Thursday, 14 November 2024

State Taxation Further Amendment Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Tim Pallas:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (15:23): I rise to address the government’s State Taxation Further Amendment Bill 2024. I note the time of the day, being 3:23 in the afternoon on the Thursday of a sitting week, the last sitting day of this sitting week. We have just over an hour and a half to go before the government’s guillotine kicks in, where, as ordinarily we would, we will vote on the government bills for this week. I also note that from an opposition perspective there are 12 very keen colleagues of mine who wish to speak on this bill, and because this bill is a state taxation amendment bill and because this government knows that matters of the economy or matters of taxation really, fair dinkum do not favour them, whenever these topics are spoken of they leave it until the very last minute of the very last sitting day on the second-last sitting week of the year to bring them on.

Now, I fully intend to contribute for the next 28 minutes and 55 seconds. Following that, my colleague the Leader of the Nationals will, then we will probably get the member for Bulleen. I hasten to add that the member for Eildon, the member for Gippsland South, the member for South-West Coast, the member for Kew, the member for Ovens Valley, the member for Narracan, the member for Warrandyte, the member for Mildura and the member for Morwell will not have the opportunity to contribute because of the way this government has chosen to manage its government business program.

It is just not right that just because matters of the economy and matters of taxation are a bit of a sore point for this government and just because they choose to manage their government business program in such a way that it actually limits debate and the time for debate on this important bill before the house today, a number of my colleagues miss out on the opportunity to speak. That is just not right; it is just not fair. But over the last 10 years –

Nick Staikos interjected.

Brad ROWSWELL: Acting Speaker, the member for Bentleigh is not in his place; he is being very disorderly at the minute.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): The member for Bentleigh knows that if he wishes to interject he should do so from his chair.

Brad ROWSWELL: Because the government has brought this bill on so late in the piece, a limited number of my colleagues will have an opportunity to contribute to it. I wish to say from the very outset that the opposition will not be opposing this bill. We will not be opposing this bill, but I would like to go through in some detail how we have come to that position and in some detail the clauses that are contained within this bill. Of course this bill seeks to make a number of amendments to existing tax acts in relation to the government’s health tax, in relation to a number of property taxes, in relation to a repeal of an exemption for friendly societies and in relation to foreign purchaser adjustments. I intend to go through some of those in some detail now.

At the very outset I think a valid question to ask is this: can the Victorian Labor government, under the leadership of Premier Jacinta Allan, which has now been in government for 10 years be –

Colin Brooks: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, there seems to be a consistent pattern of members of the opposition referring to the Premier by her name rather than by her correct title.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): The member for Sandringham is reminded to use the correct terms, please, when referring to members.

Brad ROWSWELL: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, if I refer to the Premier as Premier Jacinta Allan, is that an unparliamentary way to refer to the Premier?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): I believe that using names is not correct in the lower house, in the Assembly; we use titles.

Brad ROWSWELL: In relation to the Premier and her leadership over the last 10 years as a senior member within the Andrews and now Allan Labor government, the question really needs to be asked: can Victorians trust this Labor government when it comes to managing Victoria’s economy? You see, Victoria’s economy at the minute is – I have described it this way before and will describe it this way again – an absolute basket case. It is an absolute and utter bin fire. We have the greatest amount of tax in this state, the highest amount of taxes, the highest amount of business taxes, the highest amount of property taxes and the highest amount of debt at $188 billion – $188 billion, the most amount of debt of any state in the nation. We are paying $26 million a day each and every day in interest payments on that debt. That is money that we cannot actually invest in important services and infrastructure that our community so desperately, desperately needs. That is the state of the economy after 10 years of Labor and after 10 Labor budgets.

Just today the Australian Bureau of Statistics has confirmed that for seven months straight Victoria has had the highest unemployment rate of any state in the country – for seven months straight. This is what you get after 10 years of Labor and after 10 Labor budgets. So when it comes to tax reform, when it genuinely comes to tax reform and when it genuinely comes to making life easier for Victorians and not harder for Victorians, the genuine question needs to be asked: can Labor be trusted? Frankly, I contend that the answer to that is an absolute big, fat no.

As I mentioned at the start, this bill covers a number of amendments to various acts. It covers amendments to the Payroll Tax Act 2007 specifically in relation to Labor’s health tax.

We have a long-held position when it comes to Labor’s health tax. We are opposed to it. Yes, we acknowledge that this bill goes some way to making access to bulk-billing appointments in this state easier. We do acknowledge that, but it does not go far enough, because it only applies to general practice. It does not apply to all allied health or all primary health. It does not apply to dentists, it does not apply to physios, it does not apply to podiatrists, it does not apply to psychologists; it only applies to GPs when they bulk-bill a patient. That means that there will be more Victorians who are unwell, who because of Labor’s health tax cannot actually afford to pay to see a doctor and will end up lining up at an emergency department that is already overrun because of the way that this government has managed the health services over the last decade. We know that it actually costs more to the Victorian taxpayer for them to turn up to the emergency department of a public hospital in this state. It costs about 500 bucks for a Victorian to turn up to the emergency department of a public hospital in this state. That is the price Victorians will need to pay because Labor cannot manage money and cannot manage our health system.

Non-bulk-billing GPs and allied health professionals will still face Labor’s crippling health tax, which means the impact of Labor’s health tax continues to threaten the viability of clinics across the state. In fact the Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch said in correspondence to the opposition:

[QUOTES AWAITING VERIFICATION]

The government is leaving dental clinics across the state calculating whether they will have to close or how much they would have to charge patients to cover a possible tax debt through no fault of their own.

Let me repeat that for the sake of those opposite. The Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch has said:

The government is leaving dental clinics across the state calculating whether they will have to close or how much they would have to charge patients to cover a possible tax debt through no fault of their own.

There are quite literally hundreds of medical clinics right around the state who operate on a mixed billing model that will now be subjected to Labor’s health tax. That is going to make health care more out of reach for many, many Victorians, and the only way for Victorians to have certainty when it comes to Labor’s health tax is to boot them out in November 2026 and to elect a coalition government because our commitment is really, really clear. We have said that we will reverse Labor’s health tax. We have already tried to do that in the other place. We have already tried to move a bill in the Legislative Council to effectively knock out Labor’s health tax, but of course the government is not interested in that. They are not interested in that at all. In fact they voted against it. That is why I now move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government commits to a payroll tax exemption for all medical and allied health providers.’

This is a very, very important amendment, which I encourage the government and those on the crossbench and the Greens and the people up there to support, because it is the only way that Victorians can be assured that they will not be paying additional dough for health care. It is a practice within this state, it is a universal understanding in this state that access to universal health care should be a right of citizens. But, no. The Victorian government is in such a poor economic state that the injustice of this is they are seeking to make the economic circumstance and the circumstances which they have created over the last 10 years the fault of Victorians by imposing on them more taxes – 55 new or increased taxes in the last 10 years alone, 29 of which are on property.

I have said it before, I will say it again: if you tax something more it does not get any cheaper. If you tax something more, what happens? It gets more expensive. A little bit more active participation would have been welcome at that point, but I understand why that was not the case.

But I will say it again: if you tax something more, it does not get any cheaper; if you tax something more, it gets more expensive. Fifty-five new or increased taxes over the last 10 years have meant the cost-of-living pressures on Victorians have gone up and up and up and up. The people on the government side of the chamber say they care about the impact of the cost-of-living crisis on Victorians. Well, if they did actually care, they would not seek to impose more taxes; they would seek to repeal more taxes and to live within their means, but we know that that is simply not within their DNA.

