Thursday, 17 October 2024

Short Stay Levy Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Harriet Shing:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (15:15): I would like to start off by congratulating the government on a bit of a milestone. You get to your 50th birthday, and that is a milestone, but 55 is still a big milestone for those turning 55, and this is Labor’s 55th new or increased tax since coming to government. Ten years of the Andrews–Allan government and we have 55 new or increased taxes. That is roughly one new tax every two months since this government started and since this Premier became a minister.

This is the Short Stay Levy Bill 2024, and there are a few people that are going to be enjoying short stays as a result of this bill. There are a few members in this Parliament that are going to be enjoying short stays in this Parliament, like the member for Wendouree, like the member for Hastings, like the member for Bass, like the member for South Barwon and like several other members. They are going to be having very short stays in this Parliament because of the destructive nature of this tax and what it will do to their communities in terms of destroying regional economies and destroying people’s ability to go for a holiday. The member for Yan Yean – there is another one that will be having a short stay in this Parliament. A lot of them are in for a short stay because they cannot manage money. Labor cannot manage money, and it is Victorians that are paying the price. It is Victorians that rely on regional tourism, to come into their towns to fill the tills at the coffee shops and at the restaurants that keep regional economies going. They are going to be paying the price because of this bill. It is Victorians looking for a hard-earned break, a hard-earned holiday with the family, that are paying the price – the 7.5 per cent price – because this government cannot manage money.

From the outset can I say I am pleased to be able to speak on this bill after the announcement by the Leader of the Opposition this week that the Liberals and Nationals not only oppose this tax but are committed to repealing it should we be given the honour of winning government in a little over two years. We will oppose this legislation. This is bad legislation, and we will also seek to amend it. In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis Victorians do not need to be taxed more than they already are. They need a government that understands their circumstances and understands their situation. They need a government that understands their personal financial situation and is empathetic towards that, and they need a government that will tax them less. But this government is addicted to taxes. They set up an injecting room to get people off addiction. They need to set up their little own room to get themselves off their addiction to taxes; that is what they need to do, this government. If I can quote Winston Churchill:

… for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

That is what this government is trying to do. If Winston was here today, he might say taxing something is not going to incentivise getting more tourists into Victoria; it will in fact push them further and further away. Despite Labor’s tax attacks, Victoria’s total net debt will reach $188 billion in 2027, the largest debt of any state or territory in the country. That is an enormous amount of debt and, as we know, more debt than New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania combined. This includes over $40 billion of infrastructure cost blowouts. Interest on the debt alone is $26 million per day. With this money the Allan Labor government could pay for 128 new ambulances, two new breast cancer centres, 2715 elective surgeries or the yearly salaries of 315 nurses, 510 Victoria Police recruits or 305 paramedics. If you tax something more, things get more expensive, and that is the case with this new tax.

The government refers to this new tax as their short-stay levy, and that is a bit of cute Labor spin. They call it a levy, but let us call it what it is. Let us have a bit of honesty from this government for once. They are busy hiding and covering up their lies. We saw that this week with the Commonwealth Games documents. Let us have a bit of honesty for once from this government and call it what it is during this debate – which is a tax. We know this government is addicted to taxes. It is a tax on holidays, it is a tax on tourism and it is a tax on families looking to get a bit of a holiday, a bit of a break, during a tough time for all Victorians.

Why on earth would you tax a holiday? Why would you do it? A holiday is an opportunity to get away from the cares and worries of the world. A lot of the worries of a lot of people at the moment are inflicted in fact by this state Labor government. When Labor are in a debt crisis their solution is, ‘Sorry, we’re coming after your trip away with the kids.’ As the Shadow Treasurer the member for Sandringham said in the other place:

Frankly, what sort of mug taxes a holiday? What sort of mug taxes tourism? Well, this Labor government does both, and Victorians are paying the price because of it.

The member for Sandringham has pointed out how flawed this is. I am grateful for his extensive engagement with the tourism sector and with related peak bodies, organisations like Expedia Group, the Victoria Tourism Industry Council, the Real Estate Institute of Victoria, the Urban Development Institute of Australia, the Short Term Accommodation Association Australia and many others. What his consultation has taught us is how friendless this bill is. Can the government find a single stakeholder that is supportive of this bill? I do not think it can. They have upset the sector at great length. This bill is friendless to everyone outside the Treasurer’s office; it might have some friends in there, because we know they are all addicted to taxes in there. I am not sure if it might be unparliamentary to call this bill ‘Neville no-mates’, but it is. It has no friends, and it is Labor’s 55th tax on Victorians.

The Victoria Tourism Industry Council has said:

From our initial conversations with Treasury, we are deeply concerned that the Victorian Government does not fully understand the landscape of the short-stay market and the unintended consequences of this levy.

The Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has said:

There is undeniably a need for more social and affordable housing, but the short stay levy is another tax on Victorians that doesn’t exist in other states and territories. It makes our state less attractive to visitors and puts businesses who rely on tourism at a distinct disadvantage.

The government claim this is about housing, but in prosecuting the case for their 55th tax they are yet to make this argument and explain how a tax hike will help. I will listen closely to my colleagues on the government benches as they try to defend their latest tax today, and I will see if they can do what their lower house colleagues cannot. Can you tell us the exact number of houses that you expect to become available in the long-term rental market or the affordable housing space? Can you tell us? Can you release the modelling? It is all good to have an argument, to say that this will create new housing or this will make more housing available, but where is the evidence? We have asked for this. It has not been forthcoming, and the ministers have not been able to answer either. This government’s credibility on housing, to put it mildly, is not great. Despite committing to build 80,000 homes each and every year for 10 years, only 55,653 homes were built over the last 12 months to September, down by nearly 2700 from the same time last year. Since committing to increase housing, the number of homes delivered has gone backwards, which only proves that the Labor government has made the housing crisis worse.

This tax will not solve the housing crisis in Victoria. Victoria’s rental vacancy rate is at a historic low, estimated at between 1 per cent and 2 per cent. There is no evidence, not a shred of evidence from this government, that this tax on short-stays will actually boost the supply of long-term rentals – none. The government has failed to provide any shred of evidence for this argument. I implore my colleagues on the other side of the house who do make this argument that more houses will become available on the long-term rental market – you can say that and do say it – to please bring the evidence into the chamber. Go around to the Treasurer’s office, knock on the door, ask for the modelling, bring it into the chamber, and when you are reading your speaking notes you can tell us how this new tax will actually incentivise more people to go on the long-term rental market. I suspect you will not, because you will go around to the Treasurer’s office, you will knock on his door and he will do the same thing he has done for everyone else and refuse to give up any evidence. He will still demand that you read the talking points that you have all been given to make that claim, but we know that that claim has not a single shred of evidence.

Victoria’s housing crisis is being felt right across Victoria, in regional Victoria and in metropolitan Melbourne. This is a tax on all Victorians, and it is going to have a double hit by hitting tourists – Victorians that make up the majority of visitors to regional Victoria – in the hip pocket and then hitting the small business and tourism operators in our state by reducing trade, reducing customers and risking their businesses. Of course we know that side of the chamber would not know anything about running a business – certainly a lot about running a union, but nothing about running a business – or what our small business owners go through, particularly in regional Victoria, and how vital tourism is to regional communities. During COVID Victoria relinquished its number two spot for overall tourist spend and is now third, behind New South Wales and Queensland. Regional Victoria has never fully recovered from the pandemic, and operators are battling a prolonged cost-of-living crisis. Cafes and restaurants are reporting smaller spends, activity and attraction businesses are quieter, and people are travelling for shorter periods of time to cut down on holiday costs.

It is also worth noting that around 40 per cent of those in short-stays are not in fact tourists. Government does not understand this, but let me repeat that, just so the government hears: 40 per cent of those who stay in short-term rentals are not in fact tourists. They are frontline workers, they are FIFO workers, they are people who are fleeing domestic violence – vulnerable Victorians who for whatever reason or circumstance are not able to stay in their own long-term rental accommodation or in their home and need emergency housing, which is a really important point to make. I know this because I have had several constituents speak to me about this, about how they stay in short-term Airbnbs or short-term accommodation when travelling to the city to go to the Royal Children’s Hospital to look after their sick children or to go to St Vincent’s Hospital for a prolonged stay of a family member. These are the types of reasons people use short-stay accommodation.

I am not often prone to calling this government a world leader, but here we have an exception. Labor’s latest tax on short-term rentals is in fact the largest and highest short-stay levy of any such levy in the world. This bill also allows and some would say encourages councils to slap additional taxes on short-stays. The potential impact of this is a nightmare patchwork of 79 different councils with 79 different taxes and rates – a bureaucratic and administrative nightmare for small operators, large operators and the consumers trying to budget for a holiday.

Can you imagine people coming into the City of Merri-bek? They will not have a cheap time staying in the City of Merri-bek; I can guarantee that. Perhaps they will after the council elections – we will see. The City of Yarra and other councils are quite notorious for advocacy in this place and are quite notorious for lifting rates and other levies whenever they get the opportunity. It is usually Greens councillors; whenever they get the opportunity they jump at it. They talk about the cost of living in this place, and then you look at their council colleagues in particular imposing some of the harshest penalties on people that are the most vulnerable in our community.

