for 298 paramedics, could pay for 125 ‍ambulances, could pay for two breast cancer centres, could pay for 2651 elective surgeries or could pay for 307 nurses. At $26 million our current daily interest payment could pay for 510 Victoria Police recruits. I hope they are listening on the government benches, because I have got something coming in for them. That $26 million a day would pay for 833,000 Victorian ALP branch memberships. I hope I have put it in terms that this Labor government can finally, finally, finally understand.

This is the cost of Labor’s debt. This is the cost of Labor’s poor economic management and economic recklessness after 10 years of Labor and after 10 Labor budgets, and the tragedy of this is that every Victorian is paying the price for the decisions made by this government over the last 10 years. Acting Speaker, I say emphatically to you, to every member of this house and to every Victorian: we oppose Labor’s taxes. Last Tuesday’s budget was a missed opportunity. Instead of axing taxes, taxes were raised. Taxes were increased, and every Victorian is paying the price.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (15:30): I do intend to actually speak to the bill we have at hand.

A member interjected.

Nina TAYLOR: I am in the mood, put it that way. But I do want to just pick up a couple of points about taxes, so I should note that the Andrews–Allan Labor governments have proudly cut or abolished taxes and charges 64 times since being in government, cutting regional payroll tax three times – it is now just one-quarter of the metro rate – and lifting the payroll tax free threshold on multiple occasions. It was $550,000 when those opposite were last in power. It will be $1 million from 1 July 2025. We have become the first state in Australia to abolish business insurance duty and abolish stamp duty for commercial and industrial properties. When the opposition were last in power – for one four-year term – they introduced or increased taxes or fees on 24 occasions. Despite all their whatever that was, they abolished or reduced taxes just four times. That is just a little bit of perspective on the record when we are talking about taxes.

Coming back to the bill at hand, what is this bill delivering? The core of this bill is implementing three tax-related changes that were made as part of the Allan Labor government’s 2024–25 budget. These are to exempt social and emergency housing from land tax, harmonise Victorian waste levy rates with those of New South Wales and South Australia and establish a trust to support Trust for Nature to set up more conservation covenants on privately owned land in metro Melbourne. I think we can all agree they all sound like extremely sensible and commonsense mechanisms. I am going to go to a couple of them. I do not have so long, but I did want to go to a little more detail.

Firstly, with the exemption for social and emergency housing from land tax, if we are talking about supporting families and households et cetera, incentivising the building of social housing has got to be a good thing. We know that supply is an issue if we look at the spectrum of housing availability. Supply costs are going up. Inflation is going up. I think we can all agree that there are a lot of pressures for families and households alike, hence the central tenets of the budget have been all about focusing on the acute needs of families and households. But I am not going to speak to that so much because I do want to keep within the central tenets of this bill.

But when we are looking at that first element – that is, exempting social and emergency housing from land tax – this change will provide further certainty to the sector, provide a broader range of social and emergency housing with a land tax exemption and encourage innovation in service delivery with the assurance that social and emergency housing that satisfies these parameters will receive a land tax exemption. I challenge those opposite to say that this is not going to be good when it comes to increasing the supply of affordable and in this case social housing for Victorians. That certainly on any account has merit, particularly under the current circumstances where supply of housing is an issue.

With regard to harmonising Victorian waste levy rates with those of New South Wales and South Australia, there is perspective when we see the relativity of the rates being charged. Fundamentally something that has been missing, but we should not be surprised, when we are looking at waste levies is what they are trying to do. We know that we cannot keep fanning the flames. We cannot keep encouraging more and more landfill, because landfill is toxic and is essentially unproductive land. It costs a bomb to maintain. The methane emissions alone are catastrophic when it comes to climate change et cetera. We certainly should not be encouraging more and more landfill, and indeed in our great state of Victoria we have massive reform when it comes to the way that we manage waste. That is about streamlining the way waste is managed across all the councils across Victoria so that when people move from one municipality to another they know what bin does what, but more importantly ‍– although that is a significant element – separating various elements of waste so that they can be far more productive and that we do not mount our landfill increasingly.

We do have targets to get that landfill down by up to about 80 per cent over the next 10 years. We need to, because if we are going to have productive land that we can use, whether it be for agriculture, whether it be for forests and for biodiversity or whether it be for building very much needed housing, surely the less rubbish going to landfill and the more productive land that we have available has got to be a good thing, hence the waste levy. Apart from the fact there is relativity across other states – so Victoria is quite reasonable and rational when you look at the method being put forward by this bill with regard to the waste levy per se – there is a fundamentally sound rationale for incentivising organic waste and for recycling and disincentivising or discouraging more and more waste going to landfill. At the end of the day that will save Victorians, because it is so expensive to keep mounting more and more landfill and not dealing with waste in a productive way.

It does not surprise me at all that those opposite would not be caring too much about waste and about diverting waste from landfill, because the environment has not necessarily been their top priority.

Tim Richardson: They want to burn it.

Nina TAYLOR: Yes. You raise an excellent point, member for Mordialloc. I remember some fancy schemes that they had over there just about burning everything. Never mind the emissions that might float into the air. Do not divert waste from landfill; fill, fill, fill it up and burn it. I will tell you what, setting up those incinerators costs a fortune. They are extremely expensive to set up as well. This is why we do not have them at the top of the tree when it comes to prioritisation of the way that we manage waste. They are actually at the bottom of the scale, so to speak, because (1) they are extremely expensive to set up but (2) they encourage or, conversely, do not discourage people from managing waste in a very unproductive way that is not good for anyone’s health. If you really genuinely care about Victorian households and the future generations of Victorians, on the one hand if you are looking at how we manage money, well, managing waste effectively and diverting it from landfill is certainly a mechanism in terms of managing money better, because long term we can see that the more landfill we have the less productive land we have, because it is so toxic and it does not actually serve anyone’s purposes.

Coming back to the fundamental rationale, you can see why there is a waste levy in the first place. I hope that that allays some of the concerns of the opposition and they may consider some of the environmental aspects that are associated with this particular levy rather than sweating over it night and day and completely ignoring the fundamental rationale that is driving this change. It is a fundamental change which is very important for our community now and into the future. But of course that relies on the premise of a government that actually prioritises the environment and that actually believes in climate change, which we do on this side of the chamber.

Tim McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (15:38): I am delighted to rise and make a brief contribution on the State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024. The reason I say brief is because we have a list of 14 who want to make a contribution on this bill, and bringing it on so late in the day I do not think even half of them are going to get an opportunity. I note that when the government talks about tax bills they like to keep it short and sweet because it is not an area they are very comfortable with. That is why I will make a brief contribution and allow some time for others to make a contribution.

We know Labor cannot manage money – that is well known in this house – and they cannot manage major projects. What happens then is Victorians all pay the price. You have heard us say on many occasions that when Labor runs out of money they come after yours, and we have had 55 new or increased taxes since the Andrews Labor government came to power in 2014, many of those during a cost-of-living crisis. We are finding during this cost-of-living crisis that people really are struggling, and yet the taxes just keep rolling on in. If I look at some of those taxes, particularly related to the cost of living, there was the increased fire services property levy in 2015–16. We all know that was taboo stuff – FRV. It certainly was not going to the CFA, the increased fire services property levy. And then they did it again in 2019–20.