It is not just the health tax that is amended or changed slightly in this bill; there are also changes to property taxes. The government proposes to extend exemptions from vacant land tax to bereaved families winding up estates and to properties on alpine resorts. We think that that makes sense. But the question that I have is: why did the Labor government expect people in this circumstance to pay more tax in the first place? If they had thought about it, if they had considered it and if they had spoken to the community about it, they would have known about the land tax exemptions to bereaved families winding up estates and to properties on alpine resorts. I would have thought that in the government’s consultation on these matters these sorts of cases would have come up, and they would not have legislated those changes, those impositions, in the first place. But no, they did, and they are back here seeking to now include those as exemptions. A question that I think is a valid question to ask is: why did Labor expect the grieving families to pay residential land tax while winding up the affairs of a loved one in the first place? Why in the first place did this Labor government consider that was a good thing to do? Despite these modest exemptions, which we do support, the government’s property tax regime will still continue to punish Victorians.

As I say, Labor has introduced some 29 new property taxes over the past decade. Twenty-nine is a familiar number. Member for Polwarth, was it number 29? Did I read that in the paper earlier this week? I think it was on Tuesday I read the number 29. Yes, that is right.

Richard Riordan interjected.

Brad ROWSWELL: Polling results, member for Polwarth, absolutely. That was the Premier’s polling result, 29 per cent, which just happens to match up to the amount of new property taxes that this Labor government has introduced over the last 10 years.

Richard Riordan: So there might be a reduction in taxes coming.

Brad ROWSWELL: We can only hope, member for Polwarth. We did go to the government with a number of –

Richard Riordan: Boom boom.

Brad ROWSWELL: Thank you. I thought it was quite a good routine. We should do morning radio. I did go to the government with a couple of questions in relation to the imposition of their taxes, and in relation to the health tax I asked, ‘How many GPs are employees as opposed to contractors and how many are trainees?’ I also asked, ‘How many private clinics do not fully bulk-bill? What is the proportion of clinics which only bulk-bill, and where are they located?’ The reason why we asked these questions on behalf of the opposition but also on behalf of the Victorian people is because we would like to get a sense of who and how many people are being affected by this and the consideration that the government has given to their health tax before imposing it upon Victorians. So how many GPS are employees as opposed to contractors and how many are trainees, how many private clinics do not fully bulk-bill and what is the proportion of clinics which only bulk-bill? On both occasions the government has returned serve – and the member for South-West Coast will be fascinated by this answer, because she was at the bill briefing with the government and various departmental officers – and come back with the following:

[QUOTES AWAITING VERIFICATION]

The Department of Treasury and Finance does not have access to private clinic data and therefore relies on publicly available data sources, which may vary in scope, timing and level of detail.

In relation to the question on private clinics and if they fully bulk-bill or otherwise, the response from the government was:

DTF does not have access –

that is the Department of Treasury and Finance, for those playing along at home –

to clinic-level data on patient bulk-billing practices. Available data on the proportion of patient and the proportion of services bulk-billed is provided below.

On both occasions there has been acknowledgement by the government that the Department of Treasury and Finance does not have access to private clinic data:

DTF does not have access to clinic-level data …

So I think it is an appropriate question to ask, and it is a valid question to ask: if they do not have the clinic-level data, using what data have they actually modelled that the changes in this bill will be what they say they could be? If you do not have that baseline data, how can you assert something?

We asked another question: what is the impact on rural GPs? The government said:

[QUOTES AWAITING VERIFICATION]

The government expects that the decision to provide an exemption for payroll tax for payment to contractor employee GPs in relation to bulk-bill consults will support more bulk-bill GP consultants for Victorians and improve access to GP services, including in rural Victoria.

But how can that assertion be made if in the first place the government acknowledges, or at least the Department of Treasury and Finance acknowledges, that it does not have access to clinic-level data? How can you make that claim, seriously, without having access to the clinic-level data? I would have thought that would be a very important thing to have access to.

This bill also repeals the exemption for friendly societies, which is in our view a new tax burden on friendly societies, which are not for profit. The government said:

Mutual organisations focus on community services, including affordable housing, health services and retirement savings.

Friendly societies, as I am informed, have been tax exempt due to their role in supporting the common good through affordable health care and financial services. We are concerned by this change, but on balance we have decided to not oppose this bill, for reasons that I previously stated.

I can come to my initial point, which is: can this government truly be trusted to deliver upon tax reform in the first place? The answer I have to that question is a big, fat no, because if they could be trusted to deliver true, lasting, meaningful, impactful tax reform, then why are we in the state of affairs that we are currently in: the highest taxes in the nation, the highest property taxes in the nation, the highest business taxes in the nation, the highest unemployment in the nation – now seven months running – and the lowest credit rating in the nation and when we have got a circumstance where property is out of reach, where housing is out of reach, where the cost of groceries is going up and where the cost of power bills is going up? You pay more in this state than in any other state in the country to send your kid to a state school at the same time as our educational outcomes are flatlining, if not declining in some areas. These are all cost-of-living pressures that families are experiencing right now.

For the life of me I cannot understand why this government just does not bite the bullet and do something meaningful when it comes to tax reform. Of course it will take a coalition government to do that. It will take a coalition government to do that in 2026. But of course we are not waiting till 2026 to have a fair-dinkum conversation with the Victorian people about our plans for this state for them – for singles, for families, for older Victorians, for great Victorians. There are no ordinary Victorians; they are all great Victorians with great stories, and we value them and we respect them, because their contribution to this community should be valued and should be respected and currently is not. We are not waiting until November 2026 to speak about how we would govern this state, the opportunity that we would seek to create in this state – to indicate to Victorians just some of the things that we would do to improve their lives and to make their lives easier.

In July last year you may be interested to know – you also may not be interested to know, but it is my speaking time so I will carry on – we launched a tax discussion paper. That was an opportunity to talk to Victorians about the impost of taxes on the lives of Victorians and Victorian businesses over the last decade.

What we heard during those consultations right around the state, including in Gippsland, was not good. It was not good at all. Victorians are buckling under the pressure of state government taxes and high inflation caused by a poorly planned big building project which is turning into a big bill that all Victorians will have to pay the price for. What Victorians want is a government that they can trust, a government who respects their money and a government who values the taxpayer money that Victorians earn and Victorians hand over to their government. They want that money treated with respect. They want a government that actually understands what integrity is.

That is why just in the last couple of weeks the opposition, the alternative government in this state, announced our plan to better manage Victoria’s money. It is the first of a three-stage plan that we are starting to announce and will complete before the election. The first pillar of this plan is a charter of budget honesty, the second is a public expenditure tracker and the third is an intergenerational report – three things that we think are very, very important. We on the opposition benches know that it is not our money. It is not our money; it is Victorian taxpayers money. It is not the Liberal Party’s money, it is not the National Party’s money, it is not the member for Sandringham’s money, it is not the member for Gippsland South’s money – it is not. It is the Victorian taxpayers money, and it must be treated with respect as a basic principle.

We think that we have an obligation to increase financial integrity in this state, so that charter of budget honesty in the first place is a very important first step to say to the Victorian people, ‘We respect the money that you give us. We will treat you with respect and we will treat your money with respect. We will manage your money better.’ I am looking forward to and I am quite excited by the transparency that will be offered by a public expenditure tracker so Victorians can see firsthand where their money is being spent, how their money is being spent and in what area their money is being spent. This is information that is already there, collected on a monthly basis and made available by department, and it simply needs to be collated and made publicly available. Transparency is not a bad thing, especially after 10 years of Labor and especially after 10 Labor budgets. It is a good thing, and I think it will be appreciated by the Victorian people.

The final stage of that particular plan that we announced a couple of weeks ago now is the establishment of an intergenerational report, an opportunity for us to understand the impact of decisions we make now on our current day and what that will look like in the future. It is so important to plan for the future and to make sure that the Victoria that we create now does not leave the next generations of Victorians worse off. Sadly, I contend that under this government, after 10 years of Labor and 10 Labor budgets, there are many, many generations who will be worse off, because it is those generations that will have to pay the price for the poor economic management of this state that has been imposed upon the Victorian community under this Labor government today.