This came – councils being able to charge a double tax – after the government originally ruled out allowing councils this power. Yet as we know, as the result of a dirty deal between the Labor Party and the Greens political party, the government then caved on that. We know that because the Greens themselves boasted about the fact that they had struck a deal on this. If it was a bad idea before, Mr Treasurer, it is a bad idea now, and it is going to cause mayhem for our small businesses, our tourism operators and people needing to get away for a holiday. Not only are they going to be taxed once to go on a holiday, they are going to be taxed twice to go on a holiday.

We also need to discuss the reality of the money this tax will raise. The Treasurer at first said that this tax will raise $75 million. That was then cut down by one-fifth. Now, I know he does not have a great record with numbers, the Treasurer. We can pretty much all admit that he does not have a good record with numbers. It was cut down by one-fifth, $15 million, to $60 million. Given the powers of councils to ban – or through tax powers strongly disincentivise – short-term rentals in their patch, that number has very little credibility as well. It is not going to contribute much to building new houses. Homes Victoria, where it is meant to go, the state government body charged with producing affordable housing and social housing in this state, is currently about $180 million in debt. It will not be put into new homes. Do not buy the argument that this is going to be put into new homes. It will be paying off the highest debt in the nation. It will go to paying the interest bill on the debt, which is climbing to $26 million a day, each and every day, in the next few years.

The Shadow Treasurer in his contribution in the other place also highlighted the unintended consequence of this tax: its negative impact on people with a disability. He said:

There are Victorians around the state – disabled Victorians – who choose to stay in short-term rental accommodation such as Airbnb and other platforms because it enables them and their families to have the greater support and flexibility that they need when they are going on holidays …

or when they are moving around the state. Some hotels do not have the facilities to accommodate guests with a certain disability, and the guests themselves can find the cost of renting the additional materials they need quite onerous and prohibitive. As the Shadow Treasurer put it in his speech:

… if you have a severe disability and wish to travel in this state and you are requiring things like lifters and high–low beds and other equipment that disabled Victorians rely upon, in terms of hotels in Victoria there is an option for you, but there is only one, and it is a hotel in Burwood East.

I have got nothing against Burwood East. It is a great part of the world, but it is not exactly a part of the world that you would go to for a holiday. What we are doing is denying people with a disability the chance to get around our state. That is just one of the unintended consequences of this bill, and we know through the advocacy of people that have come into this place and done a press conference on this very issue that our disability community is up in arms about this issue, about the fact that they will be taxed for going and using an Airbnb or using a short-stay to get access to the facilities that they deserve. There is only one hotel in all of Victoria that has the facilities that cater for them. That is one of the unintended consequences of this.

Some of the amendments that I will move seek to rectify this issue, and I urge the government to come to the table and join us on at least one aspect of this bill. One of the amendments seeks to insert a definition to provide exemptions for Victorians with a disability and those fleeing violence who utilise short-stay accommodation. People with a disability and those fleeing family violence should not be taxed for utilising short-stay accommodation. We have actually heard over a long period of time through royal commissions and annual reports year after year how difficult it is to get housing after fleeing a domestic violence situation. What this government is doing with this tax is making it even harder. I would love to hear from their speakers how the government explains this – how it explains away this and why they are taxing women fleeing domestic violence.

Another amendment provides that the definition of ‘house’ will be given the same meaning as in section 4(1) of the Housing Act 1983, inserting a definition of ‘house’ which is necessary for our amendment calling for a review of the impacts of the legislation. Specifically our review calls on the government to report the number of houses available in Victoria for rent or sale.

We also seek to provide a definition of ‘rural and regional Victoria’. Inserting a definition for rural and regional Victoria is necessary for our review of the impacts. We want to see the total amount of dollars spent on tourism in rural and regional Victoria to highlight the very likely consequences.

We want to omit ‘commercial residential premises within the meaning of’ and insert ‘premises described … of the definition of commercial residential premises in’, which proposes to exclude the lines similar to residential premises in definition of ‘commercial residential premises’. Without this change there will be significant uncertainty about the many classes of short-stay accommodation, such as boarding houses.

We also seek a grammatical change to ensure the legislation provides tax exemptions which mirror existing land tax exemptions. Properties already exempt from land tax should also be exempt from the short-stay levy. Another change would broaden the short-stay levy exemption so that legislation mirrors existing land tax exemptions.

We are also looking to make a slight change to legislation wording to include additional protections that will ensure Victorians are not double-taxed, having to pay the levy on top of itself and/or on top of the GST. We do not want Victorians to get double-taxed. In fact Victorians could even be triple-taxed by going on a holiday, copping the increase from the council – probably Merri-bek – and then copping the increase from the state government and then copping the GST as well.

Another change is tax would not be calculated in the booking fee in cases where a person is exempt from paying the levy – as I discussed earlier, mental health, family violence, disability and travel for medical treatment. Under the current bill, platforms may be liable to pay tax penalties due to false declarations made by the owner-occupier of a property, so this section protects providers in cases where there is no reason for them to have believed a declaration was false. Booking platforms may be liable to pay tax penalties due to false declarations made by the owner-occupier of the property. We do not think that it is right for booking platforms to be punished due to any false declarations by the owner-occupiers, but under this current bill and under the Treasurer’s drafting that is the way it appears. This is a pretty reasonable amendment I think.

As I noted, 40 per cent of short-stays are booked for purposes other than tourism. Another change will provide exemptions for at-risk Victorians who book short-stays. People with disabilities often book short-stay properties because they are more accommodating to special needs, and these changes will provide tax exemptions for people who utilise short-stays for medical treatment or due to perceived mental or physical health threats to their safety or wellbeing.

We also want to mandate a review into its impact on housing and tourism. The proposed review will evaluate the impact of these reforms, taking into account the number of houses that are available in Victoria for sale or for rent. The review will consider the impact of the tourism industry, taking into account the number of dollars spent on tourism since the implementation of the short-stay levy.

The Shadow Treasurer has already raised concerns about the constitutionality of this proposal, which seeks to reintroduce a bed tax on all Victorians. A bed tax was one of the many taxes abolished under the federal–state agreement exchange for revenue and GST – the GST of course being one of the most significant and substantial reforms of taxation in Australia since federation. I will take the opportunity to congratulate the former federal Treasurer Peter Costello on his record of cutting taxes, and he can add the bed tax to his list. I know Mr Costello would shake his head at the fact that we are introducing a 55th tax here in Victoria.

This bill will not improve housing affordability or availability. Perhaps through our amendments and a review we might actually find out – it will be too late – what I suspect the government’s modelling already shows, or the lack thereof. This bill will not make housing more available. This bill will not make housing more affordable. It will not do any of that. You would think if there was substantial modelling we would have seen that already, but we have not seen a single shred of evidence that this bill will make homes more available. You cannot tax housing into existence. Taxing housing does not make housing more available or affordable. The government is seeking to punish Victorians into making housing more available. Well, that will not be the effect of that. I suspect the government knows that this is a bad bill. It will not improve housing affordability or availability, it will make things more expensive. We have already got the highest debt in the nation, the highest tax in the nation, the highest property taxes, the highest business taxes and the lowest wage growth. I am happy to move those amendments that I spoke about in my name.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I just want to finish off where I started. This is the short-stay levy, and with a punishing tax such as this there will be many members of the government in for a short stay in this place. Ms Shing, a member for Eastern Victoria, got through on the skin of her teeth last time; she is in for a short stay in this place because of the impact that this tax will have on regional Victoria. The member for Wendouree – in for a short stay. The member for Bass – in for a short stay. The member for Hastings – a very short stay. This is a bad deal and should be opposed.

Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:45): I am pleased to rise today to speak on the Short Stay Levy Bill 2024. We are in the throes of a housing crisis. It has left hundreds of thousands of Victorians in dire straits unable to find affordable and stable housing. We have a warped housing market where homes are no longer viewed as homes but rather as commodities. Housing should not be seen as a commodity or an investment; it should not. Housing is the cornerstone of one’s life. It is essential for survival but also for community, wellbeing, health, autonomy and dignity. Housing is a human right. Over 48,000 entire homes across our state are locked up as short-stay accommodation on platforms like Airbnb. These properties remain empty for most of the year while too many Victorians struggle to find affordable housing. This situation exacerbates our housing market, pushing renters to the edge and locking out potential home owners.

It is important to remember that when Airbnb and similar platforms were launched they were meant to be a realisation of the sharing economy. Unfortunately, what we have seen has nothing to do with sharing; it is instead a rise of commercial-style megahosts who sideline potential renters for profit. The issue at hand is the misuse of residential properties as short-term rentals, which has escalated property prices and shrunk the availability of homes for actual residents. This housing crisis demands not just our attention but our immediate and decisive action. We must be using any and all levers at our disposal to combat this crisis. We must boldly address this flawed market. We must prioritise housing for people that are in need of homes. That will and should always take priority over investors’ profits and supposed blows to the tourism industry – an industry, I will remind the house, that had existed and flourished well and long before short-stays existed.

