Tuesday, 29 October 2024
Bills
Duties Amendment (More Homes) Bill 2024
Duties Amendment (More Homes) Bill 2024
Second reading
Debate resumed on motion of Tim Pallas:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (18:02): I rise to address the government’s Duties Amendment (More Homes) Bill 2024, a bill that was made available in this place only hours ago – a bill that was made available in this place shortly after midday when the Parliament resumed for this sitting week. I could not have imagined in my wildest dreams that at 6 pm on the same day the government would seek to debate this legislation in the Parliament. The opposition has had very limited time not only to consider the bill before us but very limited time to consult with stakeholders and very little time to speak amongst ourselves and work out what our precise positioning on this could be. But we have done that. In the short time that has been allowed us by the government we have consulted with a number of people, we have spoken amongst ourselves, and I can inform the house that the opposition will not be opposing the government’s bill.
It is important above everything else that Victorians are respected, that Victorians are valued, and that the important aspiration of more Victorians getting in homes and having a roof over their heads is respected and held as the most important thing and the most important driver. Now, although we will not be opposing this bill, I can inform the house that I fully intend to critique this bill. I fully intend to critique the way that the government has gone about announcing this policy and bringing this bill to the Parliament. I fully intend to critique that Victorians may be winners as a result of this bill, but there are many, many more Victorians who will be losers as a result of this bill.
This measure that we are discussing has origins that go back to 2017 when this same Labor government – the same Labor government occupying the government benches now; the same Treasurer occupying 1 Treasury Place now – sought to remove this exemption. They sought to scrap this exemption in 2017. Now in 2024, because there is a housing crisis which Victorians are dealing with, here comes the government – here they come, coming back seeking to reverse something which they imposed upon Victorians in the first place, after the harm has been done. That is not just me speaking – that is the Real Estate Institute of Victoria at the time, and I am happy to provide this to Hansard. This is a quote directly from Hansard in 2017:
The REIV does not support the removal of the off-the-plan concessions for investors. This change will reduce the attractiveness of property investment in Victoria, further limiting rental supply at a time when vacancy rates are already tightening …
This Labor government in 2017 received this warning from industry, and yet they proceeded with it; they proceeded with scrapping the exemption. They proceeded to make life harder for Victorians, often vulnerable Victorians, many Victorians who could not afford to buy a home without this exemption being in place, and now they come to the Parliament in 2024 not even with a sorry, not even with an apology, not even with an acknowledgement that what they did in 2017 was the wrong thing by Victorians. No, no, they do not do that. They come here simply seeking to reverse it – and not reversing it in whole, reversing it in part. The Shadow Treasurer at the time was Mr O’Brien. Gee, I am looking forward to his contribution on this debate; that will most certainly be a ticketed event. If I could eat popcorn in this place I would, and I am sure the member for Malvern will make that contribution at some stage over the next few days. But Mr O’Brien in 2017, the then Shadow Treasurer, warned the then government, warned the then and now Treasurer, Mr Pallas:
If you take investors out of the pool for off-the-plan projects, which is the intended effect of this tax increase, you will simply see fewer projects get the go-ahead.
And lo and behold! If I was the member for Malvern I would feel vindicated at this point in time. I would feel like saying to the government, ‘Gee, I told you so.’
But we are not arrogant about this. There is no hubris coming from the opposition benches on this at all, because the impact of the government’s poor judgement and poor decision-making in 2017 has meant that fewer Victorians, often vulnerable Victorians, have had the opportunity to own their own home. Fewer Victorians have had the opportunity to have a roof over their head. And we know in this place – well, we should know in this place – that a roof over your head is not just that, it is not just about the bricks and mortar, it is about the stability that housing offers those people who occupy it. It is about the stability for families. It is about the stability for single Victorians, for older Victorians, for vulnerable Victorians that was cut out from underneath those people in 2017, and now the government comes back in 2024 seeking to partially reverse their decision at that time. At the time, the Treasurer claimed that axing the off-the-plan concession was about fairness and ‘ensuring that the government is supporting first home owners over investors’. I will say that again. At the time, the Treasurer claimed axing the off-the-plan tax concession was about fairness and ‘ensuring that the government is supporting first home owners over investors’.
I would like to hear the Treasurer come into this place and frankly eat those words. He caused this problem; this government caused this problem. This government over the last 10 years has contributed significantly to the housing crisis that Victorians are now being impacted by, and yet they come in here with this measly proposal saying that this will be the panacea to the woes which we have created. Well, I am telling you now it will not be. It will not be – it is time-limited. The government has said that they will reverse this change which they made in 2017, and it will only be available for 12 months. It will only be available for 12 months. There are very few Victorians who I think will take up this new initiative by the government, and we know that by the government’s own modelling on this. We know this, because the government itself has said that this will only cost the budget $55 million. They themselves know that a measure like this will be limited in its uptake.