As I said earlier, 26 million bucks a day, each and every day, in daily interest payments is akin to going to an ATM, backing up a big Budget rent-a-truck, pulling out 26 million bucks, chucking it in the back, driving it to the front steps of Parliament and setting it alight. Victorians get nothing for it. Victorians get nothing for that $26 million. In my community, in the member for Northcote’s community, in the member for Hastings’s community, in the member for Box Hill’s community, in the member for Melton’s community, in the member for Gippsland South’s community, just think about it. What about the member for Footscray’s community and the member for Bentleigh’s? He is out of his seat again. Twenty-six million bucks a day, each and every day – that would be transformational for our community. I hope we get nonpartisan agreement on that. If you had 26 million bucks in your community, it would be transformational.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Through the Chair, please, member for Sandringham.

Brad ROWSWELL: Acting Speaker, if you had $26 million in your community of Monbulk, it would be transformational. If I had 26 million bucks for my community of Sandringham it would be transformational in that community. I know exactly what I would do with that.

I would call the principals of the Beaumaris Primary School and the Beaumaris North Primary School and I would say to them, ‘Do you remember those school halls that the government promised you when you reached a certain student level that have never been delivered, so much so that when the sun is beating down upon the heads of your students and the rain is beating down upon the shoulders of your students that you’ve got nowhere to have a whole-school assembly or to have community sport?’ I would say to them, ‘You’ve got those school halls,’ and that would be transformational for those school communities. I know that, and every member of this place knows what 26 million bucks would mean in their own communities.

But no, each and every day we are rolling up to the ATM with a Budget rent-a-truck, taking out 26 million bucks and setting it alight because of the way Labor has managed the Victorian economy over the last 10 years. That 26 million bucks could pay for 128 ambulances, two breast cancer centres, 2715 elective surgeries or the yearly salaries for 315 nurses, 510 Victoria Police recruits or 305 paramedics. It is not Monopoly money, it is real money. It is Victorian taxpayers money, and it is not being managed in a respectful way. If the Labor government understood that, they would manage things in a different way, but they do not. They do not. They are too set in their ways. Arrogance has set in, hubris has set in, and the Victorian people are picking up on this – just have a look at Tuesday’s front page of the Age. There have been over $40 billion in blowouts under this Labor government – $40 billion: the North East Link, $21.2 billion; the West Gate Tunnel, $4.7 billion; the Metro Tunnel, $13.8 billion. Things do not just cost what they cost – what an irresponsible attitude to have when it comes to the management of public funds in this state. But of course that is what we get under this Labor government: 55 new or increased taxes and a government that, really, say they care but just do not.

There is a better way. There must be a better way. There must be a brighter, more optimistic future, a more hopeful future, for this state. I hate to say that we will not get this under the Allan Labor government. The Victorian people are twigging to this as we meet here this evening. Under a government that we lead there will be lower, fairer, simpler taxes. We will respect Victorian taxpayers money. We will enable business to thrive – not just to survive but to thrive. That is very, very important to us. We will scrap Labor’s holiday and tourism tax. We will scrap their health tax. We will scrap their schools tax. We will establish a charter of budget honesty, the first state to do so. We will establish a real-time government spending tracker. We will commission Victoria’s first intergenerational report. We will end waste. We will say to businesses, those who have recently left this state for other states or those who have recently closed down in Victoria, that again Victoria is open for business under a government we lead. We will scream that from the rooftops. We will introduce a legislated debt cap in this place. After 10 years of Labor, after 10 Labor budgets, Victorians are waking up each and every day to the economic havoc that is being wreaked on the state, and they deserve so much better.

Paul HAMER (Box Hill) (15:53): I rise to speak on the State Taxation Further Amendment Bill 2024. It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Sandringham. He has such a smooth, mellifluous voice, the member for Sandringham. I think he has got a fantastic post-parliamentary career in late night radio. I can just imagine listening to the sounds of ‘Late nights with Brad’. I can see that. I would fall asleep; I guarantee I would fall asleep.

But I do want to talk about the taxation bill and what it is about. There was some reference by the member for Sandringham about the changes to GP payroll tax, and I just wanted to remind the house that these changes came about as a result of decisions by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, I believe, that made a determination about who would be classified as a contractor or an employee in a medical practice.

These exemptions that have been put in place through this legislation – they were flagged earlier in the Treasurer’s budget speech – actually put into effect these exemptions, particularly for GPs that are providing bulk-billed consultations. The government made at the time a commitment to provide an exemption from payroll tax for payments to contractor GPs and to employee GPs for providing bulk-billed consultations from 1 July 2025. That was specifically to deal with the issues that had been raised in that court case that had found that if we do not introduce these exemptions then these bulk-billed clinics would be liable for payroll tax. The reason that we are doing that is really so that we can provide more bulk-billed primary healthcare consultations for families, and I think it is important that the amount of bulk-bill clinics in the community is increased and that we provide it as widely as possible. I know that in my community the primary care centre that has been introduced, the nearby one in Forest Hill – I know it is in the member for Glen Waverley’s area, but it is very close to my area – has been very well received. Having that clinic available particularly out of standard hours into the evening and on weekends has certainly been a centre that I have frequented. It is amazing how often you have a family member who gets sick at a time when you just cannot get into a GP because the GPs are closed.

There has been extensive consultation with the primary care sector to align the settings across the country, particularly since this ruling was originally made. There has been a further 12-month exemption from payroll tax for payments to contractors through to 30 June 2025, which will be available for any general practice business that has not already received advice and begun paying payroll tax on payments to their contractor GPs on this basis. The exemption for this one was provided through the Treasurer’s existing ex gratia powers and would be applied in this way under any Labor government. It is important to recognise that to deal with the pressures that the healthcare sector is under, particularly the primary care healthcare sector, the government has worked closely – and the Treasurer’s office in particular has worked closely – with this sector to work out how they can support these practices, particularly these practices that are providing bulk-billing, to continue to do that and not have the impost that would otherwise be charged if the ruling was applied in its entirety.

I just want to read some of the quotes from the peak bodies about the GP package that was announced, as I said, earlier this year to deal with some of these issues. The Australian GP Alliance deputy chair Dr Mukesh Haikerwal said:

We thank the Victorian Government for their decision and commitment to the primary care sector as this outcome will support practices to remain viable into the future and help Victorians continue to have access to affordable services as we work together through the details to ensure affordability of health services to Victorians. GPs can now focus on caring for their patients and the health system.

There are many people from across that healthcare industry, particularly in the GP sector, that really appreciate the changes that the government is making in this regard, because they know how important it is to be able to provide this care at the front line and the work that the GPs do. I am very conscious of the time and the need to allow multiple speakers to have their contribution on this bill, so with that I commend the bill to the house and I rest my contribution there.

Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (16:00): This is referred to as the State Taxation Further Amendment Bill 2024, but it should in fact be known as the Clayton’s bill, because this is the bill where you provide an exemption where there should be no need for an exemption, if we believe what the government has been telling us for the last two years. This is the bill to fix up the government’s mess of its health tax – the health tax that was brought in by the Treasurer, the Minister for Health and the Premier, even though time and time and time again last year and again earlier this year they said there was no health tax. This is a bill to provide an exemption to a health tax that the government says does not exist. If you do not believe me, you can go to the Hansard and you can find it for yourself. Time and time again – in question time, in debates on matters of public importance and in contributions on the budget last year and again this year – we have had the government say, ‘Look away. There is nothing to see here when it comes to a GP payroll tax.’ Indeed I can give you the quotes directly. When asked about these things on 21 March 2023 the Treasurer said:

… we have not changed in any material way the procedure by which the State Revenue Office seeks to raise payroll tax from GPs. In fact I went further than that.

He was talking about a meeting he had had with health representatives:

I took the opportunity to indicate to the representatives of GPs that the SRO would sit down and work with them and issue a practice note to make it clear to GPs that there was no intention to change the tax liability of GPs …

So he was saying that these GP clinics, which were suddenly getting bills for payroll tax for contractors that they engaged and which had previously never paid payroll tax on those contractors, were wrong, that there was not any change and we did not need to worry about that.

