Tuesday, 18 February 2025

Victorian Bank Levy (Tax the Major Banks) Bill 2025

Introduction

Ellen SANDELL (Melbourne) (12:10): I move:

That I introduce a bill for an act to impose a levy on authorised deposit-taking institutions liable to pay the levy under the Major Bank Levy Act 2017 of the Commonwealth and for other purposes.

We need to be able to introduce this bill today because the big banks are making mega profits while everyday Victorians are struggling to make ends meet. In the last full financial year alone the big banks made about $36.5 billion in combined profits. Just six days ago the Commonwealth Bank reported a $5.3 billion profit in just six months. These are eye-watering figures that are so far removed from the everyday lives of Victorians, and this bill will ensure that the big banks will return a small portion of those super profits back to Victorians, which can then be put towards tackling the cost of living, increasing services and improving Victorians’ lives.

It is actually urgent in this cost-of-living crisis that we debate this bill now, because we are about to go into a state budget which we are being told will be very tough. We are being told that the government is unlikely to be able to fix communities’ crumbling public schools or to upgrade their train stations. We are being told that health services cannot be fixed, even those that we have heard have leaking or collapsing roofs. There are people sleeping rough on the streets of Melbourne and Victoria while the government cannot seem to afford to invest in public housing. Many people in our state are struggling to keep up with rent and mortgage payments. They are getting less and less for their dollar at the supermarket, and they are choosing whether to run their heating and cooling or to afford their rent or their food. That is why, given everything that social services are telling us about the urgency of the cost-of-living crisis, it is urgent that this bill to put a tax on the big banks be introduced into Parliament today. What we are proposing is a very modest tax based on a model proposed by in fact the former South Australian Labor government. It was blocked by the Liberals and other conservatives in the South Australian upper house.

Katie Hall: On a point of order, Speaker, this is a procedural debate, and the member appears to be debating her bill.

The SPEAKER: While I will allow the member for Melbourne to briefly outline the bill, I do ask her to speak to it being in fact a procedural motion as to why this bill should be introduced.

Ellen SANDELL: This is what I am outlining – the urgency as to why this needs to be debated now as opposed to some unspecified time in the future. It is something the Greens have brought into public debate before, but we have chosen today to put it on the table to be debated because of the urgency of the cost-of-living crisis. As I outlined, it is something that the South Australian Labor government had proposed, and so it is not something that is beyond the bounds of this Labor government to also support.

The other reason that it is urgent is because of the mega profits that the banks are making. The South Australian Treasurer at the time said the major banks were undertaxed, and that sounds about right to me. They were not able to get it done there, but I hope that we can get it done here in Victoria. The banks certainly can afford it. I know that they will come out swinging. The banking lobby will not like it. They will come out with scare tactics. They will say it would move investment away from Victoria, but it is just simply not true, because the proposal is for a tax on a percentage of bank liabilities equal to Victoria’s share of national GDP, not just on the Victorian liabilities or investments. So when the banking lobby comes out and inevitably rolls out their scare campaign, they are deliberately using disinformation, and I think Victorians can see through that, particularly right now in a cost-of-living crisis. I think Victorians know that when one single corporation can make more than $5 billion of profit in just six months it can afford to pay a little bit more tax, and I think that they can afford for some of that tax to go towards the things that we know Victorians need. The Parliamentary Budget Office estimates the levy would raise just over $16.5 billion over the next decade. Imagine what we could do with those funds.

The government says that we are about to go into a budget – and that is another reason why it is urgent ‍– where the government is going to have very little money to support the things that Victorians need and everyone is probably going to have to tighten their belt. Well, we would not necessarily need to do that quite so much if we actually taxed the huge, huge profits of these corporations. The other reason it is urgent is that the RBA today is making a decision about interest rates again. We have seen successive interest rate rises that have hurt not only people trying to afford their mortgages but also renters that are then having their rents increased because of those interest rate rises, or that is what landlords are telling them. That is another reason why this bill must urgently be debated today.