There is something very interesting. Let me run you through a little bit of a timeline. Shortly after midday today we received the bill. We then confirmed with the government that we would have a bill briefing at 4:30 today. That bill briefing was still taking place when the government first indicated that this bill will be debated in this chamber from 6 pm tonight. So while we are in the bill briefing, while we are scrutinising the bill, while we are asking questions of the government, the government then indicate to us that they want to debate this bill in this place at 6 pm tonight. During the course of that bill briefing there were a number of questions raised – very valid questions, eminently sensible questions – by my colleagues in this place.
Brad ROWSWELL: Member for Mordialloc, you are being disorderly by commenting and not sitting in your place, which is over there. So you just calm down, sport. You will get your turn. It will not be a ticketed event, but you will get your turn. Just do not get Simon Love in here. There will be mass confusion.
We were asking eminently sensible questions during the course of that bill briefing. For example, we heard during that bill briefing that this temporary and time-limited measure will be extended not just to citizens but also to investors. And a valid question to ask is: what does the government expect? Does the government expect there to be more investors taking up this offer, this time-limited offer, or does the government expect more citizens to be taking up this time-limited offer? Because if the intent of this policy is to get more Victorians into homes and the reality of this is that the government expects more investors to engage with this temporary and time-limited measure, then there is no guarantee that more Victorians will get into homes. There is no guarantee. If the aspiration of this policy is to get more Victorians into homes, then the government should surely be able to demonstrate that this policy will deliver that. And in that bill briefing at 4:30 today we asked that question. We asked for the modelling. That question was taken on notice, and we still do not know.
The government will come in here and they will say that this policy will get more Victorians into homes, but they cannot demonstrate that that will actually be the case. They are licking their finger and they are putting it in the wind, hoping that this temporary and limited measure will in fact do that. What if the majority of people who take up this time-limited measure that the government is proposing are in fact investors? What if those investors in fact sit on that property and do not occupy it or sit on that property and do not rent it out – sit on the property simply to increase their asset base without it becoming viable housing stock for Victorians, which should be the intent of any housing policy? What if that occurs?
I think the government perhaps – and I do not want to give them too much credit – are a little bit smarter than they look. Because that property if it is bought by an investor and if it sits there unoccupied, I am sure the Treasurer, I am sure the Premier and I am sure the State Revenue Office will be there rubbing their hands with glee waiting to charge the vacant land tax on that property at 1 per cent in the first year, 2 per cent in the second year, 3 per cent in the third year, after the dirty deal they did with the Greens in the other place, and that 3 per cent sitting for the foreseeable future. I think it is an eminently sensible thing to ask the government. If the intent of this policy is to get more Victorians into homes, then demonstrate that that will be the case. Show us the modelling. Where is the modelling? They cannot show us the modelling. They cannot for the life of them confirm that that is in fact the case.
The bottom line on this is that the government cannot be trusted to deliver real taxation reform. The government cannot be trusted to deliver outcomes for Victorians that will benefit them in the housing policy space. That is the bottom line. They have had 10 years to demonstrate that they actually care about Victorians. They have had 10 years to demonstrate that they care about where Victorians live. They have had 10 years to demonstrate that they have the policy settings and the policy solutions to get more Victorians into homes. But as I have contended in this speech, what they have actually done, by reducing the ability of Victorians to get into homes in 2017 by removing the stamp duty concession that we are now partially considering today, is make policies that have in fact contributed to the housing crisis that Victoria is in at the moment.
Fifty-five new or increased taxes in the last 10 years, with 29 of those being property taxes. It is really simple, and I will say it slowly for government members so hopefully they have a better chance of understanding: if you tax something more, it gets more expensive. If you tax something more, it does not get cheaper.
Brad ROWSWELL: And for the benefit of the member for Wendouree, who has a puzzled look on her face at the minute, I am happy to say it again. If you tax something more, it does not get any cheaper; in fact, it gets more expensive.