A further tax on cost of living is a new point-of-consumption gambling tax. What have they got against punters? I am concerned that there are just little taxes here, there and everywhere. And I note that they are doing away with the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation. That is a bill for another time. I am well aware of that. But having been on that board for over 10 years, I am quite disappointed that the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation will not see the light of day. It was $37.5 million a year that has been spent to try and assist vulnerable people and to assist people with gambling problems. And then there was the tripling of the brown coal royalties in 2016–17, and we wonder why the power goes up – again, related to cost of living. I am trying to bring it back there to talk about the cost-of-living taxes that are just hurting, hurting, hurting. Then there was a tax on Uber and taxi fares in 2016 and 2017, and people just need to get around. Further to that, there have been other tax increases – a new city access tax for West Gate Tunnel, a new on-dock rail charge on imported shipping containers. When that happens, everybody pays. We know how much freight comes in through the ports and how reliant we are on the ports. When you increase the charges for on-dock rail that hurts everybody, and again, cost of living goes up.

An increase to the municipal industrial landfill or the bin tax – again, that is felt by every Victorian, usually through their rates notice more so than a direct tax when they go out and spend. But again, that is another tax that contributes to that cost-of-living pressure. Then there was the number plate tax and the electric vehicle tax, so it just goes on and on. There was the expanded point-of-consumption tax on gambling – again, another bite at the punters. And a 10 per cent increase to Victorian government penalty units – I mean, it is bad enough getting a fine, and now they are putting the fines up, all because of the black hole they are trying to get themselves out of. There was an increase in the wagering and betting tax in 2021, an increased fire services levy in 2021–22 and a 50 per cent increase to Births, Deaths and Marriages Victoria fees – so nobody is spared when it comes to these taxes that have been invented or increased. And again there was an increase in the wagering and betting tax in 2023–24 – I do not know how many goes they have had at the punter.

Then came the schools tax on independent schools on top of the fact that some of those students who go to independent schools, or most of them, will not be eligible for this $400 rebate that the government spruiked at last week’s state budget announcements, so that is quite disappointing. Then there was the holiday and tourism tax – and on top of that they are reducing the funds to Visit Victoria’s destinational marketing, which is going to really hurt our tourism industry. There is a new health tax on GPs and allied health – you know, when you get a sick kid, you would hate to have to make the decision: can I afford to go to the doctor, or will I just wait this one out for a day or two and see if my kid gets better? Then of course last week there were two more taxes, the bin tax increased again and so did the fire services levy. That is 20 out of the 55 new and increased taxes that will have direct cost-of-living effects on people and communities.

I also want to touch on the housing crisis. When we talk about taxes and those that have been related directly to housing, whether you are building a house, whether you are renting a property, whether you are a landlord, whether you are a renter, whatever part of the housing structure you are in – which is all of us, we all need a roof over our head – there are a further 27 taxes associated with that. A new stamp duty on property transfers between spouses came in in 2017–18. That is a quick hit for somebody who is probably already in a predicament trying to change their personal circumstances. Now they are getting hit on transfers between spouses. There was an increase in stamp duty on new cars – again, it does not seem like much, but that was back in 2017–18. All that contributes as we go forward.

Stamp duty was introduced on off-the-plan purchases. We had never had stamp duty on off-the-plan purchases, and it was really important that that remained that way because it made it competitive for off-the-plan to get up and running, because every building that gets built, with all the red tape and green tape that goes on now, gets more and more expensive. Now with the stamp duty on off-the- plan purchases, that makes it out of reach for many. Then came the vacant home tax, and the new annual property valuation to increase land tax. On land tax, in our office we would get 10 to 15 phone calls, walk-ins or emails every day from people complaining, concerned about the new land tax. And we know the parameters have changed on land tax. People who never have seen land tax before are now getting hit with land tax bills, and that is quite disappointing because it is above the $300,000 threshold. There is even land tax on $50,000 to $300,000. I am getting young couples coming in. They have bought property and they cannot get a builder for a year or two. When that happens, they are paying land tax so they can build their dream home. It was not that long ago that the former Premier said that Victorians are not aspiring to own their own home. Well, that is rubbish. People still have a dream of owning their own home. Most Victorians – I cannot say all, but most Victorians – dare to dream, and we certainly hope they have that opportunity.

I did say I was not going to go for my full time, but when you start talking tax you just cannot stop, because we know what this government have done to Victoria. You cannot tax your way out of it. At some point in time you have to stop spending. You cannot tax your way out of a $188 billion debt as we rocket towards that. There comes a point in time that you have to stop spending. When we left government there was a $20 billion debt in Victoria. That had gone from $6 billion to $20 billion over 44 years. That is how long it took to get from a $6 billion debt to a $20 billion debt, and in only 12 ‍years this government will run that debt from $20 billion up to $188 billion. We know Labor cannot manage money and they cannot manage major projects. As I say, you cannot keep taxing your way out of this. At some point you have got to read the tea-leaves. You actually have to stop spending money. I will leave my contribution there and allow time for others to have their say.

Paul HAMER (Box Hill) (15:47): I also rise to speak on the State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024. I want to start by thanking the Treasurer for bringing this bill and the budget to the house. Ten years in that role is a magnificent achievement for anyone. I was actually disappointed that we could not hear more from the member for Ovens Valley, because I think he missed out on talking about a lot of stuff. I know he wanted to talk about introducing taxes, but he failed to mention that when the opposition was last in power, from 2010 to 2014, in just one term they introduced or increased taxes or fees on 24 occasions. I am sure that the member for Ovens Valley was just about to get to that, and that is why he chose to run out of time. I am just wanting to make sure we continue that theme, to remind everyone – remind the viewers at home – that this was a policy of the Liberal–National coalition at the time.

The member for Ovens Valley also did not have time to talk about the taxes and fees that the Andrews and Allan Labor governments have cut. Sixty-four times taxes and charges have been cut since we were first elected in 2014. I particularly want to focus on the payroll tax changes, because they have been very significant, particularly for small business. I see the Minister for Small Business at the table. I am sure that she goes around to many small businesses across Victoria and that they know how important these tax cuts are. Particularly when you are starting a small business and you have only got a handful of employees and you are building up to that sort of medium-size business, having that extra higher threshold makes a huge difference. Also, having a lower payroll tax – the percentage – in regional areas can make a huge difference to setting up a small business in regional Victoria. I know there is a local business in Box Hill that is just doing some exploratory work at the moment, investigating potentially setting up some manufacturing in Victoria, and it is looking at the opportunity to invest in regional Victoria. They were very happy to know about the payroll incentives that exist and encourage them to set up business in regional Victoria. The regional payroll tax is just one-quarter of the metro rate; it is just 1.2 per cent, which is the lowest in the country. I want to just remind the house that in last year’s budget we committed to lifting the payroll tax threshold to $1 million, so that 6000 businesses will no longer pay a cent of payroll tax. I believe that will be in place from 1 July 2025.