We the Greens have stood firm in our resolve here to ensure that this legislation truly serves the people of Victoria. We did not merely accept the government’s initial proposal of a 7.5 per cent levy on short-stays. We saw that as a starting point, not an end. Through robust negotiations and relentless advocacy, we have ensured that this bill will do more than impose a tax that does not directly address the issue, because we must pressure property investors to reconsider their skewed business model; we must encourage them to make properties available for long-term residents rather than short-term tourists.

We have secured changes empowering owners corporations, allowing them to decisively prohibit the use of apartments as transient short-stay hubs. This measure returns control to the residents, allowing them to preserve the integrity of their communities. As part of our negotiations, we have achieved a critical commitment from Labor: the granting of new regulatory powers to local councils. These powers are the means by which we can begin to reclaim our housing market for what it should be – housing – instead of what it has become: an asset for the wealthy to collect, which is an outlook that has seen our housing market become severely distorted. This commitment from Labor to bring in subordinate legislation will empower councils with the authority to regulate short-stays. This includes the ability to limit the number of nights a property may be rented out, enforce stringent amenity and safety standards, implement registration and compliance checks, hand out fines and if necessary ban short-stays altogether. These powers will be invaluable to councils in high-pressure areas that are adversely affected by short-stays.

We know that the fallout from an unchecked, unregulated short-stay sector has not been evenly distributed across the state. Regions that are tourist hotspots like Mornington Peninsula for example have for too long been plagued by the uncontrolled growth of short-stays, posing significant challenges: no options for local workers, displacement, evictions, gentrification and affordability issues. The passage of this legislation will enable the sharing also of crucial data between the State Revenue Office and local councils, enhancing the transparency and accountability they need within that short-stay sector. This is a significant step that will enable effective regulation and enforcement, as the lack of adequate, accurate data on the short-stay sector has been a major issue across the globe.

The reforms we seek to pass today refocus the short-stay industry back to its original intent. Individuals can rent out their primary residence without facing punitive measures. This ensures that those who participate in the sharing economy in good faith are not disadvantaged by regulations aimed at large-scale investors. Today by supporting this bill the Greens send a clear message: housing is a human right, not a commodity. This is just part of our broader fight for a fair and just housing system, a fight that includes advocating for more public housing, opposing demolition of existing public homes and freezing rents.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (15:50): In our housing statement last September the Victorian government recognised that access to long-term rental properties was an issue across the state and particularly in regional Victoria. The Standard newspaper in Warrnambool reported on 30 August 2024 that the number of short-stay rental properties in the city had increased by 17 per cent over the two years from July 2022. The same article reported similar trends in Portland, where short-stay rental properties increased by 11.5 per cent. I have no doubt that the same picture is emerging in many wonderful tourist destinations across western Victoria, such as Port Fairy, Halls Gap et cetera. At the same time, the availability and affordability of rental accommodation remains low. Warrnambool was unfortunately recently ranked third on the rental pain index put out by Suburbtrends in April 2024. The index is based on rental increases, affordability against income and vacancy rates.

What we have seen in the last few years – and short-stay accommodation is relatively new in the tourism sphere, as compared to hotels, motels and camping grounds – is really a cannibalisation of housing stock for residential purposes. It has been cannibalised by the short-stay industry. What that means is that many of these homes are empty for a significant period of time during the year, and there is therefore less housing available for families, individuals and workers. While it remains important to ensure there is a range of accommodation available to support our visitor economy, the rise of short-stay accommodation does take houses out of the market for long-term rental. Governments across Australia and around the world have taken steps to regulate short-stay accommodation, including the use of short-stay booking levies to tackle challenges with the supply of longer term rental accommodation and manage the impacts of short-stay accommodation on local communities. This levy will even out the playing field as well from a regulatory perspective. I have received feedback from hotel and motel operators who are paying commercial municipal rates who feel that the owners of short-stay buildings pay only residential rates, so it is not a fair playing field. One of the benefits of this levy will be a move towards evening out the marketplace playing field.

A levy of 7.5 per cent on short-stays strikes the right balance. The bill introduces a levy on short-stay accommodation booking fees for bookings made on or after 1 January 2025. Unlike a cap on nights, the short-stay levy will also support housing supply by contributing to more and better housing in Victoria, with an estimated $60 million to be raised. That money will help to fund Homes Victoria to support their important work in building and maintaining social and affordable housing, with 25 per cent of the funds to be invested in regional Victoria. The impact of short-stay houses in regional communities is significant, more significant than in Melbourne proportionately. The Labor government is investing $1 billion to build 1300 new homes in regional Victoria, including a mix of social and affordable housing. We are committed to a total of $177 million to Lowan and South-West and have already delivered 112 new homes. This short-stay levy will help to ensure those new homes and the existing housing stock in the regions will not end up being used for short stays.

The levy will not apply to premises that are occupied as the principal place of residence of the owner or renter of the premises, unless it is a separate dwelling at the same property. So if you rent out your home as a short-stay accommodation while you are away or a room in your home, the levy will not apply. If a booking platform is used to provide short-stay accommodation in a principal place of residence, the person offering the accommodation is required to provide a declaration of this in the booking platform. If this declaration is later found to be incorrect, both the owner and the booking platform will be jointly and severally liable for any shortfall in levy payments. The booking platform will have the right to recover the levy amounts paid by them from the property owner.

The levy does not apply to various types of premises that are not suitable for long-term rental or for sale on the housing market. That means it will not apply to commercial holiday accommodation, such as hotels, motels, resorts, hostels or caravan parks. It will also not apply to other forms of accommodation such as resident student accommodation, rooming houses, retirement villages, residential care facilities, supported residential facilities, temporary crisis accommodation and accommodation provided by facilities to their employees, contractors or clients.

Owners corporations will also be empowered to make rules to prohibit the use of lots as short-stay accommodation where the lot owner or renter is not using the property as their principal place of residence. This new power may assist in diverting residential lots from the short-stay market, and it will also provide an additional option to owners corporations that are concerned at the amenity impact on residents from the use of properties as short-stay accommodation. Again, that will involve the democratic process through owners corporations to make those decisions – this bill allows for that.

The introduction of the levy and the new powers for owners corporations in this bill will provide incentive to property owners to transition residential properties away from short-term accommodation and towards the longer term rental market, helping to reduce rental prices and vacancy rates, and increase the availability and affordability of rental housing for all Victorians. As we all know, the housing challenge that we face in this country and in Victoria is a multifaceted issue. There are multiple causes, and one of the causes is the growth of short-stay accommodation. So this is an important ingredient along with a range of other strategies that the Allan Labor government is undertaking to alleviate that pressure. Just recently in Warrnambool we announced the regional worker housing fund – $5.29 million to alleviate pressure on worker housing.

In closing I want to reiterate Mr Puglielli’s comment about housing being a human right and that it is very apt and appropriate that this 7.5 per cent levy on a holiday goes towards providing secure homes for Victorian people, and I support this bill.

Wendy LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (15:59): I rise to speak on the Short Stay Levy Bill 2024, which will impose yet another new tax on Victorians. This is Labor’s 55th new or increased tax on Victorians since entering government in 2014. Of course we all remember Daniel Andrews standing on the steps saying there will be no new taxes or charges, but here we are 55 new or increased taxes later with Labor introducing the short-stay levy tax. This bill will amend the Owners Corporations Act 2006 and the Taxation Administration Act 1997. The bill will impose a 7.5 per cent levy on all non-commercial short-stay accommodation in Victoria from 1 January 2025 – right in the middle of the very busy holiday period. When Victorian families are taking their summer holidays, they will be receiving a Christmas gift from the Allan Labor government of being slugged with a new holiday tax.

At a time when small businesses and the tourism industry in Victoria have still not fully recovered from Daniel Andrews’s COVID lockdowns, the Treasurer of this state has now decided to kick them while they are down by imposing a holiday and tourism tax. The levy will apply to every stay of less than 28 days and will be charged on the total booking fee, including accommodation costs as well as all service and cleaning fees and credit card charges. The levy must be paid by the owner or renter of the property if the booking is taken directly or paid by the online platform if the booking is made through a platform such as Airbnb or Stayz. The Liberals will be opposing this bill and, if elected to government in 2026, will abolish Labor’s holiday tax.