Katie HALL (Footscray) (12:15): I am no constitutional lawyer, but I believe that the member for Melbourne’s proposal is squarely in the remit of the Commonwealth government – yet another unfortunate stunt by the Greens. We see time and time again that the banks pass on costs to consumers. I am very proud to be part of a government that is doing real things, tangible things, that we can deliver to help Victorians with cost-of-living expenses. In my electorate of Footscray alone I know there has been more than a million dollars spent on the $400 school saving bonus – $400 per student at government schools, helping those families with the cost of uniforms, camps and textbooks. These are actual, real dollars back in the pockets of Victorians. The member for Melbourne mentioned rental reforms. The protections this government has introduced for renters – more than 130 reforms – show the power of a government taking real action to support renters, rather than this sort of land of make-believe proposal that we have just heard from the member opposite. The default offer – I know that the member would have lots of apartment complexes in her electorate. We have made sure that we have the lowest electricity prices in the country because of real reform that we have delivered as a government. This is another tangible thing that we have delivered.

It feels kind of farcical to see the member for Melbourne talking about the remit of the Commonwealth government when there is so much going on in terms of reform from this government to help people with their everyday cost-of-living expenses, whether it is helping people with solar panels on their roofs to cut electricity costs, whether it is the $400 school saving bonus, whether it is cutting the cost of getting from a regional centre down to Melbourne so that there is equity in our public transport system or our reforms to support renters, which are the strongest in the nation. The member mentioned public housing. I am also very proud to be part of a government that is spending the largest amount in Australian history on building more social homes for Victorians to live in, because we know that at this time social and affordable housing is a real thing that we can tackle. It is disappointing to see yet another stunt focused on the remit of the Commonwealth government, as we did with the supermarket prices issue that the former member for Prahran used to pursue in here. I reject the motion from the member for Melbourne.

Tim READ (Brunswick) (12:19): I thank the member for Footscray for her contribution, but I refer her to recent comments by the federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers, who has pointed out that it is within the remit of states to introduce taxes like this, and as the member for Melbourne pointed out, $16 billion over 10 years would be a great help to this government. In fact that is one reason why it is urgent to debate this bill today, because we read recently of the closure or the pending closure of the colorectal and pelvic reconstruction service at the Children’s hospital. The closure of this service, which is very important to the small number of children born with rectal and intestinal abnormalities, is something that would not have to happen if the state was getting an injection of over $1.6 billion a year due to a tax levied on the big banks, as outlined –

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, seeking your guidance, this is a narrow procedural motion, and I am not quite sure what the member for Brunswick’s contribution to date has to do with the need to introduce this bill at this time. I ask you to bring him back to the procedural matters before the house.

The SPEAKER: The member for Brunswick was making a point; I do not uphold the point of order.

Tim READ: As I was saying, services of that sort would not have to close if we had more sources of revenue for the government. It is no secret that the government is in financial difficulty and that some of these problems are urgent. We think it is important that we bring to the house this week a developed idea for a new source of revenue, and given that the federal Treasurer has identified this as a legitimate area for states to raise revenue, we regard it as urgent that this be done. It is equally urgent because of the lack of public housing in the state. We all know – and this is something that has been developing over decades, the growing number of homeless and people at risk of homelessness over this time – that putting some of this money towards housing would be an urgent option and solution for those issues. I only have to point to schools in my electorate and many other deserving recipients of housing.

Returning to the bill, I think it is critical that the diminution, the shrinkage in the number of banks in Victoria that has occurred over my lifetime, with the closure of the State Bank and many others, and the concentration of wealth in the big four and the super profits that they have been making do not go unnoticed and unaddressed by this house. Introducing this levy is a way of putting some of that revenue towards public benefit.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (12:22): The Greens political party are gilding the lily, stretching things a little bit too far, I might say, with regard to comments that the federal Treasurer may have made and trying to make them relevant here in a state Parliament. They are always trying to lean into Commonwealth matters – good on them, give it a crack – but really I think I was elected personally to represent the seat of Albert Park on state issues, so perhaps we should stay within that remit. I know there is a lot of discussion about interest rates et cetera, quite rightly, but as far as I am aware that is actually a Commonwealth matter. For the purposes of an efficiently run Parliament, we should stay within the remit of our state constitution – that is, a state constitution as opposed to a federal constitution. Bearing in mind that this is a procedural motion, I therefore do not wish to stray beyond the remit of what my prerogative is with regard to this debate, and that is to adhere to the program we have at hand on state matters. We know the Greens political party has form – it is all about philosophy not delivery. If only they could deliver something; that would be a newbie for the chamber.