Further, on 29 August 2023 the Minister for Health in response to a question said:

… when it comes to payroll tax absolutely nothing has changed. There has been no change. There has been zero change to the way in which the payroll tax operates.

Again, very clearly the Minister for Health was saying that nothing had changed. So we are today debating an amendment to provide an exemption to something that did not exist in the first place, according to the minister and the Treasurer.

The very next day, 30 August 2023, the minister again said:

But let me be clear: there has been no change.

And then the Premier herself said, on 1 November last year, almost exactly a year before this bill being introduced:

As I have said previously, as the Treasurer has said previously, the payroll tax arrangements continue to operate in the same way as they have for some time since 1983 across all sectors.

So they were saying ‘Nothing to see here, ladies and gentlemen, Victorians, doctors and people needing to get into a GP clinic. Nothing to see here. We haven’t changed. Nothing has changed.’ And yet here we are today debating an exemption to a tax that the government said did not exist.

The government has obviously responded to the political pressure that it has been under on this. It has obviously responded to the concerns of GP clinics around the state, but it has not responded to the allied health professionals and their practices that will continue to attract payroll tax on contractors – notwithstanding this legislation, because it only applies to general practice. The government really has not covered itself in glory in this. It has made it very, very unclear, to misquote the Minister for Energy and Resources.

That is why I support the reasoned amendment of the member for Sandringham:

That …‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government commits to a payroll tax exemption for all medical and allied health providers.’

That is what the Liberals and Nationals will do. We have made the commitment already, and we repeat it here again today, that if elected in 2026 we will provide that exemption, not because this is something that impacts on GPs and GP clinics, because ultimately it would impact on patients.

We heard in some of those quotes that I read out, in the commentary from the Minister for Health, repeated comments about the status of primary health and how critical it was to take pressure off our health system. We agree entirely, which is why we do not think this tax, whether it is for GPs, whether it is for dentists, whether it is for physios, podiatrists, psychologists, psychiatrists, osteopaths or any of those allied health providers, should be on there. Our commitment is already clear to the people of Victoria that, if elected, we will make a full exemption for those contractors because we do not believe they are in fact employees. We know that there are concerns about this. We know the Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch has said:

[QUOTES AWAITING VERIFICATION]

… leaving dental clinics across the state calculating whether they will have to close or how much they would have to charge patients to cover a possible tax debt through no fault of their own.

That is the concern, and it is repeated across the state. In my own electorate I have consulted the GP clinics throughout Gippsland South earlier this year. One of them told me that if they had to pay back pay for five years, which has been the case last year and this year with some clinics, that they would face a bill of $375,000. They would be expecting a bill annually of $70,000, and they said, ‘That would kill us.’ The comment from a very, very longstanding and very well-respected GP in my electorate at the time was that 25 per cent of GPs would probably retire, because that is, sadly, the number that are close to that age anyway. There is a significant concern, and I think this was from the AMA or the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, that one third of clinics would go if the tax was applied across the board. We are certainly not opposed, and in fact we support this bill’s intent to provide that exemption; we simply do not think it goes far enough. That is why I am supporting the member for Sandringham’s reasoned amendment. We think this is a good step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough to deal with the issues that are truly there.

The bill before us does not only deal with the health tax on GPs. There are a couple of other aspects to it that I will touch on briefly. The bill proposes to repeal the existing tax exemption for friendly societies under the Duties Act 2000. This is an exemption that currently applies to transfers of property or declarations of trust involving both charities and friendly societies. I would not have thought it was a great move by government to be introducing a tax on something called friendly societies, but there you go. It also introduces a new section to ensure the foreign purchaser additional duty is enforceable for foreign property buyers in Victoria. That responds to some recent federal reforms via the Treasury Laws Amendment (Foreign Investment) Act 2024 and ensures that we are lined up with the federal government.

There are some other changes, including to land tax, and we are all hearing a lot about land tax at the moment given the government’s so-called COVID debt recovery plan that has reduced the land tax threshold from $300,000 to $50,000, has seen rental vacancy rates plummet and has forced many people into great hardship because they are facing, for the first time, a land tax bill of either $500 or $975 and as a result are struggling. Then of course there is the increase in the rate above that $300,000 threshold as well. This bill provides a vacant residential land tax exemption for alpine resorts. That also does not really scream to me as something that a social Labor government would be keen to do – to make sure that those who have got their chalet in the snow are looked after – but I do understand the common sense of that particular one, given the vacant residential land tax criteria surrounding how often those properties need to be used. Clearly, it is not going to be that often when it is only being used in snow season. Ensuring the holiday home exemption continues for a transitional period after the property owner’s death is the other aspect of it.

This bill, as I have said, we do not oppose. It is a Clayton’s bill, though, because it is providing an exemption to a tax that the government insisted for well over a year did not actually exist. Clearly, this bill is an acknowledgement that it does in fact exist. We will not be opposing the bill, but we are moving that reasoned amendment to ensure that all medical and allied health providers are captured by this exemption.

Steve McGHIE (Melton) (16:10): I too rise to contribute to the State Taxation Further Amendment Bill 2024. I will go to the bill just with some of the areas of tax amendments. The bill amends the Duties Act 2000 and exemptions from duty on dutiable transactions and relevant acquisitions of tax reform scheme land; exemptions and concessions from duty for friendly societies, as just referred to by the previous speaker; special disability trusts and persons under a legal disability; and the imposition of additional duty on foreign purchases. It also amends the First Home Owner Grant and Home Buyer Schemes Act 2000 to permit an application for a first home owner grant to be made on behalf of the principal beneficiary of a special disability trust, and it goes through a range of tax acts. For the Land Tax Act 2005, there are changes in exemptions for clubs, excluding – again referred to previously – alpine resorts, and that is probably for the good old Melbourne Football Club members; providing exemptions for land tax for land on which housing is provided for the relief of poverty; and making further provision for the holiday home exemption from vacant residential land tax and the imposition of land tax surcharge on foreign owners of Victorian land.

I am pleased that the opposition are not opposing this bill, but I do not accept that there needs to be a reasoned amendment as moved by the member for Sandringham. I think it just defers the passing of this bill in this house this week. Certainly after extensive consultation and listening and working with the primary care sector and to align policies nationwide, starting on 1 July next year the Allan Labor government through this bill introduces a payroll tax exemption. As I say, that starts on 1 July 2025, and that is for general practice medical businesses that provide bulk-billing services. We all understand and would experience in our electorates how important bulk-billing services are for our constituents. In particular I know out in my corridor, in the west and the north-west, how important bulk-billing is. We do encourage the medicos to bulk-bill more of their patients and release some of the pressures on the emergency departments so patients can get in to see their doctors but also, for the ones that cannot afford to see and be treated by the doctor, to bulk-bill them.

Of course additionally an extra 12 months of payroll tax relief is considered and, with the passage of this amendment, introduced for contracted GP payments through to 30 June next year for the businesses that have not received their guidance or started paying payroll tax for their contracted GPs. It is an important part of this amendment that the bill’s new exemption applies to employers paying wages to contract or employee GPs who provide bulk-billed consultations. It is a partial exemption that is based on the share of total payments made by patients or relevant funding providers for bulk-billed or fully funded medical services, like veterans entitlements, Transport Accident Commission or workers compensation schemes. This exemption will relieve financial pressures on GPs, it will provide certainty for primary care businesses and it will support the essential services GPs provide to, again, our constituents right across the state.

The member for Box Hill referred to the fact that the medical profession is very supportive of these amendments, and he made mention of Mukesh Haikerwal, who has represented medicos. He has been very supportive of these changes. These are long-term changes to provide certainty to general practice businesses. That is what they are; they are businesses. Through that support and relief it supports more bulk-billing for Victorians, and that is exactly what we want to be able to deliver – good healthcare services to those people in need right across all of our electorates.