I am particularly concerned about the effect that this bill will have on regional towns in my electorate of Northern Victoria. I have received numerous messages from constituents in Northern Victoria who will be negatively impacted by this bill. The majority of visitors to regional Victoria are fellow Victorians, but they might decide not to stay in Victoria in the future. There are towns along the Murray River whose local economy depends heavily on tourism, and they will be hit the hardest because there are alternative accommodation options available just across the river in New South Wales or just across the border in South Australia, where the tax will not be charged. I think of places like Echuca, where just across the river in New South Wales is Moama. I have been contacted by constituents in Echuca who operate holiday homes who are really worried about the effect of this bill. I think of Cobram, where just across the river in New South Wales is Barooga and not far away is Tocumwal. I think of Yarrawonga, where just across the river in New South Wales is Mulwala. I think of Rutherglen and Wahgunyah, where just across the river in New South Wales is Corowa. I think of Wodonga, where just across the river in New South Wales is Albury. In all of these places tourist destinations on the Victorian side will be punished by their own government and forced to compete with tourism businesses in New South Wales, where the tax will not be charged. As I said, the border with New South Wales, the Murray River, is just one of the areas in my electorate that will be affected. The western border of my electorate is the South Australian border, and towns on that border will also be hit and this scenario will be replicated for anyone staying in a short-stay rental.

The cost-of-living crisis, which has been made worse by Labor policy, is hurting everyone in Victoria. Families have very tight budgets right now, and when they decide where to stay on their holidays they will be tempted to choose cheaper accommodation across the border in New South Wales or South Australia. Labor’s new holiday tax will push tourists away from providers on the Victorian side of the border when they can stay over the border, where they will be spending their money interstate in New South Wales and South Australia. This will be ripping tourism income away from Victorian communities, where the local economies rely heavily on that income. The tax will hit Victorian border communities the hardest, but make no mistake, the effects will be terrible right across regional tourist towns.

The Parliamentary Budget Office report on the levy says that short-stay accommodation is disproportionately represented in regional areas. The report estimates that 52 per cent of short-stay properties are in metropolitan Melbourne and the remaining 48 per cent are in regional Victoria. This reflects the fact that short-stay accommodation is predominantly used for tourism, especially in the regions. Modelling shows that the 7.5 per cent levy will add about $156 to the average short stay. For families on a tight budget $156 is a lot of money. And that is $156 that will no longer be spent on breakfast at a cafe, buying souvenirs, summer hats or T-shirts or visiting local attractions, so other businesses will also miss out. Other businesses in our border towns, in our tourist towns will be affected because of this tax. That is $156 that will not be spent in small businesses and tourist areas because it is going into government coffers to pay back the massive debt that Labor has incurred on billions of dollars of Big Build blowouts.

The regional Victorian economy is still recovering from the effects of the pandemic. Hospitality businesses are reporting smaller spends, and events and attractions are having fewer visitors. Instead of supporting the regional economic recovery by cutting red tape, the Treasurer now wants to kick them while they are down. He wants to impose a levy that will take $60 million to $75 million every single year away from the pockets of regional Victorian tourism businesses and put it into the pockets of the Labor government to waste on white elephant infrastructure projects in metropolitan Melbourne like the Suburban Rail Loop. The tourism industry supports over 250,000 people, and it is not the only sector that is going to be affected. Constituents who run cleaning and housekeeping businesses, garden maintenance and laundry services have contacted my office, and we have also had contact from plumbing, electrical, handiwork and pool maintenance people who provide services to the short-term market. These people have all contacted my office to say they are deeply worried about the knock-on effect that this tax will have on them. The last thing that regional Victoria needs is a labour tax on tourism and holidays that will kill off jobs and businesses.

The stated aim of this bill is to alleviate the housing crisis. The government has promised that the money collected from the levy will be directed to Homes Victoria to provide social and affordable homes, but while half of all short-stay properties are in the regions, only 25 per cent of the revenue will be allocated to affordable regional homes. It is completely unacceptable for the Labor government to rip money away from regional accommodation providers that account for half of short-stays but not spend half the money collected on regional housing. It is totally unfair. In the regions it is harder to find tradies to build new homes, and that makes it harder to attract essential workers to rural and regional towns because they cannot find somewhere to live and the rents keep going up. The very least thing the Labor government could do is invest half of the levy revenue back into the regional areas that it was taken from in order to support affordable housing for key workers, but instead the Allan Labor government will short-change regional communities every chance it gets in order to prioritise metropolitan Melbourne.

The housing crisis is particularly acute in the regions. The government has an important role to play in enabling housing, but it is completely shirking its responsibility. Take north-east Victoria, where local governments, builders and developers have all raised concern about the lack of infrastructure to support new housing in their communities, particularly the lack of water infrastructure. We have a minister that is both the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Water – you would think she would actually focus on this. Hundreds of lots have been approved for new homes, but they cannot start building until sewage and water infrastructure has been laid down. This is holding up housing development, but the Labor government is sitting on its hands instead of fast-tracking these crucial works. If Labor wants to boost new home building in regional Victoria, it should act urgently to address these fundamental factors instead of playing around with cosmetic tax changes that will do nothing to boost supply and only hurt the tourism economy.

The Allan Labor government talks big on housing but never walks the walk. They promised 80,000 new homes every single year for 10 years, but they are way behind with their targets and fell short by 20,000 last year. Consider another example of Labor’s failure in regional housing – in the Macedon Ranges as part of its Big Housing Build the government has only completed 13 homes in four years. The whole lot of these houses were supposed to be built in four years, but there are only 13 houses in the Macedon Ranges. That is embarrassing. In 2020 Labor promised a minimum spend of $30 million in Macedon Ranges as part of its four-year housing program. Four years later we are in the middle of a housing crisis, and yet Labor is just halfway to fulfilling that promise. The minister admits that they have only spent $11 million from the Big Housing Build fund. Money has been allocated to four social housing projects in the Macedon Ranges that will supposedly deliver 25 homes, but just half of those homes have been completed. A further 12 are supposed to be under construction, but I have been informed that one project intended to deliver 12 homes has not even commenced. Completing just half the homes in four years is a disgraceful effort. This failure creates serious doubts that the government will actually be able to turn the short-stay levy funds into real housing in the regions. Labor should first look at the housing bottlenecks created by its own policies before it starts taxing tourism businesses.

Victoria is in the middle of a housing crisis. The rental vacancy rate is at a historic low of 1 to 2 per cent. People everywhere are struggling to find a home or cover the annual increase in their rent. The intention of this bill is not only to raise revenue but also to put the squeeze on short-stay accommodation providers so that many of them will sell up or make property available for long-term rental instead of short stays. But this policy is deeply misguided and will not have the desired effect. Firstly, many short-stay properties in tourist towns are too large for a single family, with five or six bedrooms intended for multiple families to holiday together near the beach. These homes will just not find any takers on the long-term market and may not even be in areas where people are looking for a long-term rental. In the city it is a different story. The experience of New York is instructive. Stays of less than 30 days have been banned, but the short-stay market continues to exist. It has just simply left the online platforms and gone underground. The Melbourne short-stay apartment market could very well go the same direction, with owners cutting out the platform to deal directly and secretly with visitors to avoid the levy. Whether in the regions or the city, there is no evidence that taxing short-stays will boost the supply of long-term rentals. It is nothing more than a revenue-collection exercise that will fleece Victorians in order to pay off Labor’s stratospheric debt.

If we want to fix the housing crisis, the answer is not tampering with tourism accommodation. You cannot make housing more affordable by making holidays more expensive. The answer is to fix the fundamental policy problems that constrain housing supply and inflate costs. More than 40 per cent of the cost of a new home can now be attributed to government taxes in Victoria. The first step to reducing the cost, improving affordability and boosting supply is to cut government red tape and cut taxes, yet this Labor government is addicted to new taxes because it is addicted to unsustainable spending. We will not solve the housing crisis by taxing our way out of it. We need more tradies on the tools, not more taxes from the Treasurer.

Lastly, I must address the negative impact that this new tax will have on vulnerable Victorians. Research by the Victorian Tourism Industry Council found that 40 per cent of short-stays do not involve tourism or holidaying but rather people using temporary accommodation for a number of other reasons, such as short-stay accommodation while they undergo medical treatment. This will severely impact on these people.

Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (16:14): I will not be supporting this bill. This will decimate regional economies that are under stress already. I have had a number of people contact my office, and they are not wealthy people collecting assets, as has been suggested, they are retirees. They are mums and dads that in a cost-of-living crisis are supplementing their income from using the short-stay accommodation and also obviously looking forward to their retirement and collecting assets. So this situation has come up basically because of an imbalance that has happened between renters and the people that own the properties. It slides around, that balance, from time to time. As a property owner myself – I do have one investment property, I am the first to say. It is not on the short-stay market, so if that helps make people feel happy, happy days – it is about looking forward to the future. And if we start taxing this sort of stuff to the point where people are going to get rid of it, well, what is going to happen is it is going to drive asset values down, but not down enough that the people that are struggling are just going to magically be able to afford a new house. It is just going to depress people’s savings, it is going to depress their incomes and just create a further problem. So, as I said, I will not be supporting this bill.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:16): Well, another tax. Another tax.

Harriet Shing: At least you are consistent.

