Tuesday, 29 October 2024
Bills
Duties Amendment (More Homes) Bill 2024
Please do not quote
Proof only
Bills
Duties Amendment (More Homes) Bill 2024
Introduction and first reading
That I introduce a bill for an act to amend the Duties Act 2000 to introduce a temporary concession from duty for newly constructed dwellings in strata subdivisions and for other purposes.
James NEWBURY (Brighton) (12:06): The government has sought to move a bill that the Premier announced this morning in a press conference around 9 o’clock that the government intended to move – at 8:45, I understand. For the background of the house, the government has offered the opposition and I presume the crossbench a briefing at 4:30 this afternoon. The coalition in good faith has gone to the government on a number of occasions and sought to understand when this bill would be debated. It is not unreasonable that the government provide a briefing to the non-government members of the chamber. Unfortunately as yet the government has not provided any confirmation on when the debate on the bill will occur. It is not unreasonable for the government to outline to the house when this bill will be debated, and in good faith we have sought to know that.
I do note that the surprise of this bill is such and the rush of this bill is such that the Parliament’s own program for the day does not list this bill; that just shows the rush of it. And I note that the government did not provide public advice to the Parliament until half an hour after the Premier’s press conference that this was occurring. As I say, this is not about the substance of the bill. Of course the coalition on principal will always have lower taxes than Labor, but it is not unreasonable to understand from the government when they intend to put this bill that is so rushed it is not on the Parliament’s own program for the day.
Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (12:08): I am amazed. I am sure he is doing his best work, but he just does not seem to be up to it. This is the coalition standing in the way of a plan to expand the off-the-plan stamp duty concession that this government has announced. I know everyone on this side wants to see more homes built in Victoria, and I note that the coalition leader –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, this is a procedural debate, and the substance of the matter in no way has been debated. This is simply about the procedure of the issue.
The SPEAKER: Member for Frankston, this is a procedural debate, and I ask you to come back to the matter in front of the house.
Paul EDBROOKE: I note that the coalition leader has said, ‘We’re not going to stand in the way of a tax reduction.’ Well, that is what they are doing right now with this procedural debate.
James Newbury: On a further point of order, Speaker, on relevance, there has been no vote on this matter, so any assertion otherwise is factually misleading.
The SPEAKER: Member for Frankston, speak to the procedural motion.
Paul EDBROOKE: Member for Brighton, you do go on. It was great to see you on the news the other night. You did a fantastic job.
The SPEAKER: Member for Frankston, through the Chair.
James Newbury: On a further point of order, Speaker, the member has now defied you twice.
The SPEAKER: Member for Frankston.
Paul EDBROOKE: Thank you, Speaker. I have not defied your rulings at all. I do defy the opinions of the member for Brighton, though. It is us on this side of the house that have made a raft of amazing announcements in the last week, and this is part of them. This is what we need to do to get more homes in Victoria for Victorians.
James Newbury: On a further point of order, Speaker, in relation to your previous two rulings, you have ruled that this is a procedural motion. At no time did I speak to anything other than the procedure before the house, and I would say that the member again is defying your ruling.
The SPEAKER: Manager of Opposition Business, you need to just state your point of order.
James Newbury: Relevance.
Paul EDBROOKE: I would not like to be the Manager of Opposition Business.
The SPEAKER: Member for Frankston! This is a warning. You will speak to the procedural motion before the house.
Paul EDBROOKE: I know that everyone on this side of the house looks forward to speaking on this particular bill. I think –
Paul EDBROOKE: Well, how is the court case going, Mr Pesutto?
The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! It is inappropriate to sledge members on their feet across the chamber. Manger of Opposition –
The SPEAKER: The member for Berwick is warned.
James Newbury: On a further point of order, Speaker, a fourth time on relevance.
The SPEAKER: Member for Frankston, if you cannot speak to the motion, I would ask you to resume your seat.
Paul EDBROOKE: I will speak to the motion. It is those on that side of the house that block motions like this, that do not want to speak on housing, that do not want to actually debate legislation like this that actually houses Victorians. They are blockers. They know that. As people on that side of the house, they should be ashamed of themselves.