This bill also amends the Duties Act 2000 and the Land Tax Act 2005 to ensure some clarity and fairness in the application of taxes and foreign purchasers and absentee landowners. Specifically this bill upholds the original intent of imposing the foreign purchaser additional duty (FPAD) and the absentee owners surcharge (AOS) on relevant property purchases by individuals from certain countries during the period from 1 January 2018 and 8 April 2024.

The Taxation Administration Act 1997 is also updated to reinforce that past FPAD and AOS assessments carry the same authority as assessments under these amended provisions, and these amendments address a legal risk in the Duties Act and Land Tax Act which may have led to inconsistencies with those international tax agreements and a federal law that enforces non-discrimination clauses in international tax treaties. In April this year Commonwealth amendments to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Foreign Investment) Act 2024 resolved that state laws, such as those imposing the AOS and the FPAD, take precedence even if inconsistencies arise with the international tax agreements. These changes apply to taxes payable from 1 January 2018 and onwards. The bill before us aligns Victorian law with these federal amendments, making sure that our intended tax obligations are upheld. What this means is that if a person has already paid FPAD or AOS and it is later found that these taxes were technically invalid, their previous payment will still cover their liability, and for those who owe but have not yet paid, they will be required to pay the same amount under this new legislation. Of course these amendments reinforce that taxes are paid as originally intended. They place all foreign nationals on an equal footing under Victorian law, and they safeguard significant revenue for our state – and how important that revenue is to be able to deliver the services and the infrastructure that the Allan Labor government is delivering.

Of course here in the chamber yesterday the member for Polwarth went to great lengths to explain to this place the exact circumstances in which one of my staff members became a home owner for the first time, and he was using it as a stab at the government, claiming all doom and gloom and that people are having to sell up and leave the state – which I do not think is quite accurate, but anyway – when in fact what is actually happening is that in most instances those house sales are investment properties. They are being sold, which creates opportunities for people to buy into homes for the first time and for home owner-occupiers to enter the market, which I think is a good thing. If there are more homes available for people to purchase and greater variety, it gives people an opportunity to for the first time purchase a home and own a home, and that is what we want. We want to see people getting into the market and having a roof over their head. Of course by allowing and in fact encouraging first-time home owners to enter the market, it creates additional economic value that goes on for decades and otherwise never would have existed. The legislation that waives the stamp duty lowers the deposit barrier, which can be a massive contributor to the barrier of cost of entry in purchasing a home, and that is great for those people that want to enter the market. It broadens the pool of people and Victorians who are able to buy a home that would otherwise be unable to access home ownership.

What this amendment enhances is it makes a meaningful difference in the lives of individuals with disabilities and their families by amending the Duties Act. It ensures that the pensioner and concession card reduction can apply when a home is purchased by the guardian or person with a legal disability who holds an eligible concession card. This bill extends similar support to first home buyers, allowing the first home buyer duty concession or exemption to apply in cases where the purchaser is a trustee of a special disability trust and the principal beneficiary is an eligible first home buyer. These changes will make it easier for guardians and trustees, including those managing special disability trusts, to secure housing for individuals with disabilities, and we want people that have disabilities to be able to access the housing market and to be included and to have some accessibility but also to be able to live like everyone else that has a home and a roof over their head. Previously many eligible individuals with disabilities were unable to do this and access these concessions or exemptions simply because the purchase was made under a guardianship or a trust arrangement. This tax law and these tax changes in the State Taxation Further Amendment Bill are very important for this state. It is important that we pass this bill this week. I do not believe we need to have the reasoned amendment, and I commend the bill to the house.

Matthew GUY (Bulleen) (16:20): Hello, Deputy Speaker. You are in the chair a lot when I am up talking about tax and things.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a good thing.

Matthew GUY: It is beautiful that you are there again. A lucky thing for you – a lucky thing indeed.

Vicki Ward: Do you reckon he is there checking up on you, mate?

Matthew GUY: Said like a good Research person. You would say that to a Montmorency boy.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Through the Chair.

Matthew GUY: Listen, this government really is getting out of control with land tax, and we know it on this side of the house – ruining Victorians’ livelihoods over land tax, completely ruining livelihoods. I brought to this chamber, Deputy Speaker, the last time you were in the chair, an example of a block of land and land tax bills, and I know the individual personally who purchased a block in Melbourne’s outer south-eastern suburbs in 2022. His and his wife’s land tax assessment on that block was $3015. It is unimproved. The same block the next year, annually assessed now by this government, was $38,302. That is the rise in one year. A year later, at the start of this year in April, he got the bill again, and it is now for $83,192 for the same block of land.

The government can get up and talk about tax all they like – and I intend to certainly in these 10 minutes I have got – but these kind of tax increases are killing this state. What we did have was a great competitive advantage over other states to bring business to Victoria, a reason for people to come to Victoria, but of course that has now disappeared. When suburban investors like the example I just gave of this fellow and his wife, who I know live in the middle eastern suburbs – I think, with great respect, Deputy Speaker, probably in your electorate – and who are regular Victorians who have invested in their city, make a decision and then get bills like that, they cannot pay that. That is not reasonable, and no-one would think that is a reasonable bill for an unimproved block of land – to rise from $3000 and two years later be $83,000 – from a broke government that has spent everything it has got and now wants to tax its way out of the financial catastrophe it has got our state into. They have got our state into a financial catastrophe.

This bill, which amends the Land Tax Act 2005, the Valuation of Land Act 1960, the Commercial and Industrial Property Tax Reform Act 2024 and the First Home Owner Grant and Home Buyer Schemes Act 2000, has myriad issues in it that relate back to those acts, which frankly are bankrupting our state. Now, I could to you, Deputy Speaker, talk about the 29 new property taxes that have come on.

James Newbury: 29?

Matthew GUY: The member for Brighton is in here and has jogged my memory, because 29 is a great number. In fact we are enjoying the number 29 this week.

Members interjecting.

Matthew GUY: I will take the compliment, at age 50, that I look 29.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The members to my right, without assistance.

Matthew GUY: The member for Eltham rarely gives out compliments, particularly to me, but I am not going to let that one go. I want it recorded in Hansard: I look 29. I will make sure I say good things about you. But what I know is that 29 is a great number. In Ukrainian it is двадцять девʼять, it is neunundzwanzig in German, but here in Victoria it is the approval rating of the Premier – 29. Now, even my preferred Premier rating was better than 29, and even my primary vote was better than 28, so you know, if you are coming on at 29 – I mean, the member for Brighton is here, and what was your term?

James Newbury: Runner-up.

Members interjecting.

Matthew GUY: It was the runner-up Premier. Well, the runner-up Premier had neunundzwanzig, 29 per cent. You can laugh all you like, but on those figures, mate, you will not be here.

Sarah Connolly: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I know the member on his feet does enjoy the sound of his own voice –

Matthew Guy interjected.

Sarah Connolly: Please don’t shout at me, member for Bulleen.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Without assistance, member for Bulleen. The point of order is, member for Laverton?

Sarah Connolly: My point of order is that the member has strayed somewhat from the bill, and I ask you, Deputy Speaker, to bring him back to the bill that is being debated before the house this afternoon.

Matthew GUY: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, I was referring to taxes, the number of taxes that the government has introduced since being in office, and the figure is 29 on the property sector. This bill is relating to the land tax.

Lauren Kathage interjected.

Matthew GUY: Please don’t shout at me. What was the line? Please don’t shout at me.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Yan Yean!

Matthew GUY: So Deputy Speaker, it is entirely relevant to talk about the number of taxes introduced by this government on property, being 29, when the bill is, for the member’s own interest, a property tax bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Bulleen was on the bill, then he strayed a little bit from the bill. I ask him to come back to the bill.