David LIMBRICK: Yes. Well, of course the Libertarian Party will not be supporting new taxes – we never have and never will – but this tax is particularly bad, because it is trying to address a problem through taxes that has been caused by taxes and regulations. Many of the owners and the hosts in the short-stay market got into that market because the government regulated the hell out of the long-term rental market. Many people found it unworkable or difficult to deal with and so moved into the short-stay market, and so the government is making that difficult to deal with as well through imposing a 7.5 per cent tax on the people that want to stay there. It has already been said that this will increase the cost of holidays, both for Victorians who want to holiday here and for foreigners who want to come here and stay or indeed interstate people if they want to come here and stay. But it also makes us less competitive, as has been said.

This Parliament itself went to Echuca recently, and many MPs I think would have stayed in short-stay accommodation – I know I did. We were putting money into the local economy up in Echuca, but I imagine families that are considering staying in Echuca or Wodonga or many of these other border towns might consider the fact that it is 7.5 per cent more expensive than the other side of the river a big problem. And for these short-stay hosts who have these properties, in many cases they are not really suitable for long-term rentals. As has been pointed out, they are either large properties or they are unique in some way; these would be very unlikely, I would think, to go back onto the rental market. They will be sold, they will not go onto the rental market and they will not increase rental availability or prices.

If we want to know what happens when we deregulate rental markets rather than tax the living daylights out of them, we have already seen it. Why would anyone want to be a landlord in Victoria? You have to pay the stamp duty when you buy the house, then you have to pay the land tax, and on top of that we have got the COVID levy. If you want to move out of that you are now going to have the short-stay levy. A country that did have rental controls like what the Greens push for was Argentina under their previous socialist government, and of course it ended the same way socialism always does: in tears. There was a massive problem with rental availability, because of course who would want to be a landlord when you have regulated prices? So the new President, President Milei, came in and totally deregulated the market in December of last year. He just said, ‘We’re going to deregulate the entire market. We’re going to allow contracts in any currency.’ He totally deregulated the market. Well, what happened? Within six months they had a rental supply increase of 184 per cent, and long-term rental prices dropped by 40 percent – absolutely incredible. Who would have thought that the government getting out of the way of the market would actually make the market more efficient and more affordable to more people? The Greens have this sort of flat earth view of economics and want to regulate everything. They think that the magic hand of the state can make everything beautiful and wonderful. Of course it has never worked before, and there is no evidence that it will ever work.

I will say that one thing – and this clashes with one of the things that I spoke about yesterday – I think is a good thing that the government is doing is actually opening up the market a little bit and allowing people to exercise property rights over their own property. I really wish that the government would focus much harder on this, because this is the way. If you want more houses, if you want them to be more affordable and available to more people, both renters and short-stays and normal property owners and occupiers, then freeing up the market is the way to do it. Taxes are not the way to do it. This lever that the government is pulling here will have a detrimental effect on the property market. It will have a detrimental effect on tourism. It will have all sorts of unintended consequences that will make this state less competitive rather than more competitive, and it is totally the wrong move. As I said, if you really care about making more rentals more available to more people and making them more affordable, the way to do it is deregulation, not what the government is doing here.

The Libertarian Party will absolutely be opposing this bill. It is the wrong move, and it will not solve any of the housing problems in this state.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (16:21): Housing is a significant policy challenge. The housing crisis requires action. This Labor government is taking that action, and it is working. Recent ABS statistics show that Victoria has completed more than 60,000 homes in the last 12 months. That is 15,000 more homes completed here in Victoria than in New South Wales, despite New South Wales being a larger state both geographically and in population terms. Victoria has also not just completed but approved more homes – 10,000 more homes approved here in Victoria than in New South Wales and 18,000 more homes approved here in Victoria than in Queensland.

This Labor government is taking action to fix the housing crisis. This bill is another element in that policy plan to implement a new levy on short-stay accommodation, designed, yes, to put an incentive in the market so that those who seek to rent out their investment properties might choose to put them into the long-term rental market rather than the short-stay rental market. I think it is unashamedly a good thing to see landlords deciding that long-term rentals are better than short-stay accommodation. It is not for everyone, obviously, but I think unequivocally it is a policy good to have more rental stock in the long-term rental market. I am an unashamed supporter of that.

The other important thing that this bill will do is provide an additional revenue stream to Homes Victoria to enable more contributions to social, community and public housing here in Victoria on the capital side of the equation, enabling Homes Victoria to have an additional revenue stream to support their capital program – could be across the range of building activities, could be for maintenance, could be for new purchases, could be supporting the construction of new homes. Homes Victoria is undertaking record investment in new social and affordable housing here in the state of Victoria. Thanks to the Labor government, this bill will provide them with even more resources to do that, helping to tackle the housing crisis ever more.

I think the other important element to this bill, which I find curious that the Liberal Party is so opposed to, is giving those who own dwellings in multistorey apartment blocks who are members of owners corporations the power and the right to come together and decide for themselves in those buildings what sorts of residents they want in their doors. It is empowering people who live in apartment buildings like I have got quite extensively in the Southern Metropolitan Region – Southbank, St Kilda Road through St Kilda but also right out across the Southern Metropolitan Region out into Camberwell, down into Moorabbin and beyond. More high-rise living is becoming even more commonplace, and there are some residents who have had to endure living next door to party houses, living next door to places where the owners of those residences have decided to make some money and rent them out on the short-stay market. And that has been causing, in certain circumstances, massive disruption to the residents who live in those premises. I have spoken with them. I have corresponded with them.

We understand. Labor understands that residents who live in multistorey apartments who are members of owners corporations have as much right to quiet enjoyment in their residences as those who live in detached dwellings. What this bill does, very importantly, is empower those residents to come together as part of their owners corporation and make a decision for themselves whether they want their apartment complex to have short-term rentals within it. Some of them may choose to do that, but it empowers the owners and the residents of the multistorey apartments in Melbourne to make a decision as to whether they want to live next door to a short-term rental, whether they want to live next door to what is effectively just another hotel as their neighbour just down the corridor and be subjected to some of the noise and disruption that many of them cause. That is going to be their choice under this bill, rather than being subject to the decisions of others.

This is an incredibly important part of the Labor government’s approach to tackling the housing crisis here in Victoria, an approach we can see is working, and we are not going to stop until that housing crisis is fixed.

Gaelle BROAD (Northern Victoria) (16:27): I am pleased to speak about the Short Stay Levy Bill 2024, but it is an absolute disaster. I remember getting a phone call from a lady who during COVID was not able to work as a nurse because of the tight restrictions. She then looked at Airbnb as a way of making an income under this government. When she heard about this possible tax, she rang me because she is, like many, very concerned. I have spoken with people in the tourism industry in Northern Victoria, and they still do not have any details about these proposed changes, which are due to take effect from 1 January if this bill passes. There is not enough information and time is running out.

I looked at the State Revenue Office website. It states:

From 1 January 2025, the short stay levy will apply to short stays in Victorian property.

More details will be available on our website once the Victorian Government passes legislation in late 2024. Any information provided below reflects the Bill as it stands.

And it says:

We will undertake a customer education program – including seminars for property owners and renters, as well as forums with booking platforms – to help those liable for the levy fulfil their obligations. Further information will be available on our website soon.

The education program about this new tax is expected to take place in November and December – the Christmas period, the school holidays, a time when tourism operators are absolutely flat out. But of course this government are not waiting till the end of financial year, because they are simply running out of money. This new tax does nothing to build more new homes to increase supply for our rapidly growing state. It is just a desperate grab for more money.

That is peak holiday season in Victoria when businesses are flat out, but there has been no consultation with industry. They are just lumping it onto them and expecting them to collect this extra tax without the time to put the necessary systems in place. And it is also interesting to note that this proposed 7.5 per cent additional tax on holiday accommodation is the highest tax of its kind in the world. This tourism tax will hurt communities right across regional Victoria. The proposed tax would directly impact tourism operators and there would be a destructive flow-on to other businesses, to workers, to tourists and to communities.

The short-stay levy would apply to all bookings made from 1 January 2025, increasing the cost of short-stay accommodation bookings, including farmhouse stays, Airbnb rentals and other crucial accommodation options for tourists in regional Victoria. Short-stay accommodation provides valuable employment for locals in areas such as cleaning, gardening and general property maintenance. This tax will add to the cost of accommodation in Victoria and lead more people to take a holiday on the other side of the border. I am pleased that my colleague Wendy Lovell, who is also a member for Northern Victoria, talked about the impact on some of these border towns. In regional areas, if there are less tourists there are less people to spend their money in the local bakeries, butchers, supermarkets and petrol stations. This will also affect families and people with disabilities, whose choice of affordable, accessible holiday accommodation is already very limited.

According to the state government, this tax will raise about $60 million to $75 million. With our booming state debt, that will account for about 60 to 70 hours of interest repayments by 2027–28. According to the state budget papers, we are on track for a state debt of $187.8 billion, and we are going to be paying more than $26 million every single day in interest. If the state government really wanted to change their ways and stop wasting money, they would scrap the Suburban Rail Loop. But it is disappointing to see the Premier sign another contract, $100 million, with John Holland towards this project when there is a growing chorus of people saying Victoria cannot afford it.