The SPEAKER: The member for Frankston will resume his seat and will no longer be heard.
Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (12:12): On the procedural motion before the house, this is about respect to the house and respect to Victorians. The government should work through the Parliament. We are not running a Parliament by media conference. There are processes of the house and forms of the house as to how those in the house, particularly the opposition, can be informed of forthcoming legislation, and that has not happened. This procedural debate is about the fact that the government has not showed respect to all Victorians, through us, in this house here. Every Victorian would want a tax cut to some of the 55 increased and new taxes that this government has introduced. We are not arguing against tax cuts. We are arguing against the process as to how this legislation has been brought before the house. I support the Manager of Opposition Business the member for Brighton in raising this particular issue. The government treats this house like its own pet toy. They do not follow the forms of the house. They do not follow the procedures that have gone down over the decades and over the centuries as to how the executive government is actually responsible to the house. It is not the house being responsible to the executive government, and I would urge people to support the member for Brighton’s procedural motion.
Mary-Anne THOMAS (Macedon – Leader of the House, Minister for Health, Minister for Health Infrastructure, Minister for Ambulance Services) (12:13): We have heard quite a bit of sooking from those on the other side this morning. This bill, let us be clear, is around two pages, and apparently this is going to be a real challenge for those on the other side to wrap their heads around.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, on relevance, if it is only two pages, perhaps the government might want to provide it.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mary-Anne THOMAS: As I said, what we have seen consistently over the last week or so, or indeed I might say over the last 10 years or so, is that those on the other side will do everything in their power to stop building houses here in –
James Newbury: On a further point of order, Speaker, on relevance, the coalition has not opposed the motion before the house.
The SPEAKER: On relevance?
James Newbury: On relevance.
The SPEAKER: Leader of the House, this is a procedural motion. I would ask you to speak to the procedural motion about why this bill should be introduced.
Mary-Anne THOMAS: Because on this side of the house we are committed to delivering more homes and more opportunities for Victorians. Those on the other side will do everything they can to block –
James Newbury: On a further point of order, Speaker, this is a procedural motion. The government will have every opportunity in the debate to debate the substance of the bill. I would ask you to bring them back to the motion.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will come back to the procedural motion.
Mary-Anne THOMAS: I will make the point – and I have it on good authority that the opposition have received a copy of the bill – it is urgent. It is very urgent that we get on and build more homes for Victorians. That is our focus, but we understand that those on the other side need some time to understand how you reduce stamp duty in order to build more houses. They need some time to wrap their heads around that concept. We will ensure that the bill is not debated until such time as those on the other side have received the briefing that they suggest that they require.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, I just want to clarify: did the Leader of the House say that the briefing would occur before the bill is debated? It has not been provided to the opposition.
The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.
Motion agreed to.
James NEWBURY (Brighton) (12:17): I seek a brief explanation of the bill.
Tim PALLAS (Werribee – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Economic Growth) (12:17): The bill will put in place a temporary expanded off-the-plan land transfer duty concession for new apartments, units and townhouses to encourage more off-the-plan purchases and support the delivery of more homes for buyers and renters across the state.
Read first time.
Tim PALLAS: I move, by leave:
That this bill be read a second time immediately under standing order 61(3)(c).
Motion agreed to.
Statement of compatibility
Tim PALLAS (Werribee – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Economic Growth) (12:20): In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility for the Duties Amendment (More Homes) Bill 2024:
In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Duties Amendment (More Homes) Bill 2024:
In my opinion, the Duties Amendment (More Homes) Bill 2024, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with the human rights as set out in the Charter. The provisions of the Duties Amendment (More Homes) Bill 2024 do not engage the human rights listed in the Charter because they either do not affect natural persons, or they operate beneficially in relation to natural persons.
TIM PALLAS MP
Treasurer
Second reading
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Duties Amendment (More Homes) Bill 2024 amends the Duties Act 2000 to introduce a new temporary off-the-plan land transfer duty concession for purchases of eligible apartments and townhouses, for contracts entered into from 21 October 2024 for 12 months. The new concession will be available to off-the-plan purchasers of dwellings within a strata subdivision, and will allow purchasers to deduct 100 per cent of the construction costs incurred on or after the contract date, for the purposes of determining the dutiable value of the purchaser’s property.