Matthew GUY: As I said, there are 29 new taxes on property introduced by this government. This bill relates directly back to the Land Tax Act 2005, the Valuation of Land Act 1960, the Commercial and Industrial Property Tax Reform Act 2024 and the First Home Owner Grant and Home Buyer Schemes Act 2000. Here we have four examples in this bill relating to property taxes where this government has introduced 29 new ones in the last decade that it has been in office.

Let us go through some of those. We have the fire services property levy, which has been introduced, similar to the Land Tax Act referenced in this bill; we have the foreign stamp duty, which has been introduced three times, which relates to the Land Tax Act, which is referenced in this bill; and of course we have a tax on Uber and taxi fares. But more to the point, as I said before, the whole premise of this bill, as the member for Gippsland South said, was that the government had said in this chamber multiple times that there were no taxes on health – and we have got the health taxes being introduced as one of those 29. They said that there were absolutely no new taxes, that there was nothing going on in the health sector. The opposition asked and asked and asked. How many times did we come in here? The member for South-West Coast, who is in the chamber, asked and asked and asked. And yet what we find from this bill that is being presented to the Parliament today is a clarification of an issue that apparently did not exist. We heard it from the Treasurer, the Minister for Health twice and the Premier. We know about the Premier. We have talked about the Premier, haven’t we, member for Brighton?

James NEWBURY: The runner-up Premier.

Matthew GUY: That is right. We know the Treasurer said:

… we have not changed in any material way the procedure by which the State Revenue Office seeks to raise payroll tax from GPs.

Yet here we are debating a bill to clarify exactly that. So when the health minister then came in and said:

We met with the RACGP –

Royal Australian College of General Practitioners –

we met with the AMA … and we were very clear at that point, in that meeting, that when it comes to payroll tax absolutely nothing has changed. There has been no change. There has been zero change to the way in which the … tax operates.

Yet, I again say, why then are we here with the State Taxation Further Amendment Bill 2024 clarifying exactly, in this bill, what the Premier, the health minister twice and the Treasurer have come to this chamber and said in question time? I think the term actually was – I know it is unparliamentary and I know, Deputy Speaker, you have said it is unparliamentary, but it was mentioned in question time – that these were lies. This is a quote, what was said in question time – that what the opposition had said was indeed that. In fact it is none of the above. It if was, then why is this bill being presented to this Parliament today? It is being presented for a reason. It reinforces what we said at the time: not only is this government addicted to tax, this government is also addicted to not telling the truth. We see that time after time after time in question time, when the government literally tells an untruth first and – maybe – begs for forgiveness second by bringing legislation to the Parliament, which is what we are seeing today. So after the untruth of ‘There is no way payroll tax is being changed to deal with the health industry,’ a few months later after having three, four or five question times on this very matter to seek clarification on this very issue, with GPs in particular going off their tree complaining ‘This is going to force GP clinics to close,’ we now find – and of course we were pilloried for saying this – that what we said were untruths the government told in those question times were in fact untruths. The opposition was making a point, and this was coming to us from desperate professionals – allied health professionals, GPs and others who were desperate. They are there to work for the best interests of Victorians right around the state, and they were desperate. The member for South-West Coast, who is a former health professional, would know better than anyone else in this chamber how important it is to put the interests of your patients first, which is why those issues were being raised. But what we got was untruths in question times from the Leader of the Government and from a number of ministers, and it is evidenced today that they were untruths by the fact that this bill is being presented to this chamber.

Nathan LAMBERT (Preston) (16:30): I rise to support the State Taxation Further Amendment Bill 2024. As the Treasurer noted in his second-reading speech, this bill amends 10 separate acts not just consequentially but substantially, so there are a number of issues to address. I might try and pick up on some of the ones that have been addressed to a lesser extent in the debate so far. To the degree that the speakers from the opposition have touched on the provisions of the bill at all, and certainly in the member for Bulleen’s case that was not a great deal, they have largely concerned part 5, which of course relates to payroll tax and GPs. I should say I very much enjoyed the lecture we got from the member for Sandringham about the importance of universal health care; we welcome such a lecture. I only hope that he could speak to some of his colleagues who have a preference for private models about that important view.

As I said, I might turn to some of the other parts of the bill which are also important. Part 2 amends the Duties Act 2000. Notably, it follows up on the debate we had in this place on the Commercial and Industrial Property Tax Reform Bill 2024, which of course passed the Parliament. I do remember at the time of that debate that the member for Sandringham moved a reasoned amendment that basically said ‘We need more consultation.’ Those of us on the government side said that we thought the Treasurer was proceeding with his reforms in a very careful and judicious way and that if there were a need for any changes, there would be plenty of time to do so given the 10-year rollout of that program. Indeed the bill before us today is proof, I think, of that. There are some amendments there to the commercial and industrial property tax reforms. Most of them relate to what the Department of Treasury and Finance call non-standard transactions, which are where the economic interest in land is divvied up in some unusual way. We know that finance people like to come up with creative ways to divvy up the economic interests in assets, and these reforms just ensure that they are taxed as the original reforms intended.

The second division of part 2 makes some other important changes to the Duties Act. Most notably, it does allow people who purchase a home through a special disability trust to get the pensioner and concession card stamp duty concession or the principal place of residence concession in addition to the first home buyer concession and of course the first home owner grant, which is dealt with in part 3. I think these amendments deserve our strong support. They remove a problem where a small number of people with a profound disability were unable to access concessions that they deserved because their loved ones had set up a special disability trust. I know that the word ‘trust’ can conjure up notions of very wealthy people, but I think it is very important to state that special disability trusts are different. They support people with a profound disability, and we welcome that reform.

Division 2 also removes stamp duty exemptions for friendly societies, given that friendly societies can be quite commercial. As the Treasurer said, those exemptions are better targeted at charities. I did think it was interesting that the member for Sandringham, if I heard him correctly, said that the opposition would extend the exemptions to all friendly societies. Then when the member for Gippsland South got up on behalf of the Nationals he seemed to accept the government’s proposal, so I am not sure if the Liberals and Nationals need to talk further about that. Certainly we support where the Treasurer is going with this.

If I can, I might just shout out to the Victorian Elderly Chinese Welfare Society, a charity which is headquartered in High Street, Preston. They are landowners. I am sure they appreciate our exemptions for charities, and in fact they recently celebrated their 40th anniversary. Well done to Sam Wu, Patrick Chow, Robert Yung and Duncan Tang at VECWS, who organise many valued services for our older Chinese Victorians.

Finally, division 2 also makes some amendments to the foreign purchaser additional duty provisions to ensure that they operate as intended. I think those welcome reforms will have broad support because we all want to see that important revenue – revenue that is supported by all parties in this place, I believe – secured for the future.

Turning to part 4, it ensures that charitable institutions that own or manage land for the purposes of the relief of poverty are exempt from the land tax. I understand that affects a relatively small number of organisations, but it rounds out the exemptions that we provide for social housing, emergency housing and charitable organisations. Part 4 also makes some adjustments to the treatment of holiday homes, and in a similar vein it exempts alpine ski resorts from the vacant residential land tax. Alpine ski resorts are not often brought up when we are doorknocking in Reservoir or Preston, but it does make sense that they should be exempt. Actually, when we were young, when we were kids, we used to go up to Mount Beauty and Mount Buffalo in the summer season because accommodation is very cheap at that time of year, so I can confirm there are probably not a lot of jobs or demand for accommodation during the summer.

On the topic of vacant residential land tax, I would like just again to recognise the advocacy of the member for Footscray around the issues of land banking. I know she often talks about the Forges site and the Little Saigon site. I am not sure if there is any update there, but I am pleased to let the house know there is an update in Preston to one of the properties that has frustrated us, the big property on the corner of Bell and High streets. It is a very large property. I think I perhaps ungenerously said last time that it was only serving as a home for rats and pigeons. In good news, this very large 4000-square-metre site is now up for sale and it looks like there might be some action. That may be because of the land tax reforms we put through. It could also be, though, because of our housing statement – the Preston activity centre and all the incentives we put in place for people to actually do something with their land. I will not get too far ahead of myself, but I do hope to update the house when we see some construction actually start there.