On the front page of Sunday’s Herald Sun, what did we see? We saw this smoke signal being sent up from the government’s economic statement, an economic statement that apparently will promise and deliver the world – except for tax reform. They have no appetite for reducing those 29 taxes on property that they have introduced over the last 10 years. They have no intent of doing that at all. Fifty-five new or increased taxes in the last 10 years, 29 of which have been on property – and you wonder why Victoria is in the middle of a housing crisis. It is because Labor cannot be trusted to deliver the tax reform and the structural reform that are required to get more Victorians into homes. They simply cannot be trusted. And this is the truth: it has taken 10 years of Labor treating Victorians with contempt, it has taken 10 years of budget mismanagement and it has taken 10 years of Labor taxing Victorians more than they have ever been taxed before for us to be in the situation that we are in at the moment – the economic basket case that Victoria is recognised as at the moment. Just a warning: should we have the opportunity to govern after 2026 – and I fully intend to be sitting on that side of the chamber after that point, together with my colleagues – it is going to take at least 10 years to unpick the circumstance that Labor has got us into over the last 10 years.
Some people have described this temporary measure that the government has proposed as insignificant, and I would be one of those people. In fact at a recent doorstop interview with the Leader of the Opposition I referred to this measure as a drop, in a drop, in a drop in the Pacific Ocean, and I do that again today. That is exactly what this is. It is a drop, in a drop, in a drop in the Pacific Ocean.
The government say that they listen to industry experts. They say that they hear industry experts, but I can tell you they simply do not. At the Real Estate Institute of Victoria, in response to this measure, which was introduced only last week, their newly appointed CEO Kelly Ryan said this move is a good first step to release the pressure valve but that REIV were hoping for more and are now calling for broader stamp duty reform in Victoria. Industry sees through the spin. They see through the spin, the Labor spin, over the last 10 years. They know that over the last 10 years Labor has increased taxes on property and that has had an impact on housing affordability and home ownership. They see through all of that, and they are calling them out.
The Real Estate Buyers Agents Association of Australia president Melinda Jennison said the government likely has a hidden agenda to this reform, with increased infrastructure charges and levies likely to flow from inner-city developments. She said that off-the-plan projects also come with greater risk for homebuyers, including a lack of certainty in the eventual quality of the build and the timeline for their construction. Melinda Jennison of the Real Estate Buyers Agents Association of Australia sees through Labor’s spin. She knows that over the last 10 years Labor could not be trusted on property taxes and taxes generally. She knows the impact of Labor’s 29 new or increased property taxes, which have actually made property more expensive, have made housing more unaffordable, have made home ownership more out of reach and have made Victoria a place where investors are fleeing from.
Propertyology head of research Simon Pressley said that the government’s stamp duty offer is a trap for buyers:
It is well known that off-the-plan property purchases have significantly more associated risks than established properties …
The government’s proposal to lure people into such a trap by scrapping stamp duty on new dwellings is reckless policy.
I dare say that Mr Pressley, the head of research at Propertyology, is saying this because he knows the truth of this Labor government. He knows that Labor cannot be trusted. He knows what Labor has done and has not done over the last 10 years, and he has formed this view as a result.
Charter Keck Cramer national research executive Richard Temlett said that while industry data shows that this reform could result in 32,000 additional sales, results are likely to be lower as there are fewer than 7000 off-the-plan options currently being marketed. He said:
The government can’t fall into the trap of thinking it will bring –
more development –
… online, the market won’t turn on overnight.
A very sensible contribution indeed from Mr Temlett of Charter Keck Cramer. This of course is just the latest warning bell that has been sounded to the government, and here is hoping the government will in fact listen.
One of the other critiques that we have of this bill currently before the house, and at 4:30 today during the government’s bill briefing I asked this question of the Treasurer’s office: is the government considering extending this currently time-limited proposal further than a year, because we know that in the investment world investors need more than 12 months to make investment decisions. Sure, a 12-month measure might very well create some sort of stimulus, but what we really need – what Victorians really need, what those looking for their own home, their first home, really need – is the certainty of more than 12 months. Under the policy in this bill, they simply do not have it.
The government claims that this temporary cut to stamp duty will support their plan to build some 80,000 new homes per year, a target that the government continues to fall well short of by a 30 per cent margin each year. In reality this reform will not meaningfully address the core issues driving Victoria’s housing affordability crisis. The Allan government’s exorbitant property taxes are deterring the supply of new housing development across the state. As I was saying before, since 2014, 29 of the 55 new or increased taxes and charges introduced by the Labor government have been property-based taxes. Of course it is not just time limited, it is also limited in scope. Under the Allan Labor government’s new concession, freestanding family homes are excluded from this exemption. While Victorians interested in living in an apartment or a unit or a townhouse could claim this exemption up to any value, Victorians seeking to build a house on land to accommodate their family will simply not have this option.
See, on this side of the chamber in the Liberal and National parties, Victoria’s alternative government, we do not believe that Victorians searching for homes should be crammed into one- and two-bedroom units. No, no, no. We believe in housing choice. We believe in enabling Victorians to have the choice to live in an apartment if they so wish or a townhouse if they so wish or a family home if they so wish, and that is another flaw of this bill being considered today – it limits choice.