So here we are – Labor’s 55th new or increased tax towards this growing pile of debt. We have the highest debt of any state in Australia. I note that last year the state government tried to introduce a tax on electric vehicles, which was found unconstitutional. Now this tax may well have a similar fate. Indeed it is just another tax on the property sector, and there are many – stamp duty, land tax, vacant land tax, windfall gains tax. The list goes on. The Allan government has stated that it will allocate short-stay levy revenue to Homes Victoria, the agency responsible for facilitating Victorians into social and affordable housing. But Homes Victoria currently has a $185.6 million debt, and at any given time there are roughly 60,000 Victorians on the waitlist for social housing. Given this predicament, it is unlikely a single additional home will be built to support Victorians in need. Indeed Labor will use the funds to bail out their poorly managed government agency.

With any tax, you also need to assess the cost of administration, how many exemptions there are and how it will be enforced. It will take time for the tourism and accommodation sector to understand how this tax will work, and there is very little time, as I mentioned, with this bill expected to come into effect in January. Let me read you some of the exemptions. It talks about commercial residential premises, such as hotels, motels, hostels or similar accommodation, or a property that is someone’s principal place of residence, whether they own or rent that property. For example, if it is your own home and you live in it, if you go on holiday for two weeks and during that period you use your home as short-stay accommodation, any short-stays that get booked and completed in that period will not be subject to the levy. The same applies if you rent your principal place of residence. Another exemption is certain specialist accommodation, such as rooming houses, retirement villages and student accommodation provided in connection with an educational institution. It is also unclear from the briefings we received how it will apply to farm properties – for example, when you have workers that use accommodation during peak period and then make it available for accommodation over the summer. It will just add another layer of red tape to businesses across the state. But the government has also indicated the 7.5 per cent tax will apply inclusive of the 10 per cent GST, so it is going to be a tax on a tax.

I am aware that there have been some issues with Airbnbs, and I have been contacted by people about that, but this bill does nothing to address those issues. It is simply another tax. And yes, I believe we need more housing in Victoria and I want to see less people on the social housing waitlist, but the government has not provided any evidence of how this new tax will make any difference to the current housing crisis.

Mr Batchelor, you did refer to the government taking action –

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

Gaelle BROAD: You are taking plenty of action to demolish homes in this state. It is very concerning. I have been reading about the towers and the demolition there and the thousands of people that are due to be displaced, and now I see reported in the newspapers that the government has been stockpiling their own lot of homes. So I am not exactly sure that they are helping at all with addressing this housing crisis. The Labor government are crushing small business, and they are making it increasingly difficult for landlords and for developers, which is reducing the number of houses available for rent and preventing new homes from being built. Victoria already has the highest property taxes in the country and very restrictive regulation. These barriers block critical investment needed to address the housing affordability crisis. Another property tax is the last thing Victorians need. It certainly will not help resolve the housing crisis. Adding another tax so families pay more to holiday in Victoria is not the answer.

As previously outlined, there are some amendments that we have put forward to provide an exemption for people with a disability or who occupy accommodation to escape family violence or to obtain medical treatment, but this tax will hit regional Victoria the hardest, and the Nationals and the Liberals will repeal this tax if we win government in 2026.

Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:36): I rise to make a contribution to the Short Stay Levy Bill 2024 on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria. I walk past blocks of units every day in my region that are covered in key security locks – a testament to the increasing number of homes that have been turned into short-stays. A lot of the time what you can make in a week on a rental property you can make in two days on a short-stay property. What once was something to aspire to – a home for yourself and your family – is now something to aspire to for another reason: to invest. The short-stay market is reducing housing supply, extorting massive profits and forcing people from their homes.

There are no words for it. We are in the midst of a housing crisis. People are struggling to find rentals, with record low vacancy rates and soaring prices. They face the threat of homelessness, and ever-increasing prices mean their dreams of buying a home are too long gone. Homelessness kills. In the Guardian Australia it was found that the average age of death for homeless people in this country is 44 years – almost 40 years lower than the national average. This premature death rate reflects a population who are so often overlooked and who must deal with systematic failures in essential services like health, justice and housing. The knock-on effects from homelessness are immense. When you have nowhere safe to call home, your ability to engage with services and seek help is dramatically reduced.

Each year in Victoria around 100,000 people access homelessness services. Many of them are our state’s most vulnerable. In 2022–23, for instance, just over 40,000 of those had experienced family violence. Around 9000 were sleeping rough or in an inadequate dwelling. Just over 11,000 were people aged between 15 and 24, and around 12,000 were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people. The brunt of the housing crisis is faced by our most vulnerable, and this is why I was proud that Legalise Cannabis Victoria’s advocacy earlier this year ensured continuation of funding for Pride in Place. This organisation helps support LGBTIQA+ people who are homeless, at risk of homelessness or living in housing that is unsafe, insecure or too expensive. But measures like this are a last resort. We need to prioritise policies that address the issue of housing supply. When people cannot access a basic human right – safe and secure housing – we must act and throw everything we can at it. Short-stays make up only a small percentage of the housing stock, and not every short-stay is suitable for long-term accommodation; however, short-stays are one part of the puzzle, and without those parts all fitting together this problem is something we cannot solve.

There are almost 40,000 short-stays in Victoria alone, and the vast majority are entire homes. Almost half are in regional Victoria. It is not right that these are allowed to sit largely vacant, generating profit, while thousands of Victorians are at risk of homelessness. I know that this is an issue for people in the south-east, particularly in Casey, because they have the highest demand for homelessness services in the state, and people are being forced out of the areas where they live and they work. Just around the corner from my region, we have seen this play out on a massive scale on the Mornington Peninsula. This is one of the top ten areas in Australia for short-stays as a percentage of long-term rentals – 34.6 per cent. Over one in three properties on the Mornington Peninsula area are not homes but businesses. We know from the inquiry into the rental and housing affordability crisis in Victoria that there are 3205 active short-stay rentals on the shire’s register and over half of hosts have multiple listings. 97.5 per cent of these properties are entire homes.

We appreciate that for many in the tourism industry and in the community there is a need to strike a balance here to preserve the significant economic contribution of the short-stay industry. These reforms are about preserving local communities. We are facing situations where in a residential cul-de-sac half of the houses are short-term stays. People who thought they were buying into a quiet community are suddenly in what is effectively a commercial property zone with a rotating roster of strangers as neighbours. This bill marks a step in the right direction to righting this wrong. It will, among other things, introduce a 7.5 per cent levy on short-stay accommodation booking fees for bookings of less than 28 days made on or after the 1 January 2025.

We welcome the Victorian government’s announcement that the levy will fund tens of millions of dollars for Housing Victoria to build and maintain social and affordable housing, with 25 per cent of funds to be invested in regional Victoria. We look forward to following this important work closely to ensure that this added funding is used effectively to deliver more social and affordable housing. Importantly, this bill carves out several exemptions to the levy to ensure it better fulfils its central purpose of capturing properties that could otherwise be put on the long-term market. We do not want to crack down on a person who is going away from their home for a few weeks and has someone stay at their property for a bit of extra cash. What we want is for mega-investors who have helped create this housing crisis to pay their fair share. These are the people taking tens of hundreds of properties out of the housing market that would otherwise be long-term rentals or owner occupied. To them I say: go and buy a hotel; the housing market is not for you.

Promisingly, this bill will give councils and owners corporations extended powers to regulate the short-stay market. Councils can block or restrict the number of short-stays in their area and the number of days a property may be listed. This recognises that the short-stay industry is varied across the state and to respond to it appropriately councils must be empowered to shape their rules in line with unique community needs. On the issue of councils, this levy will replace local council charges on short-stays. We would be remiss not to echo the submissions of many of the local councils in my area to the inquiry into local government funding and services. There is a dire need for funding, yet this levy takes away another source of funds from local councils. More needs to be done to ensure base-level funding that will protect the longevity of councils and their ability to fund essential local services. I encourage the government to hear these calls and respond appropriately to the final report of that inquiry.

Owners corporations will now be authorised in certain circumstances to make rules to prohibit the use of lots of short-stays. These powers will help ensure communities are preserved and antisocial behaviour is limited. It is promising to see that some in the short-stay industry are getting behind some of these reforms – albeit Airbnb believe a 7.5 per cent levy is too high. They tell us the story of New York. They talk about mildly more expensive hotels and no improvement to rental availability, but Victoria is not New York. The funds this levy generates are going directly into social and affordable housing. Professor Nicole Gurran of urban and regional planning at Sydney University acknowledges that the research is clear here. When short-stays are taken out of the market they are returned to the long-term market and rents fall. However, a learning we can take from New York is the rise of the illicit short-stay market. As we know with cannabis, prohibition and the illicit market go hand in hand. I strongly encourage the Victorian government to be proactive in countering this so that an illicit market cannot undermine the important intention of these reforms.

Before I finish, I would like to highlight recommendation 2 of the inquiry into the rental and housing affordability crisis in Victoria:

That the Victorian Government investigate enshrining the right to housing in the Victorian Charter of Human Rights, including considering advice from the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commissioner.