While I am on that topic, I want to give some credit to the Minister for Housing in the other place as well as Haven Home Safe and their CEO Trudi Ray, and then Stemcon construction and their director Steve Sfendourakis, Sam, Bill and all the team there. I just want to give some credit to them. They are just up the street in Bell Street building some fantastic new social housing, and of course that project benefits from the exemptions that are in the bill in front of us here today. That is well underway and we look forward to its completion next year.

I will perhaps turn to some of the arguments we have heard from the opposition this week on housing. We have heard a lot of complaints that land taxes are preventing landowners from renting out their properties. I just want to echo the comments made by the member for Melton that of course owners of land and owners of property, if they think their taxation burden is too high, can sell their property and they can purchase equities or whatever else they might want to purchase. As we know, someone else then buys that property. It does not disappear. All properties in Victoria are owned by someone, and indeed the person who buys it may well be a first home buyer who then gets into the market and has their own property. We know one of the great advantages – the classic great advantage – of a land tax is that it does not distort people’s decision about renting out a property or making use of their property. The only thing it really does is make sure that people do the very best to make sure that their property is put to the highest value use in their assessment.

We also heard this week the Greens’ critique that investors are somehow favoured by Labor in purchasing a property over those who are buying a property for their principal place of residence. I find that critique very frustrating because it is so obviously false. It is a well-known fact of our tax system, both here in the state and federally, that there is a very long list of exemptions for people’s principal residence, many indeed that are touched upon by the bill in front of us. It is simply not true to say that those buying their first home are at a disadvantage under any of Labor’s policies. Quite the reverse – they are in fact at an advantage.

I did mention that part 5 of the bill provides those GP exemptions in relation to bulk-billed medical services. I do want to echo the remarks of the member for Melton about our encouragement of GPs to use that incentive to provide more bulk-billed services. That is what we would like to see and that is the intention. It also clarifies, I think importantly, how we treat those circumstances when wages have been underpaid. Unfortunately, in this state wages are underpaid quite regularly, and I commend the parts of this bill that will allow us to recover the right level of payroll tax. We certainly do not want to see those employers who are underpaying their wages then get a tax benefit because they do not pay the full payroll tax on those wages.

Part 6 clarifies the definition of ‘sale price’. Rounding it out, part 7 completes what has been an important reform not touched on yet in the debate, moving valuation responsibilities away from councils to the valuer-general, where they should be. I thank the Treasurer and his team for their fine work on this important set of discrete reforms. I thank the State Revenue Office, who I know do a great job and have been closely involved, and I commend this bill to the house.

Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (16:40): I rise again to speak on a taxation bill introduced by the government. This one is a little bit different to the others actually. This one has a fair degree of back-pedalling rather than introducing another tax, because we know we are already up to 55 new or increased taxes under this period of Labor government. I am speaking on the State Taxation Further Amendment Bill 2024. We have got an interesting title here. It shows us why we are here: a further amendment. We are doing this because the government did not do all of the thinking up-front. They have had their taxation bills. They have got to have another crack at it because they did not get it right, because they did not do their thinking. This is what the government does. They knee-jerk and they rush. They realise the state is just about as broke as it can be. There is barely any money in the kitty for anything. We heard about the hospitals. We can see from their annual reports that their cash flow situation is precarious. The government have this kneejerk reaction, and each time they have not thought about the detail – what does it mean? This one is not about new taxes, which is a bit of a relief really, and I am quite thankful about that, but it is making some amendments for some stuff-ups that they have had as they have gone through.

There are a number of acts being amended, but primarily we have got the Payroll Tax Act 2007, the Duties Act 2000, the Land Tax Act 2005 and a bunch of others. I am going to start by talking about the payroll tax. I think it is important and we need to understand what it was that the government did then, because remember this is a further amendment. They introduced changes to payroll tax calculations. That payroll tax calculation change included doctors and other health professionals who lease rooms – they could be dieticians, physios, chiros, osteos, dentists – from medical practices rather than being direct employees of the practices themselves. So somebody who is leasing a space, operating their own business, was captured in this because they were not a direct employee. But the State Revenue Office went out and published guidelines, ruling that payments to GP contractors would be considered wages for the purpose of calculating payroll tax liability for GP medical clinics. At the same time as the SRO was going out providing a little bit of clarity, in the Parliament we had the Treasurer, the Minister for Health and the Premier at different times put in their two bob’s worth about what was happening. Despite that they are now back-pedalling on something, at the time they denied something was even happening.

I have got a couple of great quotes here. On 21 March last year the Treasurer was talking about when he was meeting with different people related to this:

I had the opportunity to confirm then, and I will confirm now, that we have not changed in any material way the procedure by which the State Revenue Office seeks to raise payroll tax from GPs.

He was saying nothing had changed. A few months later, on 29 August, the health minister said:

… and we were very clear at that point, in that meeting –

she is referring to the AMA and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners –

… that when it comes to payroll tax absolutely nothing has changed.

She doubled down the next day:

But let me clear: there has been no change.

The Premier in November last year also went on to say:

As I have said previously, as the Treasurer has said previously, the payroll tax arrangements continue to operate in the same way as they have for some time since 1983 across all sectors.

These are extensive denials by the most senior members of the government. Now we see this back-pedalling, so they are introducing a payroll tax exemption.

This time it is limited to general practitioners’ bulk-billed services – the services that they bulk bill –effective from July next year, so it is a partial exemption, and it comes in response to the campaign that the Liberals and Nationals ran. We did not have to try very hard then, because the GPs and the practice owners, those that lease rooms, were exceptionally outspoken. They met with us. They met with our leader and with the shadow health minister. They were furious. We heard stories of enormous payroll tax bills being sent backdated five years. If you run a GP practice and all of a sudden you have a bill for $500,000, that is something that you just do not have spare in your back pocket to be able to pay, so these practitioners were furious at the government’s changes. The government then started to think, ‘We better listen,’ because they did not do the thinking and the consulting first up.

This change also grants the commissioner now the authority to reassess payroll liabilities up to five years post initial assessment, noting that retrospectivity will not apply to GP contractors before 1 July 2025, as indicated by online statements from the State Revenue Office. We have also put forward a reasoned amendment around this because we would like to see that be a permanent exemption, not just a partial exemption.

I want to mention just briefly changes to the Duties Act 2000, which is repealing existing exemptions for friendly societies under section 45. There is an exemption that currently applies to the transfer of properties or declarations of trusts involving charities and friendly societies. We do not hear much about friendly societies these days – hardly at all – and this will provide these organisations relief from duty on certain transactions. There is also a foreign purchaser additional duty that is enforceable for foreign property buyers.

But I want to jump onto land tax and talk for a moment about the alpine resort exemptions which have been brought forward. This applies to properties in Victoria’s six alpine resort areas. Two of those are in my electorate, three of those actually – Buller, Sterling and Lake Mountain. We also have Falls Creek, Hotham and Baw Baw. It is fair to say that Lake Mountain and Baw Baw are not alpine resorts, but they are collectively pulled into this for the purposes here. They have had a really tough last couple of years. They have had poor seasons. Snow-making has been a disaster, certainly at Mount Buller because of some issues with the licence to pump.

It is fair to say, and it is very understandable, that alpine resorts are very seasonal. The properties there remain vacant outside peak periods, and even so, the snow season is quite short, so the government has decided in the spirit of things to make an exemption. I am going to actually quote here from the second-reading speech, because I think that there is room to extend this a little bit further:

Due to the cyclical and seasonal demand for accommodation in alpine resort areas, lands located in these areas are likely to be considered vacant for VRLT purposes. However, the imposition of VRLT on lands located in Alpine resort areas would be inconsistent with the purpose of VLRT, which is to encourage owners of vacant residential homes to make them available for use as long term accommodation.