The bottom line for me is this: after 10 years of Labor and after 10 Labor budgets, Labor simply cannot be trusted to deliver meaningful housing reform and meaningful tax reform. We have already seen that in recent communiqués from this government.
One of the other questions we asked in the bill briefing, again at 4:30 just shy of 2 hours ago, was: did the government ever consider capping the property value when they were considering this policy? The answer from the ministerial adviser was that a number of options were considered, but in the end, they decided not to cap the rate at which stamp duty would be exempted.
Here is the thing, here is the absurdity: there are properties available that fit the government’s definition that would be subject to this exemption. For some properties, their value is $23 million. There are apartments that are available for quite literally multimillions of dollars. If there was a person – or persons or a group of people or a blind trust or whatever you like – that sought to acquire an off-the-plan property that had a value of $23 million, their tax saving would be up to $1.475 million. Again, I think this has been completely and utterly rushed. It is completely and utterly rushed policy – policy on the run – by a Labor government that is being dictated to by the polls as opposed to good policy. And we see that today – $1.47 million in potential savings. If the intent of this policy is to get more Victorians into homes, if the intent of this policy is to make housing more affordable and more available and if this policy is targeting younger Victorians or vulnerable Victorians, why then wouldn’t the government have considered a cap? It is an absolute and utter absurdity for there to be a $23 million apartment – and they do exist. They do exist. The member for Bentleigh is here. He is on realestate.com, double-checking my assertion.
Brad ROWSWELL: Please do, member for Bentleigh. I encourage you to. The member for Frankston is being a bit quiet over there. Are you doing your research as well? $23 million and a tax saving potentially of $1.475 million – that is an absolute and utter absurdity. It is not in line with community values and it is not in line with community expectation. It is just incredible that the Labor government would allow such a circumstance to take place.
Industry experts have told us that Labor’s increased taxes make up to 42 per cent of the cost of a new home, with the Urban Development Institute of Australia stating there is a direct and well-documented correlation between property taxes and growing house prices:
… almost half of every mortgage repayment goes towards paying off these taxes.
When will they learn? When will they learn that basic principle that if you tax something more it does not get cheaper? If you tax something more, it gets more expensive. When will they learn that taking genuine tax reform off the agenda is not the answer to getting more Victorians into homes and it is not the answer to making housing more affordable? It is in fact the repellent of that. It will make housing more unaffordable, it will make housing more unavailable and it will mean that housing is further out of reach.
I say to Victorians; I say to you, Acting Speaker Mullahy; I say to government members, those who care to listen; and I say to my colleagues: the people who can be trusted to actually make housing more affordable and more available in this state are not the Labor government. They have had their chance. They have had 10 years to fix this, and they have not. In fact they have stuffed it further. Because of their actions, because of their inaction, they have made housing more unaffordable and unavailable for Victorians. What Victorians truly need at this point in time is a new way of doing things. What they need is to say goodbye and ta-ta to a tired Labor government who have had their chance and who have frankly stuffed it. What we need is a change in government, a Liberal and a National party together, in coalition, working in the interest of Victorians – a Liberal and National party working in coalition, understanding and respecting Victorian taxpayer dollars, Victorians’ hard-earned money, and understanding the plight of many vulnerable Victorians who want to get a roof over their head but who cannot get a roof over their head because of the high-taxing regime imposed upon them by this Labor government over the last 10 years. What we need in Victoria at the minute, now more so than ever, is a fresh start. It is an opportunity to say Labor, and the Labor government over the last 10 years, is but a thing of the past. Victorians need a reset and we need it now.
Labor are the people who have caused this problem. The Premier has had a seat at the cabinet table over the last 10 years. The Treasurer has been Treasurer over the last 10 years. It is because –
Brad ROWSWELL: Member for Bentleigh, I have still got 1 minute and 55 seconds to go, and I will be taking all of my time, don’t you worry. Sit back, mate. Sit back and relax. This is what is referred to at Toastmasters as the crescendo, mate, and I am pleased you are here to listen to it.
They have had 10 years to get this right, and all Victorians know that they cannot be trusted to deliver that. All Victorians know that the lack of integrity with which this government has operated over the last 10 years has impacted them. Victorians know that when Labor say that they are introducing a temporary tax measure, as the head of research at Propertyology has indicated, what that truly means is that there could be more taxes on the horizon. They have had 10 years. The Labor government have had 10 years to get this right, and they have not. Victorians are suffering because of it.