Honestly, talking about social and affordable housing, we have record investment in that space – this is very much in the Labor DNA – because we want Victorians to have decent contemporary housing, landscaping, facilities and community spaces. I do not know why they do not want community spaces, I do not know why they do not want contemporary housing of good quality for fellow Victorians, why they block, block, block. Of course when it comes to energy savings, if we are talking about cost of living, it has already been mentioned by my esteemed colleague about the Victorian default offer and the Victorian energy upgrades program. I have actually even been in public housing and have seen upgrades that our government made with regard to changing people over from gas to electricity. I have actually seen it myself; I have actually had chats, so how about that. And then there is the very successful solar rebate program, all about supporting the transition in Victoria and making sure that we make those necessary cost savings for the future for all Victorians. I do want to reiterate that we are a state Parliament. We should adhere, dare I say, to state matters. On this procedural motion, let us move forward with the matters of the day that are relevant to this house.

Bridget VALLENCE (Evelyn) (12:25): It should be noted that these sorts of duties were abolished as part of the GST reforms with the Commonwealth. Lest there be any doubt, the Victorian Liberals and Nationals oppose the contents of the bill proposed by the Greens. But what we do support and appreciate is opposition members of Parliament having the ability to introduce bills and for them to be debated, so whilst we vehemently oppose what the Greens political party are pursuing, we do not oppose their ability to debate it.

Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (12:25): I am genuinely confused as to why we are in here this afternoon debating this procedural motion. It took me a little bit to get to the bottom of it, but from what I can tell, the Greens over there are proposing a levy on banks in Victoria so as to be able to build more projects, which is fantastic. I am assuming their political strategy is allowing us to build more projects with some extra revenue, more projects that they can oppose, because they have opposed every single thing that we have done. Whether it be new social and affordable housing, whether it be the West Gate Tunnel, every great thing that this government does that lot opposes. I tell you what, it is also a pretty bold move to bring this policy up today of all days, because sitting here in my seat here just flicking through my phone doing a little bit of research, this is a policy that was dreamed up by the former member for Prahran. About this time last year he ran it out through the papers. I would have thought that today of all days –

Ellen Sandell: On a point of order, Speaker, the member is misleading the house. It was actually me who introduced it first, and I do not think women should be ignored in that way.

The SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, member for Melbourne.

Dylan WIGHT: The member for Melbourne can tell us all she likes about what she may have said in her caucus meeting, but this article in the Age from about a year ago refers to ‘Greens economic justice spokesperson Sam Hibbins’. I am not in the Greens tactics meetings, but I would have thought it was a pretty bold move, after just losing a by-election in Prahran, to come in here and regurgitate the former member’s policy positions. But, you know, good on you.

Those that have come before me and made contributions to this debate have rightly said that this is an area for the federal government, and indeed it is. In fact the federal government recently, as in two weeks ago, proposed a $350 million levy on the banks, because it is in their remit. It is their job. If the member for Melbourne is so desperate to be a federal member of Parliament, then she should go and have a transitional conversation with Adam Bandt and run for the federal seat of Melbourne when he decides to leave. That would be my advice to the member for Melbourne. If you are so keen on talking about federal issues, go and have a conversation with your federal leader, get a transitional agreement in place and then run for the seat of Melbourne. Do not come in here and waste the Victorian Parliament’s time talking about things that belong in the federal Parliament.

As I said, this is a federal issue. Indeed federal Labor have done a lot in this space over a long period of time. We can go all the way back to the mid-1980s and the deregulation of the banking system, ensuring competitiveness in that system that was not there before. This is an absolute waste of our time. We should be just about up to the government business program now, talking about things that this Parliament can do for working Victorians.

Assembly divided on motion:

Ayes (3): Gabrielle de Vietri, Tim Read, Ellen Sandell

Noes (79): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Anthony Cianflone, Annabelle Cleeland, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Chris Crewther, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Wayne Farnham, Eden Foster, Will Fowles, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, David Hodgett, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Emma Kealy, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Tim McCurdy, Steve McGhie, Cindy McLeish, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, Danny Pearson, John Pesutto, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, Michaela Settle, David Southwick, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Emma Vulin, Peter Walsh, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Kim Wells, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson, Jess Wilson

Motion defeated.