This remains under review. I encourage the government to act on this recommendation to show that they take this issue seriously and are moving forward with that recommendation. We commend the government on this bill and for their collaboration with the crossbench to ensure that these reforms are all that they can be. Legalise Cannabis Victoria supports this bill as an important step in ensuring that every Victorian has a place to call home.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:46): I also rise to share a few words on the bill before us today, and it is a very important bill. I was going to talk about various elements of the dire housing situation so many Victorians find themselves in; however, I believe Ms Payne has excellently articulated the reasons why this bill is so important. Ms Payne along with Mr Batchelor, Mr McCracken, who I see in the room, Dr Heath and I were on the inquiry into rental and housing affordability through the Legal and Social Issues Committee last year. Through that committee we saw just how important measures like this are.

As other colleagues have said, this is about one small tool in addressing it. It is not the biggest component of what we are doing, but it is one very important, small tool in addressing Victoria’s housing situation. Indeed, as my colleague Mr Batchelor referenced, we have already seen some good progress, with more than 60,000 homes built in the state of Victoria in the past year, a dramatic increase. Whilst other states such as New South Wales, which Mr Batchelor referred to, have built less homes than in Victoria and indeed have seen a decrease, it is very clear that the policies of this government are actually leading to an increase in house construction, which is extremely good to see.

It is also quite interesting to note and reference some recent data from CoreLogic in their September 2024 property report, which showed that rent increases are easing, particularly in Victoria. In fact we might even be nation leading on that front – if not, very close to it. But at the same time, whilst rent pressures are actually easing, the rental yields Victorian landlords are bringing in are actually at unprecedentedly high levels. It is curious, and I invite members opposite to go and check out the CoreLogic report if they wish to illuminate themselves. I also invite them to consult the bill if they wish to engage more with what this bill actually does.

I note that Ms Lovell was talking about investment in regional areas through the revenue gained from this levy. I am happy to confirm that, yes, whilst all proceeds of this levy will be used to support Homes Victoria projects, 25 per cent will be specifically earmarked for projects in regional Victoria, a figure slightly higher than the proportion of the population that regional Victoria has in the state. That is in line with the $5.3 billion commitment of the Big Housing Build, of which 25 per cent is also locked in, guaranteed for regional Victoria.

Harriet Shing: An extra billion dollars for the Regional Housing Fund.

Michael GALEA: Indeed. We have had announcements just recently – last week in Shepparton, I understand. Ms Lovell, I am sure, will be delighted that the Regional Worker Accommodation Fund has announced a raft of new investments particularly in Shepparton but also right across Victoria as part of this government’s $2 billion regional package and as part of our ongoing commitment to regional Victoria that we continue to invest in whilst those opposite continue to talk it down.

I was also interested to hear in Mrs Broad’s contribution the somewhat outrageous claim that this bill does nothing to address issues of antisocial behaviour in Airbnbs. Indeed we have had issues – as MPs I am sure almost all of us could cite case studies where constituents have come to us to raise these sorts of issues of neighbours, especially in those shared strata properties – and what this bill does is actually bring in the rights for owner corporation bodies to actually make rules for themselves in order to address that issue. If those body corporates do decide to no longer enable Airbnbs or such similar short-stay accommodation in their premises, they will be allowed to do so. I make that point as well just for the sake of the record. I know Mr Batchelor had mentioned that, but since that remark from Mrs Broad I thought that would be good to clarify.

It has been interesting to hear the contributions from those opposite, because what you have on this side is a government that is committed to addressing the housing crisis, and when you look at the housing statement, when you look at our policies around activity centres, when you look at it around this bill, you see a government that is taking every step it can to make housing more affordable and more accessible for Victorians to live where they want to live. We have had raft after raft of motions, of adjournment matters, of questions from those opposite attacking the government’s housing policy. The NIMBY Liberal Party strikes yet again, and it strikes every day in this chamber. I am very disappointed in you, Mr Mulholland, because I would have hoped that you would have used your considerable influence as deputy leader over on that side and all going well for you maybe leader of the upper house next week; we will see how you go at that. I would have hoped that you would have used that influence to change the minds of your colleagues, but clearly you have just gone and sided along with them in support of the NIMBY-first policies that are going to lock Victorians out of the housing market. It is no wonder that your party is in shambles. You have said that you will actually repeal this levy, which is the sort of thing you would expect from a party that is led by someone who double-crosses his colleagues, in the words of the member for Rowville.

Indeed given the absolutely petulant and peevish attitude with which those members opposite approach this issue in this chamber in the same manner by which they deal with their colleagues, it seems – in the same awful, inappropriate ways in which they treat each other – just typical that they are prepared to overlook the aspirations of Victorians who want to get into the housing market, who want to rent or buy a home for themselves. They do not care; they do not care for people who want to live where they want to live. They can be someone else’s problem as long as they have theirs; that is the Liberal Party NIMBY writ large. The arguments they put forward in this place today and indeed in the Legislative Assembly a few weeks ago just underscore that when it comes to cost-of-living relief, when it comes to providing housing for busy working Victorians, the Liberal Party simply do not care. Well, Victorians know that they have a government that does care and is doing everything in its power to make housing more affordable in the state, and this bill before us today is one very important part of that. I commend the bill to the house.

Joe McCRACKEN (Western Victoria) (16:53): I am very happy to talk about the short-stay levy, noting that those on the government benches might have a short stay themselves over there, but I will be very happy to talk about the bill in its detail. I note that there are parts of the bill that indeed try and introduce a 7.5 per cent levy on all non-commercial short-stay accommodation, and these are primarily through Airbnb and Stayz and those sorts of providers. There are also moves to expand the powers of owners corporations and to give power to councils to regulate the short-term stay sector. I guess one of the problems that I see with this particular aspect of the bill is the 7.5 per cent levy, which is essentially a tax on a tax. When you have got a levy that is on the entire cost of the accommodation, that is inclusive of GST – obviously GST, the goods and services tax, is a 10 per cent on that – so you have a tax on a tax, which is indeed quite unfair. You have got accommodation costs, you have got fees for booking, you have got credit card fees and GST – the 7.5 per cent levy is on top of all of that, so if the government had a mind to make it a bit fairer maybe you would put it just on the accommodation aspect of the entire cost of the accommodation rather than on all the extra fees and charges that are put in place. I hope that the government really does think about that carefully.

More importantly, I think that it is fair to say that 50 per cent of Airbnbs and Stayz accommodation providers are in regional Victoria but only 25 per cent of this goes towards regional Victoria, so essentially regional Victoria is being short-changed by 25 per cent. How is that even fair? Wouldn’t you spend the funds that are raised where they are actually raised? Like all the things that we see, funds that are being raised in a particular part of Victoria are taken back to a part where they are not raised, and that is not fair. I worry about the impact that it is going to have on the tourism sector. My part of the world in my electorate of Western Victoria has some beautiful tourist hotspots. We have got the Great Ocean Road, which is awesome, particularly in summertime. We have got the Bellarine Peninsula, with beach activities and wineries. It is a great hotspot. Warrnambool and Port Fairy on the Great South Coast there are great spots, and particularly the Port Fairy Folk Festival is awesome. We have got the Pyrenees wine region, where I grew up, with a lot of accommodation providers; the Grampians region; and also the Central Goldfields region, where hundreds of properties exist on Airbnb and Stayz. All these properties are now at risk because of this tax.

I want to talk particularly about a case in Ballarat. A constituent of mine actually raised this with me. This is Dion, and he runs an accommodation service listed on Airbnb. He provides accommodation usually to larger groups, and he has invested a significant amount of money to provide options that are cost effective. What it essentially comes down to is about $50 per person, and depending on the option that you choose you can have 15 people or up to 30 people over the properties that he has. It is designed for different corporate events and those sorts of things. It is listed on Airbnb. He has come to me – I have sat with him in my office – and he said, ‘Look, if this sort of thing goes ahead, I’m going to really struggle to continue to run my business in this way, because the margins are so thin, particularly when the cost of regulation and compliance doesn’t go down.’ If he is saying that to me, who else is saying that across the sector? I worry that a lot of regional providers are just going to leave the market and not provide a service – a really valuable service that people love and like to frequent a lot.

The next question I have is: how does this tax actually fix the housing crisis that has been purported as the reason why it has been introduced? I know that those opposite say that it is about the long-term rental market, but when you have got properties that are designed, physically designed, to be short-term rental properties – they are designed for the short-stay market.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Joe McCRACKEN: Well, how many have it? They do not have all the facilities that would comply with rental standards; that is true. You have got to make sure that you have actually got properties that are designed for a particular purpose. If you take those off the market, it does not help the long-term rental market – it just does not. You have got to understand the market before you go playing with it. We have got evidence and we have heard definitely from Airbnb providers that that accommodation is just going, which is a great concern.