It is policy on the run, introduced in this place shortly after midday today, with a bill briefing at 4:30 and now debated in the chamber at 6 pm. This is no way to run decent, well-considered, thought-through policy that will have a lasting impact on those vulnerable Victorians who simply want a roof over their head. Victorians need a fresh start. We are the parties to deliver that fresh start in November 2026. Between you and me, Acting Speaker Mullahy, I just wish it would come a hell of a lot sooner than two years away.
Nick STAIKOS (Bentleigh) (18:31): I do not dislike this guy, I have got to say. I went to school with Brad. I remember when we were in year 12 the school production of choice that year was Les Misérables, and the member for Sandringham starred in Les Misérables. In fact on our last day of school you sang Bring Him Home, I remember that. But he is not leading a revolution in this place. He was very, very long odds for the leadership of that kombi van opposition, so he is not leading a revolution in this place. And after that 30-minute contribution, I do not think he is going anywhere. He did declare halfway through that rant that he was on his way to this side of the chamber. We will not have you, member for Sandringham; we will not have you in our caucus.
I have got to say I am really pleased to be speaking on the Duties Amendment (More Homes) Bill 2024, because, frankly, this speaks to our values. It speaks to our values as a government, and it has exposed them for their values. You often hear from members of the opposition about vulnerable Victorians, but what have they ever done for vulnerable Victorians? They have paid lip-service to vulnerable Victorians; they have never actually done anything.
The member for Sandringham declared that a roof over your head is not about bricks and mortar, it is about stability. Isn’t that what we have been saying? Isn’t that the position of this government? Well, on that side of the house it is just words, because when it comes to actually ensuring that we have the housing for the next generation, this government is looking 30 years into the future – we are looking at what Melbourne is going to look like in the 2050s; we are planning for the next generation – and we are met with complete opposition by those opposite.
We should not be surprised at that, but I sat here for 30 minutes listening to the member for Sandringham’s contribution on this bill, and I was absolutely amazed by the things that were coming out of his mouth, including lamenting the fact that ‘freestanding family homes are excluded’ and saying that people should not be crammed into one-bedroom units.
Well, these tiny homes he is talking about – I have been living in one for the last six years. My tiny home has three bedrooms. It has three bathrooms. It has a front yard, it has a backyard, it has a driveway, it has a garage. I have been living in a townhouse for the last six years, and my townhouse is on a block that used to have just one property; it now has two. I would not consider that a tiny home; I would consider that a family home. The Premier recently said that she wants Victoria to be the townhouse capital of Australia, and I fully support her in that.
You know, way back in 2005 I was elected to Glen Eira council. I was 19 years old, and I remember discussion in the community about inappropriate development centred around this new phenomenon of people with quarter-acre blocks subdividing their properties and building two in the place of one home. Back then some people considered that inappropriate development. But, you know what, the community has moved on since then. Everyone except the Liberal Party I think has moved on since then. The reality is in the middle ring of Melbourne we need to use land more efficiently. I would have thought that the Liberal Party would have understood that and would have been supportive of that.
I listened to the member for Sandringham; he was all apoplectic about this bill, where we are actually slashing stamp duty for off-the-plan townhouses, apartments and units. He was all apoplectic about this bill, but then 20 minutes into his contribution he wanted it for more than a year. He was going on about this bill for 20 minutes, but then he wanted more of it. That does not really make much sense. Then he said, ‘They’ve had 10 years to demonstrate that they care about where people live.’ Well, member for Sandringham, who is no longer in the chamber, we do care about where people live. We want people to live in your electorate. You do not want more people to live in your electorate. We want more people to live in the Sandringham electorate. That is why the Suburban Rail Loop starts – where – in the Sandringham electorate. And who is opposing the Suburban Rail Loop? The member for Sandringham.
The member for Sandringham and I are regular guests on a program on Southern FM called A Newsman and His Music. It is hosted by Walkley award winning journalist Colin Tyrus. Recently the member for Sandringham was on A Newsman and His Music and he said, and I have the transcript in front of me:
As I said over the weekend when I spoke to media, you can’t actually raise a family in a tunnel. You need a home to raise a family, and, you know, the priority of the Suburban Rail Loop over other things that our community needs is simply wrong.
Then you go further down the page and Colin Tyrus says:
You mentioned housing before, and there is a lot of talk about more multistorey housing and particularly affordable housing, which is much needed in our community as you know. What’s your attitude to so-called high-rise in activity centres? That is, near railway stations and so on?
What was his response?
Well again the community didn’t vote for it. I mean, the government says that they went to two elections saying, you know, that they would introduce a Suburban Rail Loop, and yes they did, and yes they were elected at both of those elections and good on them, but we’re only finding out about some of the implications of the Suburban Rail Loop now, including 18-storey high-rise, high-density developments neighbouring residential areas. The community didn’t vote for that. It doesn’t want that. It’s out of step and out of character with the area.