I also want to briefly reflect on the overall tax burden that we like to talk about. Those opposite would have us believe that Victoria is the highest taxing state, but they forget to remind the public that taxes take many forms. If you look across most of the other states, they have a big chunk of revenue that is called royalties. If you are adding up the total revenue, it should take in royalty payments, which are effectively a tax – it is a tax on using the resources that a state owns. In Victoria we do not have the luxury of having the resources that many of the other states have and therefore we do not have the royalty payments that many of the other states have. Our overall tax burden means that Victoria actually gets the lowest revenue per capita of any state or territory. So you can cherrypick the figures all you like and you can look at one particular measure of taxation, but taxation takes many forms; it is about all of the revenue, and royalties are clearly a tax which gets passed on to the miners who are digging the material out of the ground.

If I come to the details of the bill, there are quite a number of taxation measures which are addressed. One that I do want to mention are the amendments being made to the Land Tax Act 2005 to provide standalone exemptions from land tax for land used or available for use for social or emergency housing. I think there have been many debates in this house about the need for additional housing in general but particularly the dire need for additional social and emergency housing. I think it is a great privilege to be part of a government that has invested so heavily in social housing. Our $5.3 billion Big Housing Build is Australia’s biggest ever investment in public and community housing. I do want to pay particular tribute to the former member for Richmond and former Minister for Housing for really driving this policy agenda at the time, because it was and remains a visionary program to really deliver the social housing that we need.

I think having incentives such as the land tax exemptions can only benefit the providers so they can bring that social and community housing and emergency housing onto the market. Just last week I was out with the Minister for Housing at a development in Box Hill where 73 social housing dwellings are being provided. It is a real partnership with the community housing provider and the private sector and the council – I should call out Whitehorse council on this as well – and the Victorian government, which is providing funding for it. It is a former council car park. Council provided that land to the developer, and the developer is building a private development next to a nine-storey development with social housing. If you were looking at that facility, just because it is so centrally located in central Box Hill, it will literally be next door to the entrance to the Suburban Rail Loop station. That parcel of land would cost into the millions, so you can imagine the land tax bill that a community housing provider would have to pay if they did not get land tax relief. Having that relief and having that facility allows them to ensure they have got the money to purchase those properties at a discounted rate and then provide them to some of our most vulnerable Victorians.

It was really magnificent – the facility is not finished, but we did have a walk-through and we were able to walk up to the communal deck, which is being built at the moment on the rooftop. The apartments are really top class, and this is what we should be building. Every person who is in social housing deserves to have good-quality accommodation with full electric appliances, nice light and close access to services. We should not be shunning social housing and putting it out where people cannot access the services that they need. That is a really important measure that is included in this State Taxation Amendment Bill, and I commend the bill to the house.

Jess WILSON (Kew) (15:57): I too rise to speak on the State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024. From the outset it is very disappointing that we are only getting a couple of hours this afternoon to debate this important piece of legislation, much like the situation we had after last year’s budget where we saw the government ram through the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023 by introducing it into the house while leaving less than 24 hours for community consultation and consultation with stakeholders on a taxation bill that saw land tax increases, payroll tax increases, a new tax on non-government schools and a COVID debt levy that was set to raise $8.9 billion over the coming years. Again this year we are seeing the government curtail debate on the important issue of taxing Victorians by guillotining this bill after under 2 hours of debate time, leaving many of my colleagues without the ability to speak on this piece of legislation.

From the outset, to pick up on the member for Box Hill’s and indeed the member for Albert Park’s points, I can see that the talking points have gone around and around about how the Allan Labor government has reduced taxes – somewhat of a confusing scenario with 55 new or increased taxes over the past decade. Of course we saw then Leader of the Opposition Andrews, later Premier, on the eve of the 2014 election make a commitment to the Victorian people that there would be no new or increased taxes under a Labor government – 10 years down the track we have 55 new or increased taxes.

Just to the member for Box Hill’s point around the reform that he spoke to around payroll tax and the lifting of that threshold, unfortunately, despite lifting that threshold, Victoria remains uncompetitive, with that threshold still being behind that of New South Wales, that threshold still being lower than that in Queensland and that threshold still being below that of South Australia. That simply makes it less competitive for Victorian businesses. We know that the South Australian Premier is knocking at the door of Victoria telling Victorian small businesses, ‘Don’t bother in Victoria. They’re going to tax you more. They’re going to make it harder to do business.’ We have seen the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s report that shows once again that the hardest state to do business in is Victoria. Unfortunately, lifting the payroll tax threshold does not do anything to compete with the other states. It does not incentivise businesses to grow, to expand and to set up here in Victoria.

What is sure under this government – and I think it was Benjamin Franklin that said there is nothing that is certain in life other than death and taxes – is that there is nothing more certain under the Allan Labor government than record debt and higher taxes. As I said, this budget comes after 10 years of Labor budgets, 10 years of Labor’s financial mismanagement, and what have we see from that? Of course we have seen blowouts, we have seen waste, we have seen reckless spending and we have seen record taxes. We have seen the tax revenue take increase from $17.8 billion in 2014 to a projected $45 billion over that 10-year period. That is a huge increase, and that impost is felt by Victorian households and by Victorian businesses, and when we talk about the tax burden in this state we know that it is the highest tax burden in the country – over $5000 hanging over the heads of Victorians because of the decisions of this government to impose tax increase after tax increase and new tax after new tax.

In this bill and in this budget we see, of course, a number of taxes increased – the waste levy increased and the fire services levy increased as well. That fire services levy increase will only see that flow through to ratepayers through increased rates at a time that Victorians can least afford it. One thing that has not been really spoken about in this piece of legislation today is the changes to the vacant residential land tax. These are changes that are being put in place by the government because when they put through the initial changes last year they made a few mistakes that resulted in those Victorians that hold their holiday home in a family trust being unexpectedly hit with land tax, and they have had to correct that mistake. They have had to come into the Parliament with this piece of legislation and correct their own mistake and say, ‘Apologies. We’re going to backdate that and actually not see you pay land tax on your holiday home, which has been exempt from land tax and from the vacant residential tax for many, many years.’

We saw in last year’s budget and through last year a number of new taxes increased, and the COVID debt levy in particular, raising $8.9 billion, saw hundreds of thousands of Victorian home owners and property investors hit with land tax for the very first time. That is a tax that will flow through directly to renters in this state. And as the Shadow Treasurer said yesterday, we have seen a 17 per cent increase in rents at a time when we have got a 1 per cent vacancy rate here in Victoria. We have a housing crisis, we have a rental crisis, and the answer from this government is to increase taxes on property. In their landmark statement last year, the housing statement that they all like to speak to, the 80,000 ‍homes targeted over the next decade – something that we are seeing spoken less about at the moment – just a few days after that announcement, that target of 80,000 homes being announced, we saw the Treasurer come out at an industry breakfast and say to the property industry, ‘But we’re going to hit you with a raft of new taxes. We’re going to hit you with a number of new taxes that are going to make it harder for you to build new in homes in this state.’ We all know that the answer to the housing crisis, to the rental crisis, is to increase supply, yet what we are seeing through the increases to land tax are property investors taking their properties off the market and putting them up for sale in record numbers, resulting in less properties available on the rental market. In this year’s budget what we can see is (1) of course no relief across any taxation but an average increase of 6.3 per cent of land tax over the coming years.