There are a couple of questions about this, but I think that there is room, for the exact reason that is outlined in the second-reading speech, that they could exempt these areas from the short-stay accommodation tax as well. I have been lobbied by quite a number of people. There is a bit of confusion about how that is going to apply to some of these people. We know that there are lodges that are very small, not-for-profit areas that are subject to the 7.5 per cent levy, and they are very worried that they are not going to be able to increase the cost of the accommodation to cover that. It is very seasonal in those areas. The government is trying to entice all-year round visitation to our alpine resorts to have people there for 12 months of the year – the green season not just the white season – and these sorts of charges are only going to discourage that. When they were looking at this, it might not have been the reason they were including it, but I encourage the government to actually go away and do a little bit more thinking about that short-stay accommodation tax for alpine resort areas. I do know that the removal of the land tax there will be welcomed by a number of people, because it is very difficult. They are never going to be up at Dinner Plain near Hotham, for example, on the permanent residential property market.

Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (16:50): I too rise to speak on the State Taxation Further Amendment Bill 2024. I was just reminded by some colleagues on this side of the chamber that it has been a really big week this week here in this place. I have to say it has been full of nonsense coming from the other side, talking about conspiracies, all this sort of stuff, including about this bill, having listened to previous speakers. I want to talk about the bill. It is really important. It is a great time to bring it forward.

The main purpose of the bill is to act on the commitment made by our government to exempt contractor and employee GPs who provide bulk-billing services from paying payroll tax from July 2025 onwards. We really want to make sure that our primary care system is working and, most importantly, it is working as best as it possibly can and delivers the quality medical care that Victorians expect. They expect this kind of quality care, and they need it to be as bulk-billed as it can possibly be. I know when I have to turn up to the doctor, whether it is my husband or I or my kids, I constantly wonder how we went from it all being bulk-billed when I was growing up; I do not ever remember my mother paying and forking out as much money as we do now. The bulk-billing aspect when it comes to GPs is really important. I talked about this matter, and it was great to hear that Truganina has a great bulk-billing medical centre that offers all kinds of services, including GPs, speech pathologists, all of that kind of thing. They are in the heart of Trug and that was Reliance Care Medical Centre. I got to talk to a lot of those healthcare service providers, and they talked to me about some of the challenges they face. One of the things we talked about that they were so proud of is that they were a bulk-billing centre, and the local community absolutely love it.

I want to be very clear here in saying that our GPs are doing a fantastic job and doing their absolute best to deliver their care and play an integral role in Victoria’s healthcare system. It is why they got into the profession in the first place. They say it is a calling to deliver the best possible care to their local community. But what we know is that the biggest challenge facing their industry right now is a decade of underinvestment in Medicare and a decade of absolute neglect from the previous federal coalition government. They are the ones of course who kept the Medicare rebate frozen while costs continued to increase. If you look at how long they were in power in Canberra for, that is about eight years of frozen rebates, eight years worth of small gradual increases that may not have kept up, forcing more and more clinics and more and more doctors to stop bulk-billing. When I say, ‘I wonder what happened when I was a kid and in my early 20s and going to the GP and it all being bulk-billed,’ – what happened? What happened to this country was a decade of neglect from a federal Liberal coalition government. I remember back in 2014 when the Abbott federal government tried to introduce a flat $7 GP co-payment for everyone, no matter where you were, whether your clinic could accommodate bulk-billing or whether you could afford it or not. It beggars believes that a decade later they somehow succeeded. There is a lot that needs to be done to fix those mistakes, and I know that our federal government is working so hard at doing exactly this.

It is things like urgent care clinics that are fully bulk-billed that have been transformative for communities like ours in Melbourne’s west. It is at these places you can show up, like the Reliance Care Medical Centre in Trug, with nothing but your Medicare card, and you can get the best care that you need and deserve. This work is so important because it is taking the pressure off our hospitals; it is diverting people away from hospital emergency rooms and from flooding our hospitals because they cannot afford to see a GP or, worse still, they cannot access one. Right now we are going to do our bit by delivering $32 million to support graduate GPs, ensuring that medical students know that they can have a rewarding career working in general practice, because we know that we absolutely need more of them to follow this opportunity and follow this kind of calling that they have to look after and care for our community.

We have also invested an additional $10 million in this year’s budget into primary care, which will establish a grant scheme to be co-designed with MPs. The particular change that we are making today relates to a payroll tax decision made by the state commissioner of taxation, which actually went ahead and ruled that GP clinics may not be liable for payroll tax. The Treasurer has used his special powers, his ex gratia powers, to create a temporary exemption, something that this bill most importantly is going to go ahead and make permanent. This has aligned our settings with the rest of the country. It has ended the confusion over whether a clinic or a GP will be liable for this payroll tax. We have worked really closely with the primary care sector, including peak advocacy bodies like the state’s Australian Medical Association branch and the Australian GP Alliance. All of these bodies have had an overwhelming response in backing these changes that are before us today, which are giving them and their members clarity and, importantly, certainty over this matter. It also allows for all of us to focus on making primary care as affordable and accessible as possible for all Victorians, because a Labor government still believes to this day it is your Medicare card and not your credit card that should get you access to health care.

This bill does not just deal with payroll tax when it comes to GPs. There are a lot of other really positive changes as well. For example, the bill is going to apply payroll tax to cases of wage underpayments. I am really proud of the fact that I was part of this government when we made wage theft a criminal offence. It was a really big moment here in this place and for our government, making wage theft a criminal offence. We were the first jurisdiction in Australia to do so, and I am even more pleased that the Commonwealth has followed suit and made several sweeping reforms to industrial relations in this country. They are changes that were, yes, long, long overdue, but we have now nationally made wage theft a crime in every state and every territory in this country, and that is something that Australians should feel very proud of. It is logical that when wages are underpaid that this in turn lowers the amount of payroll tax that an employer must pay. Indeed you would think that this itself would seem like further incentive to go ahead and engage in this kind of illegal practice. As it stands the existing legislation only allows for the commissioner of state revenue to make reassessments of a tax liability for up to five years after the initial assessment. But most importantly, what this bill is going to do is expressly allow for the commissioner to make a reassessment for payroll tax after the five-year period where there has been a case of wage underpayment. What we are doing is we are making it really clear that if you break the law and you do not pay your workers what you should have and you get found out – and, yes, you will – you will not get off the hook for payroll tax.

This is not the only other change we have made which makes a really positive impact, though. We are also expanding the land tax exemption for social and affordable housing. Earlier this year the state budget introduced a land tax exemption for a particular list of social and affordable housing providers as well as providers of emergency accommodation. We absolutely want to see more social and affordable housing, which is a key cornerstone of our government’s housing statement and indeed the recent round of housing announcements made by our wonderful Premier over this past month. We also want to make it easier for social housing providers and charitable organisations to provide housing to support some of our most vulnerable, and this exemption will help achieve that purpose.

This bill makes some really small but really important impactful changes to Victoria’s tax system. It is all about making things fairer. That is what the Labor government has been trying to do and indeed has been going ahead and rolling out right across Victoria for the last decade – making impactful changes and making things fair. Whether you are a GP clinic providing primary critical care, someone who has been the victim of wage theft or a social housing provider, the changes in this bill make it easier for you, and that is exactly the reason why I wholeheartedly commend the bill to the house.

The SPEAKER: The house is considering the State Taxation Further Amendment Bill 2024. The minister has moved that the bill be now read a second time. The member for Sandringham has moved a reasoned amendment to this motion and he has proposed to omit all of the words after ‘That’ and replace them with the words which have been circulated. The question is:

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

Those supporting the reasoned amendment by the member for Sandringham should vote no.

Assembly divided on question:

Ayes (51): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Eden Foster, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

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

Question agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

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