Those 18-storey developments that the member for Sandringham is talking about are on the old Highett Gasworks site on the Nepean Highway. So if the member for Sandringham is saying that we cannot have this sort of development on an old gasworks site on the Nepean Highway on not just the Frankston line but also the new Suburban Rail Loop, between two activity centres, where can you put this development? The answer to that is: not in the electorate of Sandringham, not in the electorate of Brighton, not in any of their electorates – let us push this development to the urban fringe.
You know what, as I said, I have known him a long time, and the member for Sandringham needs to check his privilege, because he has the opportunity to live in the area in which he was raised. Me too; I own a home in Bentleigh. I was born in Bentleigh. I was raised in Bentleigh. I am as Bentleigh as you get. You know what, I visit the 23 schools in my electorate, and I want all of those young people to also have the opportunity to live in Bentleigh. That is what we are about. When you talk about values, that is the difference between the people on this side of the house and the people on that side of the house.
I repeat that the member for Sandringham needs to check his privilege because, frankly, that contribution has given me a bit of motivation to get in touch with every millennial and every zoomer in the Sandringham electorate and to tell them this is what their local member thinks. Your local member believes that unless you are wealthy you should live 2 hours away from Melbourne. Frankly, that is what he thinks.
When it all boils down to it, we have a housing crisis which is just getting worse. As our population grows – and our population is growing for all sorts of reasons – it will get worse and worse. He did not talk about housing supply in his 30 minutes, but if we do not ensure that we are increasing housing supply, it is just going to mean that only the wealthy will be able to afford a roof over their heads. Is that the society that we want? I firmly believe it is the society that those opposite want. That is why I am proud to be Labor: because we believe in dignity. We believe in the dignity that a roof over your head brings. If you do not have stable housing, you do not have a hope for a life of dignity – for a secure, well-paid job. That is what we believe on this side of the house, and that is what our Premier is absolutely committed to. I commend the bill to the house.
Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (18:41): I rise to make a contribution on this particular bill. I would like to rename this bill the road to Damascus bill. If you think about Damascus and Paul the Apostle and his trip down the road to Damascus and his conversion to Christianity and supporting Jesus, if you go to the definitions, the road to Damascus is about an important point in a person’s life where a great change of idea or belief takes place, usually a reversal of some pre-existing idea or belief. If you actually go back and read Hansard from 2017, read the current Treasurer’s Hansard in the Matter of Public Importance (MPI) and then read the current Treasurer’s Hansard in the budget of that time and the tax act of that particular time and then you fast forward and you look that the bill we are dealing with now and you particularly look at the current Premier’s press release, they have both had a road to Damascus moment.
Back in 2017 the Treasurer, talking about the Homes for Victorians: Affordability, Access and Choice policy announcement of the government at that particular time, talked about the fact that:
This government will not stand idly by, watching the benefits of a rising property market returned to increasing fewer hands. We want to ensure that we can broaden accessibility to the housing market and return some stability and comfort to those renting or in community housing.
In other words, they hated people that owned property and might provide a rental property for someone. That is how people actually rent a house. Someone else owns it so they can rent it. But this government seems to have the concept that somehow those people who own a home, who have scraped and saved to buy a house as an investment, as part of their superannuation, should not be able to rent it, or if they do, they should be taxed out of existence to do that. That is what we are seeing in this house. At that particular time the Treasurer talked about the fact that he effectively did not like people that owned houses for rent. He also said:
The Andrews government is not content to sit on its hands while an entire generation is locked out of housing.
Well, I think from 2017 to 2024 we have seen an entire generation locked out of housing by all the property taxes that this particular government has put on – as the Shadow Treasurer said, 55 new and increased taxes since this government came into power, 29 of those taxes on property. That is what has locked people out of the housing market.
He went on to say in his MPI contribution of March 2017 that the:
… concession only exists in this state, and it is about time it became … more targeted. This will help to tilt the scales back towards buyers who intend to occupy the property as their primary place of residence. This will even the playing field between owner-occupiers and investors, and it aligns with the government’s goal of improving home ownership.
Everyone aspires to home ownership. It is the great Australian dream. But this government has done more in living memory to take that dream away from people than anyone else that I know because of those 29 taxes, of the 55 new and increased taxes, that are on property.
And then the Treasurer went on to introduce the changes in the budget that year that took away the stamp duty exemption for investors, and it was there just for those that wanted to buy houses as their primary place of residence.
At that time a very wise person made some comments. The Shadow Treasurer at that time said in answer to what I have spoken about:
What the Treasurer does not understand or chooses not to understand is that off-the-plan projects need a huge amount of pre-purchases before banks will lend developers the money to let them happen. Banks usually require 60, 70 or 80 per cent of projects to be presold before they will finance them.