Then of course there was the increase to payroll tax, and we saw the hit on businesses after the recent increase to payroll tax through the mental health levy – another hit to businesses in this state – and of course the introduction of the schools tax, a tax that was initially set out in the budget to hit 110 schools across Victoria, but the government realised its mistake, realised that those schools that had a fee threshold of $8500 simply could not afford it, that families would have to pull out their children from those schools, and lifted that threshold in a backtrack from this government. Now we see it is 59 ‍schools after one of those schools, Andale School in my own electorate, managed to get an exemption and managed to appeal to the minister and say, ‘We are a school of 22 kids, a school that provides specialised education, and you are hitting us with a $15,000 tax bill that we simply cannot afford.’ Those schools are passing through that cost of course to their families – up to $1000 year in fees. There are 59 schools on the list at the moment, but that is only set to increase with the government refusing to index that $15,000 threshold. We know that there are a number of schools that are likely to be included on the list in the coming 12 months, whether that is Alice Miller School in the electorate of Macedon, Alphington Grammar in the electorate of Northcote, Ballarat Clarendon College and Ballarat Grammar in Wendouree, Girton Grammar in Bendigo West, Kardinia International College in the electorate of Lara or North-Eastern Montessori School in the electorate of Eltham. These are all schools that are likely to be included on the schools hit list in the coming years because the government refuses to set the rate of $15,000 with indexation.

This government continues to tax Victorians. They continue to take and take and take, and with their debt bill rising, with it set to hit $188 billion in the coming years, their answer is to tax Victorians more to try and tax their way out of this problem. But unfortunately what we are seeing is the debt rising and the deficit deepening this year, despite the increased tax take, and that is resulting in a greater burden on Victorians at a time when they cannot afford it. This government cannot manage money and they cannot manage major projects, and it is Victorians that are paying the price.

Lauren KATHAGE (Yan Yean) (16:07): The opposition are opposing this bill to prove a point. The opposition are opposing land tax exemptions for emergency housing. The opposition are opposing land tax exemptions for family violence shelters. The opposition are opposing land tax exemptions for community housing. I think that to do that just to prove a point – to attempt to reduce support for emergency shelters and women’s shelters to prove a point – is something that we on this side certainly oppose. As someone who has worked in a family violence shelter, I find it abhorrent that you would seek to reduce the support that the government would give to a family violence shelter, to the workers there and to the people who are attempting to help people in our community just to prove a point. I think that that is very sad and very shameful. We have fantastic housing providers in this state who deserve our respect and support. I think of Community Housing Limited, who I met with recently in Mernda along with the Community Housing Industry Association CEO. We were there at a property that was developed to support people in my community that need assistance with housing. It is a funny-shaped block that they have built on, and the reason that they purchased that block is because it is close to public transport, it is close to shops, it is close to schools and it is close to allied health services. The organisations that build these and run these properties need to be flexible and agile to purchase appropriate properties as they become available, as was the case in my electorate up there in Mernda.

Once these organisations have purchased a property, it would not be right then for this government, which is doing so much to increase housing supply, to then attempt to cripple these organisations in that way. We are a government that is supporting the increased supply of community housing and social housing, and we are a government which supports providers of emergency accommodation for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness as well as people who are experiencing or at risk of family violence. For those opposite to oppose this support to those people to prove a point is shameful.

I would also like to point out that in opposing this bill they are opposing additional funding for Sustainability Victoria. Sustainability Victoria has a fabulous focus on the circular economy and moving us as a state towards a future where we do not throw things out as we used to. This sounds crazy, but as a child I used to wander the mounds of the tip looking for toys and things to take home. That does not happen in this world anymore, thank goodness. To get us to the point where we do not have masses of landfill we have increased our focus on the circular economy.

Sustainability Victoria supported the Mernda Neighbourhood House in my community to establish the Mernda Repair Cafe, and what a fabulous job they do there helping people to fix items that otherwise might have ended up in landfill – items like broken bikes. I took a frying pan there which was fixed. All these types of things that otherwise might be thrown out and cause increased cost to the household as well as increased landfill can be fixed at the Mernda Repair Cafe. Good ideas spread, and the support that the Mernda Repair Cafe went on to give to the establishment of the Donnybrook Repair Corner has really pleased me. Now not just in Mernda but also in Donnybrook you can take your items to be repaired. We are moving towards this stronger focus on ensuring that we are not just throwing things out and that we are making responsible use of our waste. In opposing this bill those opposite are opposing additional funding for Sustainability Victoria and the good things that have flowed from them in my community.

Starting from June we will see some changes in payroll tax. The budget helps business, we know, and we are progressively removing stamp duty on industrial and commercial properties. We also know that there are payroll tax changes from 1 July. We are gradually abolishing business insurance duty. On payroll tax, as we heard from the member for Box Hill, we are lifting the payroll tax free threshold. It will go from $700,000 to $900,000 and then on to $1 million, and 22,000 businesses will benefit from this by paying less payroll tax. As a result of these changes, 6000 businesses will pay no payroll tax, which is a fantastic support for small business.

The $2.3 million for small business advice and support included in the budget is something that I know the small businesses of my community will welcome. Recently the Minister for Small Business joined me in Donnybrook, where we held a small business forum to discuss the challenges, priorities and process for setting up a small business. We went through the supports that are available through Business Victoria, and my goodness there are so many ways that this government is supporting small business. Through Business Victoria you can participate in an online workshop. You can receive different tools and templates to support you in the establishment of your business, or indeed you can work one on one with a mentor who will help you step by step through the establishment of a business. In the discussions there with the small businesses and the people that wish to start a small business, there was great excitement but also great trepidation. They expressed surprise at the supports that were available. I would encourage all members to make sure that they are spreading the word to their small business community in their electorates about the supports that are available. Certainly we have the business bus, which travels around to provide that support to different communities, but there are so many supports that are already available online for people to access.

The member for Sandringham was talking about the property industry, and he was concerned about the property industry and the impost of taxes on them. In that, he referred to the growth areas infrastructure contribution tax, and he said it was a crippling tax. This is the money that developers pay to make sure that the people who they are profiting from in the building of houses and estates also have access to the basic services that they require – the building of parks, sports facilities and the like. I think that it was quite revealing then that the member for Sandringham would speak of this as something that is crippling the property industry rather than as something that is supporting families to ensure that they have what he may take for granted in his electorate – the things that he has access to. We will continue to ask people to pay their fair share while we work towards building a community which is sustainable and fair, is good for women and cares for those who need it.

Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (16:17): I wish it was my pleasure to rise to speak on the State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024, but it is anything but, because these increased taxes and cuts to important services and infrastructure are really going to hit every single Victorian household – they really are. There are a few things that are going to hit regional and rural communities in particular that I want to talk about. I know that I often say that I will be brief, and I will try to keep it brief because I would like a few more from our side of the house to get up and have their say today, even though we have only got a little bit of time left.

I want to start with the increase to the waste management levy. As a former councillor and mayor, this is something I have had to deal with firsthand. I have four councils in my electorate. In the 37,500 ‍square kilometres that is the Mildura electorate there are four councils, and I have reached out to a few of those, because I know how this is going to not only hit them and their ability to provide service but end up as a separate line on the rates notice. The councils are going to get the blame for that as well as the fire services levy, which we will get to.

I have a couple of statements from these councils that I think are important to get on the record, so I thought I would take time to do that today. Mildura Rural City Council, which is obviously the largest council in my electorate, said that an increase in the waste levy for the 2025–26 year of 30 per cent is a significant burden on regional and rural communities and that this will directly impact the cost of living for everyone. Waste services are, for the most part, an essential service. That is the Mildura Rural City Council. They do not just do the township of Mildura. Remember they deliver waste management services to as far as Murrayville, which is at the South Australian border, that Mallee track. We have to think about this differently, because it is fine for inner-city and regional and outer suburban areas of this state, but once we are talking about outback Victoria, which is what we are, it is a real burden. Small rural and regional councils just cannot wear any more state government cost shifting. The Swan Hill Rural City Council said the fire services levy and the waste management levy will hurt ratepayers and ultimately renters – state government taxes that get put on the rates notice so council gets the blame. Waste levies are just another tax grab that, again, councils get the blame for ‍– increasing rates and charges outside the rate cap. They said that, if the government was investing more in recycling and circular economies in rural and regional areas, they could swallow it, but they are not. That comes from the Swan Hill Rural City Council, which takes in areas like Robinvale in my electorate.

While we are on the fire services levy, there has been an issue – and I am sure it is in all regional areas and rural areas in particular – with investment in appliances so that fire brigades can do their job. We had an issue in Merbein actually last week where the 14-year-old pumper that belongs to the FRV station 72 had just returned after being repaired for quite some time and on its way to a grassfire had a significant malfunction and ended up broken down on the side of the road. This is something I have raised a few times, so let us hope that some of those fire services levies actually get to the stations and the brigades that need them, like the CFA stations out in rural communities. They have been absolutely gutted, and they are the backbone of rural communities. The CFA in those small communities is where everyone goes to gather. They are all volunteers, and they feel like they are just overlooked. They are certainly not underestimated by the people that rely on them, because they do a power of work. They are incredible people, but obviously with things like this and not getting the investment they deserve they feel neglected. They are frustrated. Given how long it takes now and how difficult it is to get new members – because they are volunteers – they are even more frustrated. This is something I share.

Lastly I want to talk about the amount of investment that has been taken out of family violence – $29 million I think it is. I spoke earlier about how the current investment is not hitting the ground in regional communities where it really needs to be. The need for it is desperate. We are at crisis point, and more lives will be lost if it does not start to funnel down. But with a significant cut like that $29 million I have little faith that anything is actually going to change.

We could talk about the State Taxation Amendment Bill for a long time. We could talk about payroll. I have noticed some members have spoken about land tax. Let us talk about land tax actually – let us talk about that for a minute. I was on the phone to more real estate agents during the week. And the member for Kew mentioned it – she mentioned that rental properties are being listed in record numbers to be put on the market, so renters in these properties are being evicted. I had another email from someone yesterday saying that her daughter is being evicted because the owner needs to sell that property because of land tax and all of the other difficulties that come with being a landlord these days or owning more than one property.

It has been said multiple times before – the member for Kew mentioned it earlier – that solving the housing crisis relies on the private sector. They are the ones that own the rental properties. We need landlords. They are not the devil. I know they get painted to be that in this place all the time. Landlords are not the devil. Landlords are the ones that are actually going to house renters. Why on earth you would disincentivise people to own second or third properties or fourth – or 15 houses – that they rent out long term and do not put on the short-stay market is absolutely beyond me. Why on earth would you do that, particularly when there’s talk of the Big Housing Build and creating more public and social housing, but it is just never going to happen, let us be honest. What we should actually be doing to solve the housing crisis is incentivising landlords and incentivising the mum-and-dad investors, who might own one extra property to help with their retirement or to help with a little bit of extra income – if they can even get it at the moment because of the land tax and everything else that they have to pay. If they are not making money out of it, is it any wonder they are putting them on the market? It is just incredible.

There is a reason why vacancy rates are so low, and that is because renters are being evicted out of these properties at an enormous rate so that they can be sold. So when we talk about why we would oppose these taxes, it is common sense. It is pretty simple. It is common sense, and common sense should prevail.

Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (16:25): State taxation bills are always a really interesting opportunity to reflect upon the priorities of political parties and their preparedness to govern. Take our colleagues in the Greens, and I use the word lightly. I wish them a happy weekend, on Wednesday.

Roma Britnell interjected.

Iwan WALTERS: I will be coming to the member for South-West Coast in just a moment, but the Greens have never met a problem that they could not resolve with a tax rate of 100 per cent. You could try and point out to them that a tax rate of 100 per cent would raise literally zero revenue, but I suppose they have got methods that Stalin, their hero, would adopt in that scenario and there would be a way of getting around it. But they are not really relevant to this conversation.

I have been listening very carefully, so please have some sympathy for me, to the contributions of those opposite talking about what they would do as the apparently alternative government. But I think it is reflective of their political and policy immaturity that there has not been a single measure, with perhaps one exception, in the budget that they have not criticised from the perspective of seeking more funding for that measure while simultaneously calling for every single taxation measure in the state budget to be slashed – for there to be effectively zero revenue, to cut off the mammoth amount of spending that they presumably want.

Roma Britnell interjected.

Iwan WALTERS: I am glad that the member for South-West Coast is at the table – the Dennington delegate to the International Monetary Fund – who has come in here time and time again calling for increased funding for every single measure in the budget while simultaneously calling for taxes to be slashed.

I am an economic rationalist. I believe in lower taxes to incentivise and encourage economic aspiration and activity. But I also believe in being honest with people, in being straight with Victorians, in giving them a real proposition that, if you want a level of public services at a particular point, it requires taxation to pay for them. It is a fundamental dishonesty of those opposite, who are not prepared for government, to come in here calling for taxes to be slashed at every turn and calling for spending to rise to gargantuan levels, which is the practical manifestation of what they are coming in here calling for.