The new concession will encourage more off-the-plan purchases of apartments and townhouses by providing a land transfer duty benefit to purchasers, including investors, who are not eligible for existing off-the-plan concessions that are currently available for first home buyers and owner-occupiers. The existing off-the-plan concessions for first home buyers and owner-occupiers will continue to apply. The new off-the-plan concession will be available for a 12-month period commencing from 21 October 2024.
I commend the bill to the house.
James NEWBURY (Brighton) (12:22): I move:
That debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
That debate be adjourned until later this day.
James NEWBURY (Brighton) (12:22): I just briefly note that the government has –
Members interjecting.
James NEWBURY: This is a procedural motion, and I do note on the procedural motion that the Treasurer has moved that the debate be adjourned until later this day. The Leader of the House said across the table earlier that the debate would not occur until after the government’s bill briefing had occurred, and we accept that offer that that would not occur until after the bill briefing. It would be unreasonable for a government to offer a bill briefing but move to have debate before that has happened. That is not an unreasonable request. So we accept the fact that the government has provided that offer, and we accept of course that offer and we take that offer in good faith, because any breach of that would be a very sad and sorry reflection on the government. So briefly, we do expect that the government will rush this bill through later today, but we accept their offer and assurance that the 4:30 bill briefing will happen before that occurs.
Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (12:24): Well, I am glad that the member for Brighton has welcomed the government’s reasonable approach to this bill and then has had a change from one procedural debate to another. It is good to see that they are coming to some sort of frame around the importance of bringing this discussion on.
The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition!
Tim RICHARDSON: Look, the Leader of the Opposition is a bit vocal. For those that missed it on Hansard and the millions tuning in, that is why you sit here. I would rather be a contender than a pretender, my friend. I would rather be a contender than a pretender.
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Mordialloc, I caution you about contributions not being addressed through the Chair.
Tim RICHARDSON: It is really great to hear those reflections from the member for Brighton, because we have got a busy legislative program; we do not want to tie it up in procedural debate.
Members interjecting.
Tim RICHARDSON: Those can interject that we cannot manage it, but we are: we are managing this legislative program to bring on these important legislative changes, and why wouldn’t we when we see the importance of housing bring on this discussion? This is an opportune time in our state, at a critical moment –
Tim RICHARDSON: The member for Gippsland South can interject, but it is really important that we are talking about housing. It is really important that we are talking about housing on behalf of Victorians, in the procedural nature that this is taking, to make sure that we are not wasting a moment. The catalogue of discussion that we have had in the last two weeks around that, coming to this point and this procedural outcome here, will strengthen our approach to housing and has brought on this bill and discussion.
The bill briefing, to get people’s head around it, even though there has been cross-discussion and people have seen things – that is fine to get that understanding and further commentary around that. But this is a really important moment for Victorians as we undertake a significant amount of reforms, including this bill right here. So to not waste a moment is really important – to bring this forward as quickly as possible. We have seen previously the member for Brighton say, ‘Don’t talk about procedural motions.’ The member for Brighton is the record holder in this place for bringing on procedural motions, criticising the legislative framework and then holding up the time of those opposite. So it is a really important thing around having the opportunity –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, on relevance, this is a procedural motion, and the quickest way to get to the bill is to not debate the motion.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mordialloc to continue.
Tim RICHARDSON: This is important. I am glad that there has been a bit of a change and a bit of a scurry from one procedural debate to another. I am really proud of the member for Brighton for fronting up and saying that on this procedural motion he has seen the light of day with his colleagues to make sure that briefing is held to understand why this government is prioritising legislation on housing and bringing it on so quickly – not staring through windows and opposing every time they can and opposing the timeframes for bills. This is really important. And maybe at that bill briefing there will be an epiphany to support the legislative program and agenda to get more houses and to bring this on as well. I welcome this procedural discussion, the member for Brighton’s enlightenment in this space and that he is not going to be a nightmare for housing anymore – he is going to be a builder not a blocker. Get to that briefing at 4:30, my friend, and see how you go.
Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.