Surprise, surprise – they want to make sure they have got some guarantee that if they loan the money to a developer to build these properties they will actually be sold. There are lots of cases at the moment where developers have approvals for development, but because they cannot sell enough of them to get them going and cannot make any money they are not actually going through with those particular projects. The Shadow Treasurer at the time went on to say:
If you take investors out of the pool for off-the-plan projects, which is the intended effect of this tax increase, you will simply see fewer projects get the go-ahead.
Surprise, surprise. What have we seen since 2017 through to today? We have had fewer projects go ahead because the government changed the rules back in 2017, which took the investors out of the market. They deliberately penalised investors because somehow they hate investors. They hate someone that has capital. They want to socialise everything here in Victoria. As the Shadow Treasurer said:
Fewer projects will be financed, and it will take longer to get them done.
That has been proven to be a very correct statement, which was made by the member for Malvern, the Shadow Treasurer at that time.
Peter WALSH: You could. To continue my road to Damascus theme, if you fast-forward, we have had a change of beliefs. We had the Treasurer introducing a bill with urgency – introduced this morning and being debated this evening – because of such urgency to put back in place an exemption from stamp duty for investors. Surprise, surprise, surprise. Because there are not enough projects going ahead – surprise, surprise, surprise – there are not enough properties available for renters. Those horrible investors, because the government had penalised them, were not investing and there are not enough properties for renters to have. Going to the Premier’s press release from Monday 21 October:
More homes, more opportunity
…
Off the plan stamp duty concessions to build more homes
…
With a concession reducing upfront costs for more buyers, developers can look forward to more pre-sale success – which will help meet finance requirements faster and start the construction of new homes sooner.
I think the member for Malvern must have had a word with the Premier and explained how you get more money into the property sector to get more homes built. The press release goes on to say:
Bringing more projects to market sooner will boost housing supply, support the construction sector, and grow the amount of housing available for rent.
Well, talk about a road to Damascus moment – if you actually allow investors to buy units so developers can build those buildings, you will have more supply of property for rent. Surprise, surprise, surprise. I think we have had a reversal of some pre-existing idea or belief that the Treasurer and the Premier – the Allan government – had that if you keep taxing and making it harder for investors, somehow you will still get more properties for rent. They have now realised that that does not happen. We have got this bill before the house at the moment, which we do support, and we opposed this exemption when they took it away. Those on the other side of the chamber are somehow trying to rewrite history or paint us as being against tax reductions. We want to see tax reductions. You go back to those 55 new and increased taxes that we have had over the last decade. You go to the 29 of those taxes that are on property. The way we will increase housing supply here in Victoria, the way will get more people into home ownership and the way will get more properties available for renters is to reduce taxes.
The Housing Industry Association had a report recently that said that more than 40 per cent of the price of a new house and land package is actually state government charges. Do the mums and dads that are going out there and trying to buy their first home realise that more than 40 per cent of that money they are paying goes to this mob on the other side to waste on cost overruns on major projects here in Melbourne? Without that $40 billion in cost overruns on major projects we could have a huge reduction in taxes on housing, which would increase the housing supply here in Victoria. The way we will increase the housing supply is to actually take the monkey of the Allan government’s taxes off their back. A 40 per cent reduction in the price of a house and land package by getting rid of all the taxes on those particular projects would make a huge difference to new home buyers. Yes, we support this reduction. We opposed them putting the changes in place in 2017. It is pleasing the government have had their road to Damascus moment and realised that, if you keep taxing private capital and you keep taxing investors, you will have less properties for people to rent, impacting the rent market. I think they should hang their heads in shame that it has taken them this long to realise that.
Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (18:51): This is how interested the opposition are in housing: one, two, three members of the coalition are in the house at the moment speaking about housing.
Peter Walsh: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I think it is actually a reflection of the fact that no-one is interested in the member for Frankston.
The ACTING SPEAKER (John Mullahy): There is no point of order.
Paul EDBROOKE: They will come in now you are on your feet, Walshy. What a week it has been, and this has been the first time I have heard anything negative about the announcements this week, unless it was from a member of the opposition of course. The Victorian government has unveiled a series of transformative housing policies over the past week that really promise to transform Melbourne’s landscape. First we had the introduction of the 50 new activity centres near Melbourne’s tram and train stations. We had the first phase of development zones identified, with the 25 initial zones for development, which are primarily in Melbourne’s east and south-east, in the Belgrave, Lilydale, Sandringham, Frankston and Glen Waverley train line areas. They were announced. That of course builds on the pilot program, and one of those 10 pilots was in Frankston. As the chair of the community reference group, I have had my finger on the pulse as far as what our community thinks goes, and I think these changes are welcome.