That confers a fundamental lack of credibility upon them and a concomitant absence of trust in what they are selling. Whatever they are selling, Victorians are not buying. It is nice to refer to Liz Truss from time to time – she had such a short prime ministership in the UK that we did not get to dwell upon just how cataclysmically bad it was – but basically those opposite are indulging in Trussite economics. They want higher spending on every single measure, bar one – admittedly bar one. They also want taxes to be slashed at every turn. As I say, I share that aspiration for lower taxes to encourage aspiration, to create opportunity and to create jobs, and that is why this government has cut taxes 66 ‍times since 2014. It is why we have instigated differential payroll taxes across the state – to encourage regional job creation. The private sector has done so as a consequence of those policy settings, and I am never, ever forgetting for a second that it is the private sector creating those jobs.

Roma Britnell interjected.

Iwan WALTERS: The member for South-West Coast, believe me, has made her contribution on this bill.

The spending measures I do not really want to talk about too much because I am conscious that they are better reserved for the take-note motion. But I do really want to focus on that fundamental tension and dishonesty of those opposite, who propose slashed taxes at every turn but who have never come up with a credible proposition for how public services need to be paid for. At no point – and I have listened, as I say, very carefully to the budget reply, to the contributions on the appropriations bills and to the contributions ostensibly on the State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024 – has this ever been properly grappled with. That point of reconciliation of taxation – of revenue collection – and of spending has never, ever been achieved. I do want to reflect on that.

As I say, it is policy and political immaturity that are great in a debating chamber – the student politicians of Warrnambool might be able to get away with it – but when you come to a general election, you need to be credible. You need to front up to Victorians and say, ‘If you want a level of service that Victoria deserves, it does cost money,’ so how do you have the lowest possible taxation burden to pay for that? In the context of our state budget, it is an interesting mix, because since 1942 with the transmission of income tax powers to the Commonwealth, the revenue collection powers of states have diminished. We are not where we were at Federation. The federal government, as we know and we saw last night, has vastly greater revenue collection powers – taxation powers, and I talk about those because that is what we are talking about today, the taxation bill – and revenue-raising powers than states do.

A lot of the revenue side of the state budget that we read a week ago when the Treasurer handed it down related to GST contributions by the Commonwealth Grants Commission and also a lot of tied grants for specific purpose payments. The taxes for which the state itself has untrammelled control are a reasonably small proportion of the overall budget – things like payroll tax, stamp duty, land tax and another couple of taxes that I want to talk specifically about today. Waste levies – that has been talked about by a number of members opposite, and I believe the member for South-West Coast has had a go during a number of people’s contributions as well, but the harmonisation of Victorian waste levies with New South Wales and South Australia I think is a really important measure, because it is a means of, in effect, using the taxation system to positively influence behaviour so that you do not have the inducement of demand across the border as a consequence of the arbitrage between differential taxation rates. That is a positive thing in that it will simultaneously reduce the incentive for dodgy South Australians and unscrupulous New South Welshmen – and there are many – to come across into our state with their rubbish and to dump it into our landfill, taking advantage of a differential taxation regime. That is not something I think as Victorians we want to encourage and to accept in the long run. It is out of step with neighbouring states and it creates environmental damage for Victoria. But simultaneously, it will also add to the revenue base that Victoria enjoys as a consequence of increased levies.

There is a benefit to this in and of itself. For my community, residents in Greenvale, the single issue that is raised most commonly with me by constituents is the issue of illegal dumping along our roadside verges, particularly Somerton Road and Mickleham Road. We are an area on the verge of a growing urban area and a green wedge, and in that area there is quite a lot of household construction. There are some challenges whereby a very small proportion of the community have an outsized impact upon the amenity and the quality of the environment that we all enjoy. It is a real bugbear. I want to shout out to Hume City Council for the work that they do in being incredibly responsive, as my friend the member for Broadmeadows knows, to residents’ concerns about illegal dumping. One of the challenges, though, as I think we are all aware here, is that it is one of those issues that is at the interface of local and state government as a consequence of our management as a state government of arterial roads like Somerton Road, like Craigieburn Road and like Pascoe Vale Road in the member for Broadmeadows’s electorate, and indeed the member for Pascoe Vale’s. The management of those roads of course is the responsibility of the state government, and the Environment Protection Authority Victoria works with VicRoads to both prevent the incidence of illegal dumping and then respond to it. So I am really happy that they are utilising this revenue-raising measure through the harmonisation of waste levy rates. Effectively that revenue will be sequestered into the EPA to enable it to crack down ‍–

Roma Britnell interjected.

Iwan WALTERS: Absolutely, thank you. Really, it will. It will be sequestered into the EPA to enable them to take the action that I think all of us in this place want to see in our communities – all of us. This harmonisation rate, as I say, is an important thing. It will shift behaviour at the margin and also, as a consequence of the EPA being given that additional revenue, it will have a greater capacity to crack down on that very small number of people across our communities who have an outsized and deleterious impact on quality of life. It is something that I find unfathomable, how somebody could perpetrate that kind of wilful criminal damage upon our community. This money will go some way to ensuring that it is lessened and its impact is lessened.

In the very short time remaining to me this afternoon, I want to talk about the important work the Treasurer has done in relation to gambling taxation reform, which will have the consequence of strengthening the regulatory oversight of casinos in this state. I have had a longstanding interest in anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing issues, and a lot of the pernicious behaviour of casinos in this space was brought to light not as a consequence of the former Liberal–National government, which effectively did nothing when it came to vast quantities of money coming into the country and being laundered through casinos, but as a consequence of really effective investigative journalism from Fairfax and other outlets, as well as state-based inquiries into the casino sector. They have exposed a really dark problem at the heart of casinos. The measures in the taxation bill will strengthen casinos’ obligations to report back regularly to government. I commend this bill to the house.

Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (16:35): I rise to speak on the State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024. This is a taxation bill that will bring more taxes to the state of Victoria and to the community and the families that live and work and reside here in Victoria – 55 new taxes. Before I go on to a couple of those that are introduced in this bill, I would like to rebut what the member for Greenvale was stating. He actually stated that it is politically immature of me – ‘the person from Warrnambool’ I think he called me – to actually think that you have to keep taxing to be able to get income. Well, I remind the member for Greenvale that the former Premier said on the night before he was elected to power a decade ago – his word, which was ironclad – that there would be no new taxes. The member for Greenvale gets up there saying, ‘It’s very justifiable. We’re introducing 55 new taxes because we need the money.’ Well, my friend, what you need is a fiscal responsibility management course to make sure this budget that has been handed down does not get any worse.

The way the Treasurer presented this budget last Tuesday was with absolutely no enthusiasm, almost remorse, but he fell short of apologising to Victorians, which I think very much in the back of the mind he was thinking about. What Victorians now have is a debt of $188 billion by 2028 with an interest bill daily of $26 million, with no plan to pay back that debt. The excuse was that we had COVID. Let me remind particularly the member for Greenvale that all the states in this country had COVID. But we have a debt, unlike the other states, greater than Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania put together. That is absolutely disgraceful and frightening. That is why we have borrowings that mean we have to pay $26 million a day in interest payments by 2028 – $26 million a day. How many schools would that build, how many surf lifesaving clubs for Warrnambool, how many basketball stadiums for Portland, how many basketball stadiums for Warrnambool? How many elective surgery procedures would that fund?

People are languishing in pain as we speak because this government cannot get the health budget in order. The Minister for Health said just a few weeks ago, ‘I will tolerate nothing less than 240,000 ‍elective surgeries done per year.’ Well, guess what, the budget just came out: they will only be doing 200,000. So her words are hollow – her words to the people languishing in pain and desperately needing shoulder replacements, hip replacements, knee replacements. They are struggling and suffering because of the mismanagement of this government – the mismanagement that has seen 55 taxes just in the last decade after saying there will be no more, and there are two more in this bill. The first one that I will discuss is the waste management charge. It has doubled. To put waste into the tips, the state government will be heading towards the pockets of families, which will directly impact not only home owners and young families – all families – but renters as well. That will be passed on, like all the other property charges that equate to 27 of the 55 taxes that this government has introduced.

That is why we have a housing crisis. That is why they have upset the equilibrium in the market. They have not built enough social houses, they have sold off assets and they have taxed the property market so that investors are not coming to the party – they are selling in their droves, and people are being left homeless. For the member for Narre Warren North to actually talk about the fact that they are investing in helping the homeless – well, build the houses, and that helps the homeless. Those services that are handing out swags and offering tents to people are at their wit’s end. Can you imagine working in that sector right now? How disturbing would it be to see these women who are coming in, victims of family violence that this government says they understand – but they have just cut $29 million out of the family violence budget as well – and having to hand them a tent or a swag? Just disgraceful.

Now I will talk about the fire services levy that also will come in people’s rates notices. It will be hidden from people that it is coming from the state government but be absolutely clear – that is what is actually causing the fire services levy rate to go up on your rates bill and your waste management charge. So here we have a government that has put up the fire services levy, significantly hiking up the budget but delaying 83 per cent of existing CFA capital projects – delaying that 83 per cent – so that 28 of the 48 critical new heavy tankers that were originally promised in 2021 have not been delivered. So this is a government that says, ‘But we need more money because we need to pay the fire services,’ the United Firefighters Union members who are in the FRV in Melbourne. No wonder I am hearing from farmers angry as all hell that they as volunteer firefighters will see their farm fire service levy go up by thousands of dollars in many cases to go towards United Firefighters Union demands for higher pay while the CFA members and volunteers struggle to replace their ageing trucks and dilapidated stations. Last year the UFU rejected an offer of a 3 per cent pay rise each year for the next four years plus a $7359 sign-on bonus plus another $2021 annually for four years. Mr Marshall actually even demanded his UFU members get free public transport passes. Seriously, they want wholly funded health insurance plus hikes in allowances on top of overtime. Where does it end, and where is the fairness? But those are just the two taxes in this bill that take it up to 55 new taxes.

What about the ‘helping families’ comment that the Treasurer launched the budget with? What about the $400 payment that is not going to families, it is going to schools, and schools, particularly in my electorate, the Catholic schools, are telling me it is deeply unfair. That is a quote from one of the principals locally. We believe the payment should be means-tested for all students and apply to all students. It should not be based on what school you attend. This policy punishes families for choosing to send their children to a Catholic school. That is what the community think of this very unfair $400 payment. And how is the school supposed to administer that? Put a little bit of thought into how that is going to work. It does not make a lot of sense.

We have got $21.5 billion in taxes, which is crippling that property sector. Those taxes are $7.8 billion in land tax, $10 billion in land transfer duties, $1.4 billion in COVID debt levy on landholdings, $1 billion in the fire services property levy, $127 million in the congestion levy, $221 million in the metropolitan improvement levy, $125 million – it just goes on and on and gets bigger and bigger. At the same time, what are we seeing? Cuts in IVF, public IVF. How do the members for Yan Yean and Narre Warren North look their constituents in the eye and say, ‘We stood up here two years ago and promised public IVF for those families to give them hope that they could have a child.’ Now less than two years later, cut. Cuts to dental – there is a two-year waiting list in my electorate to see a dentist. Why would you cut dental? Cuts to family violence – well, all day we have been hearing how this government, the Labor state government, care about women and care about changes to improve the outcomes for people who are victims of family violence, but they have just cut $29 million from family violence services. Cuts to cancer research – I mean, how low can you go? A 70 per cent cut to cancer research and at the same time funding a $4.1 million scoreboard at a football ground. This government is buying love, and it is a disgraceful show of disgraceful principles that do not even warrant the word ‘principle’ – cuts to mental health when our children and many in our community are in trouble and really needing it, cuts to youth justice, cuts to child protection. This is a government who cannot manage money, and Victorians are paying the price for the mismanagement and the cost blowouts. It is time this government realise how badly they have done and apologise to Victorian communities and their families, because nobody is fooled; in fact the families are hurting.

Eden FOSTER (Mulgrave) (16:45): I am happy to speak today in support of the State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024. This legislation enacts a number of tax-related policies that have been done as part of the 2024–25 state budget, and I would like to thank and congratulate the Treasurer for the effort and the work that has gone into the budget and this bill.

There are a number of big changes that are part of this bill, and I will talk about a few of them tonight. This legislation amends the Land Tax Act 2005 to provide standalone exemptions from land tax for land used for or available for use for social or emergency housing. This change will provide further certainty to the sector, provide a broader range of social and emergency housing with a land tax exemption and encourage innovation in service delivery, with the assurance that social and emergency housing that satisfies these parameters will receive a land tax exemption.

Land will be eligible for the social housing exemption if the commissioner of state revenue determines that it is used exclusively as social housing that is occupied by a person from the Victorian Housing Register who is allocated a tenancy in the social housing because they meet the eligibility criteria for social housing. Land owned by a charitable institution that the commissioner determines is vacant and declared by their owner to be held for future use as social housing will also be exempt for two years or a longer period approved by the commissioner.

One of the main issues that my office tackles is people in very unfortunate personal circumstances, spanning anything from domestic violence to homelessness or substance use, who are seeking support from the social housing system. This legislation helps put a roof over those people’s heads by incentivising the provision of more social housing. We know that putting a roof over people’s heads helps support them in other areas of their life, whether it be in terms of getting employment, escaping domestic violence or even recovering from a substance use issue. This change is just one more example of how this Labor government is supporting the provision of housing for all, with our hallmark $5.3 billion Big Housing Build being Australia’s biggest ever investment in public and community housing.

This government is also committed to protecting and improving Victoria’s environment. Our current waste levy is out of step with our neighbouring states and does not reflect the true environmental cost of dumping rubbish in landfill, so we are looking to harmonise our rates with New South Wales and South Australia’s rates. We want less waste dumped at landfill. Changes to the waste levy are about changing behaviour so that big waste producers create less waste and do more to reduce, reuse and recycle. As a former mayor of the City of Greater Dandenong and a former councillor, I know that waste is a big issue to tackle for our communities. We hear about dumped rubbish quite regularly, and anything we can do to incentivise people to reduce waste in landfill will be an added bonus. These levies will encourage investment in resource recovery infrastructure and disincentivise waste going into landfill. If we do not make any changes, it could encourage big waste producers across the border to send their waste to Victorian landfills. One hundred per cent of waste levy revenue goes towards creating a cleaner, greener Victoria. The revenue raised from the waste levy first goes to fund Environment Protection Authority Victoria, Sustainability Victoria and Recycling Victoria, with the remainder added to the Sustainability Fund to be used for programs supporting climate change action and waste reduction.