We have got development contributions reform, which has been welcomed, and today we are talking about a move to encourage development with these stamp duty changes. I have been as confused as the rest of you about some of the speeches we have heard from the opposition. I have always heard the opposition saying they are the party of aspiration, but here they are saying that they do not want people who buy a $1 million property to get a tax cut. It just seems like they are a little bit unburdened by common sense and self-doubt maybe. We heard the member for Sandringham say a roof over your head is not about bricks and mortar, it is about stability. If it is not bricks and mortar, what do we make homes out of? Marshmallows? I am honestly just lost. This is a government that is building more houses than ever. We have a massive mandate, and the people of Victoria voted us in to do this.
I also heard from the honourable member for Sandringham that very few people will take this up. It kind of clashes with one of his critiques where he quoted a commentator saying that this will only stimulate around 32,000 sales of homes, and that is meant to be a negative. I am not quite sure about that one. I guess I just wonder overall: what is their plan? It is fine to get up and say, ‘We don’t like what you’re doing. We don’t like this announcement. We’re NIMBYs. We don’t want people living where they grew up. We don’t want people living next to us. We don’t want more dense apartments and buildings.’ But what is their plan? I would say there clearly is not one. I just wonder, though – we have got those opposite talking about the fact that they do support this, but clearly the way they are speaking is not really supporting it. I think that goes to show they know, as far as polling and as far as their focus groups go, that this is popular, but they do not want to be seen to support –
Roma Britnell: Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.
Quorum formed.
Paul EDBROOKE: No, member for Bentleigh, I did not upset them. I think they wanted more people to hear what I was saying. So what do people think about this, besides those in the opposition? Well, at Urbis.com:
Major Housing Announcements from Vic Government: A Game-Changer for Melbourne’s Future
…
… the Property Council of Australia (PCA) and other industry stakeholders have welcomed the initiatives for reform. The PCA sees the news as a crucial step towards increasing housing supply and affordability. The industry has also acknowledged the need for tax concessions to support development within these activity centres.
The Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA) welcomed the announcement on stamp duty changes and recommended an extended timeframe to stimulate the new apartment market …
as of course they would. We also heard the member for Sandringham saying that 12 months was not enough time for people to make a transaction on a house. Again I scratch my head a bit on that one, and I put myself in the position of some of my constituents in Frankston to give a practical point of view on this. A lot of you in this house, either on this side of the bench or that side of the bench, will have been through this, where you need to go to the bank for a loan. You are looking at buying off the plan. You might be looking at buying a house off the plan or one that is already constructed, but let us say buying off the plan. The bank will give you a loan-to-value ratio, which is generally about 80 per cent, depending on how much money you have got in a deposit, but let us say 80 per cent. So if you are going to buy a $600,000 property off the plan, you are looking at about $120,000 from your savings as the deposit. All of a sudden you get told by the Premier, ‘With these stamp duty changes we are going to ensure that you are not going to pay stamp duty on the build, just the land.’ So your stamp duty goes from around $32,000 to $4000, which is a $28,000 saving. That is about a quarter of your deposit. When you look at the LVR and figure that in, that is going to be a significant saving for people, and I think something that will get people across the line if they are near that loan-to-value ratio. There are going to be a lot of people, first home buyers and people getting into the market again, that are looking at this and saying, ‘Well, if I can save that money, that means I’ve got a different LVR and I need a different deposit.’ I think that is something that cannot be overlooked.
I will not go through the people that are raving about the announcement this week. I was at the press club event and there were people just nodding their heads saying, ‘This is fantastic, this is great,’ as the minister here was as well. As I said, in my neighbourhood in Frankston I have not had one negative thing spoken, emailed or texted about this. The only negative thing I have heard was, today, a rumour that the Frankston City Council, which have obviously been speaking to incumbent councillors, had a bit of a bee in their bonnet about making some housing in Frankston CBD. It looks like when the councillors come back in, perhaps the officers might write to me and say, ‘We actually don’t want 60 new homes in Frankston CBD next to the train station, near buses, near all the amenities, near sporting grounds.’ I kind of wonder where they are getting this from. I hope that the councillors that are voted in this week are a lot more in touch than the last lot, if that is their attitude, because as I have said, I have not heard one negative thing about these announcements this week, especially the stamp duty announcement.
We need to get this in as soon as possible. We need to stimulate more homes being built. We need to stimulate developments off the plan that are in planning and their contracts are signed, and make sure we get them done.
Business interrupted under sessional orders.