I know there are many speakers that want to talk on this particular bill, so I will make my comments short, just to share the love, as I know my colleagues would like to talk about how great this bill is. In summary, the State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024 represents a comprehensive strategy to address pressing societal and environmental challenges, and I am incredibly proud to stand here today and support this legislation wholeheartedly. I commend this bill to the house.

Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (16:50): I thank the member for Mulgrave for going for 5 minutes. I will try and do the same so we can pass the baton around the chamber. I stand up to talk on the State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024 today. We are here talking about tax, and when I speak to people in the electorate of Morwell, in the Latrobe Valley, one of the big issues that they have is making ends meet in day-to-day living. One of the things that they are talking about is the ongoing taxes that they say, in their words, they are being ‘slugged with by the government’. I know that we need to raise taxes to pay for the infrastructure that we need, but when we are, from a regional point of view, spending those taxes on an obsession with a Big Build in Melbourne and our regions are missing out, it is always good to be able to stand up to fly the flag for regional Victoria.

I know the waste management levy, which a few people have touched on here today, is a concern. I know it is going to be a concern with ratepayers. Our councils, because it is going to come out in the council rates, are going to be the ones that cop the brunt of the abuse from the ratepayers as they try and work out how they can fit these extra costs into their cost of living while being able to make sure they have a roof over their family home and are able to put food on the table. You do not have to drive around far in the Latrobe Valley, off track into the bush, to find that people are already dumping rubbish out of the back of their utes or out of their trailers. Like every other member that has stood up here, I do not get why they do it. It is an impost on the community. We want to be able to use our natural resources, to go for bushwalks or to bike ride through our state parks and forests, and to come across tracks which are blocked because people are choosing not to go and pay money at landfill places and not to do the right thing is just going to be a little bit more of an impost on local governments. I can see that being a real concern with the waste management levy.

The other one is the fire services levy. In regional Victoria, especially down in the Latrobe Valley, we are always speaking to our CFA members, and the one thing that most of them want are new facilities ‍– new fire sheds so that they can continue the growth of the CFA to try to entice members to, at the end of the day, look after us in times of crisis and in times of need. A lot of the CFA sheds, as has been spoken about, are hubs of communities. If we are paying a fire levy, we want the money to go to these facilities so we can grow them and expand them. They need new equipment, they need new fire trucks to make sure they are providing a facility and a service to the community, because that is what they want to do. At the end of the day, they want to look after us. We talk about these taxes, and I note there have been 53, soon to be 55, new taxes brought on board by the government. People are feeling it, because it is the people who have to pay these extra taxes. In the conscious of our side of the chamber over here we know that we do have to have taxes, but there are so many taxes and so many new taxes that are hurting small business, hurting our health services and hurting our roads.

Housing, as we have also spoken about, has extra taxes. We want to get people off the streets. We are wanting to give those people that are experiencing violence in the home somewhere to go. As I think the member for Mildura said before, I have had conversations with real estate agents that were telling me that there is a big upturn in mums and dads that are going forward and selling the rental properties that they have rented for a long time to residents. They are not using it for overnight stays. They have long-term residents that are in there. They are actually putting them on the market now because of all these extra costs that are coming through (1) because of the budget and (2) because of extra taxes. So that is what is happening down in the Latrobe Valley, and I think it is right across the state, whether you are in a region or in metro. People are feeling the cost of this budget, the 10th budget of the Allan government, and things are tough on the street. I hope in time that we can actually alleviate the issues and make the cost-of-living crisis that is real and going on with most families in Victoria a little bit better as we move through.

Matt FREGON (Ashwood) (16:56): I will just start by thanking the member for Morwell for giving me a little bit of a go this afternoon and the member for Mulgrave as well; I appreciate that. It is great to rise on this State Taxation Amendment Bill 2024. There are a couple of things I want to say. In regard to the vacant residential land tax changes, which I think the member for Kew mentioned as well, I think this is a good change. There are people in our state who have their holiday homes that are in a trust account, they might have been part of an estate or otherwise, or they have their holiday homes in a company that they may own, which then has supported their business. People can sometimes leverage assets in a company or a trust. They have loans in business, and so I think that this is a wise change to have a date on when that comes in. I think it will assist those people and their situations. I know Noel, who is a tax accountant/lawyer down my way, thinks that is probably a good idea.

The other thing I want to talk about quickly, which is obviously part of our state tax revenue – one of our few levers if you like – is stamp duty. Stamp duty has a pretty bad rap. Nobody likes stamp duty. It is regressive, punitive or whatever words you want to use. But I just want to have a think about very quickly what New South Wales are going through and what they brought in a couple of years ago. It is similar to what we are doing in the commercial aspect, where we are changing from a stamp duty to a property tax. I have no problems with the fact of doing it in the commercial aspect, but I do have hesitancy in bringing that to residential housing. I know that the economist boffins around the world think that that is a much better idea.

I did a few numbers, so bear with me on the numbers, but let us say you have got a property with a sale price of about $800,000, average price, and a land price of let us call it half a million. Stamp duty in Victoria right now on that would be around $43,000. That is a lot of money, especially if you are a first home buyer. You cannot borrow that money. It is a lot of money. But if you go to the New South Wales model and if you opt in, instead of paying that $43,000, you pay $2000 every year. But obviously that will go up in time. So I did a bit of a ‘pull a number out of the air’ and wondered what if you were paying 2.5 per cent on average at CPI or whatever. Well, your $43,000 in today’s money will become $2000, $2100, $2200, $2300, $2500. Let us say you were 35 when you bought this property. By the time you are 50, you have paid $41,000 in the replacement of stamp duty. If you keep going another 15 years, by the time you are 65 you have paid $98,000. You then retire. You then do not have income except for your super, and yet you still have to come up with, in that day’s money, $4500, and it keeps going up. So I think New South Wales are walking into a problem with pensioners in about 20-odd years time.

I would counsel any economists and those treasury boffins around the country who are listening to think about this. Should they ever be arguing it, whether it be a policy from whoever, I would argue you need to put a caveat on this, you need to put a timeline on this. If you want a HECS system or something, sure, as long as there is some final day. Otherwise, you are essentially forcing pensioners to sell their houses in order to downsize and keep money to pay for their life. So from my point of view this state tax bill is a good bill; what New South Wales are doing is a bad bill.

The SPEAKER: The time set down for consideration of the remaining items on the government business program has arrived, and I am required to interrupt business.

Assembly divided on motion:

Ayes (53): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Sam Hibbins, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, 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, Belinda Wilson

Noes (24): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Assembly divided on motion:

Ayes (53): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Sam Hibbins, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, 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, Belinda Wilson

Noes (24): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

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