We heard evidence from the Legal and Social Issues Committee that the issue with housing in this state – and there are a number of different issues in housing – is you need to build more houses. That is a start. We heard evidence from a number of different people that the reason why people are going to New South Wales, WA or South Australia is because of the regulations that are placed on the residential housing market. Perhaps if those were looked at, you might find that more people are willing to enter into the rental market as rental providers, and you would find that an increase in supply would obviously have a better impact on the market itself. That was evidence that we heard in the rental and housing inquiry. I hope that the government have taken that on board, but I do not think they have. There has been a lack of consultation as well with this bill, particularly with the likes of the Property Council of Australia and the Real Estate Institute of Victoria, let alone tourism operators, small business operators and tourists themselves. It is a poor bill and it is supporting an awful tax, and I really do not think it is going to help regional communities.

One of the last aspects I want to talk about before I close is the fact that local government is going to have to administer aspects of this. Particularly, large regional councils and some small ones as well are already under immense stress. I know because I served in one for six years. I know local governments are struggling to make their roads maintenance budgets come together. I look at my old shire of Colac Otway. A large portion of the land in that shire is actually unrateable, because it is forest. You cannot rate it; it is public land. I do not know how large regional councils are going to have to go and administer another sort of system of taxation. It is another impost they have, and there is no benefit that goes to them at all. In fact it might even worsen things for them. It is just another example of cost shifting, in a way, and that is just completely unfair. I have got 26 councils in my electorate – 26. There are a number of them along the Great Ocean Road, and they are going to be hit hardest with this sort of stuff.

I understand that there is a need to make sure that there is a rental market that is fair and reasonable and that people can have access to, but I am not sure that this tax is the way to do it. If you want to have meaningful reform, you need to have structural reform, not just slap a tax down and expect it to solve all the problems of rental affordability and housing affordability. You could start with ending land tax. You could start with making housing and land more affordable, because land tax certainly adds a cost to it. I know because I have had to pay land tax myself, and I have had people in my constituency ask me about land tax and why they have had to pay it as well. Landlords have to pass that on to cover the costs.

In short, this is a bad tax. It is a bad bill, and I encourage members to think very carefully about supporting it, because you are literally signing regional communities up to a tourism death tax with this, and that is not something we want to do – kill our tourism sector.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (17:02): Well, the Liberals just do not get it, do they? A home is at the core of a person’s life, of families and of communities. You hear this frequently when you talk to people, when you meet people in the community: it is so difficult to piece everything else in a person’s life together if they do not have a home. Whether it is people’s health or their ability to commit to a job, to get trained in the skills they need to go into future employment or to get kids to school, without a home it is so hard to piece all of that together. These reforms that the Liberals oppose and say that they will repeal are a key part of the Labor government’s work in our housing statement. If the Liberals need any evidence as to why this is needed and why this is a good reform, they can look at rental yields – at record highs in Victoria.

This reform likely benefits nowhere more than the Mornington Peninsula in my electorate. The Mornington Peninsula has one of the highest concentrations of short-stays operating of any local government anywhere in Australia. We need aged care workers. We need childcare workers. We need workers in our healthcare systems. We need to ensure that they have homes so they can care for their local communities. We need teachers in our schools, we need construction workers in the work we are doing to build more homes and we need hospitality workers particularly on the peninsula. Our businesses are screaming out for workers, and they want and need them locally within the community to service the communities that need all this support. This reform will deliver exactly that for the peninsula.

It is such a hot issue, the number of short-stays that are on the peninsula. We are talking about 50,000 homes across Victoria that are being used for short stays, a massive percentage of which are on the peninsula. It will make a real difference in people’s lives when we can house individuals and families to enable them to have a ground base, somewhere for their entire life to flourish from. It not only benefits that person but it benefits others looking for homes, because every time someone is able to find a home it frees up down the line. The investment we are making, whether it is the $5 billion in the big build, the supports to services or the various pieces of work we are doing through the housing statement, will ensure there is the housing that Victorians need so that everyone can have a place they call home.

This is a really important part, and I just want to touch on how important it is for the Mornington Peninsula, particularly when we see documentaries like The Ranch and when we hear about people needing to be hopping between friends’ homes or living out of cars or, the worst, at the point where they are living in tents. We have seen that through The Ranch documentary. The community on the peninsula are really aware of this. Four hundred people turned out on a cold Tuesday night at the Rosebud cinema to watch that documentary and learn and understand more about what position people are in. When we can free these homes up, it will be getting people out of that situation. When one person, one family, is able to move into a home and the place they are in frees up, it gets everyone into another level of housing.

I think this is incredibly important. I know that so many of my constituents across Eastern Victoria passionately support this. I have had conversations, I have had meetings and I have had many letters – I will not name people individually, but lots of letters – about it. I think it is just a really important reform and one that I am glad to stand here and support today.

Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (17:07): I am just going to speak on this bill for a short amount of time, but I want to point out how interesting it is that Mr McIntosh started his speech by saying the Liberals just do not get it. Basically, they are always talking to us, saying we just do not have the intelligence to really understand how the world works. Labor seems to think that the reason Victoria is experiencing a housing crisis is because the government is not taxing Victorians enough and the way we are going to repair the damage caused by the world’s longest lockdown is to obliterate the tourism industry. I just think it is Labor logic at its absolute best.

There are a couple of things I want to point out about this bill. What it does is it introduces a short-stay levy of 7.5 per cent of a total booking on short-stay accommodation from January next year. It is a levy on each short-stay of less than 28 days. It applies to annual bookings of $75,000 or more that are non-commercial. It expands powers of owners corporations and councils to regulate and tax the short-stay sector, but more importantly, it makes life harder for Victorians and it makes Victoria a less attractive place to come and have a holiday because it costs more. There are a couple of things about that. Increasing tax – and my colleague Mr Mulholland said it – does not actually make things cheaper; it makes things more expensive. It is just pure logic.

The proposed short-stay accommodation levy is the highest in the world and will disproportionately impact regional Victoria, particularly Gippsland, where tourism and short-term accommodation is essential for the local economy. This is something that I am proud to stand here and talk about, because this Labor government has obliterated Gippsland. They obliterated the economy when they shut down the native timber industry, when they had a prolonged attack on the energy industry and when they shut down the paper mills. There are so many examples of this, where they have just showed so much contempt for the people of the Eastern Victoria Region, and now they are doing it to the tourism industry.

This levy follows a series of misguided policies that do not address the real cause of the housing crisis and will add further strain to regions that are still recovering from COVID-19 lockdowns. They are still trying to recover from bushfires, from floods and from many economic challenges – many of them made worse by the policies of those opposite. While proponents of the levy such as Paul Edbrooke have said that it is not the highest in the world, his comparison to the 12 per cent bed levy in LA county is misleading as that tax applies to hotels, whereas this tax in Victoria applies only to short-stay accommodation and leaves large hotel chains untouched. This is making life harder for mum-and-dad investors, not the people at the top end of town.

We know that the root cause of the housing crisis stems from RBA pandemic stimulus policies, excessive property taxes that are causing people to absolutely flee the state, over-regulation and the government’s failure to prioritise the right policies. The collapse of Porter Davis Homes, which could have been saved by a $20 million loan – which by the way is just one day of interest repayments, not even paying down the debt; the interest alone in this state – highlights the government’s failure to support the housing sector. Instead, billions of dollars have been poured into the Big Build projects, often tied up with union influence – which we have seen a lot about lately – and organised crime, which has exacerbated the housing shortage without providing meaningful solutions.

I have just said I would talk for 5 minutes and 5 minutes only, so I am going to just raise one more issue that has not been raised as far as I am aware during this debate, and that is that this policy will affect women, retirees and small business owners disproportionately in regional Victoria. They will bear the brunt of this tax while large hotel chains will remain unaffected. New powers that are granted to owners corporations and councils will allow for additional fees and restrictions on short-stay accommodation, making it so hard for small business owners and mum-and-dad investors that really are not what these people are making them out to be. They are people that are working hard to make a living to do what they can. It is going to affect them.

Finally, the legal constitutional challenges could mean further delay and derail the implementation of this levy, because we do not even know if this is a constitutional tax. It is a tax on a booking, and it is completely outrageous. I am going to leave it there. I am proud that the Liberal-National coalition do not support this in any way, shape or form and that when we win government we will be repealing it.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (17:13): The Short Stay Levy Bill 2024 – the tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, with the 55 new or increased taxes – this is the addiction of the Allan Labor government. This is what they do. When they have got an ever-growing black hole of debt for Victorian taxpayers they come after people who are trying to get ahead and trying to raise an income from Airbnb, from short-stays. The short-stay legislation proposes a 7.5 per cent tax from January next year – lucky everybody, welcome to 2025 – on Airbnb. It certainly will occur for any time you are staying for less than 28 days. As we have heard from this side – thank you, Mrs Broad and Dr Heath – it will be on top of other levies and taxes. It will be on top of GST, so let us tax and tax and tax some more. To quote Mr Galea before, he said in his opening remarks that this state has a ‘dire housing situation’. A dire housing situation, from the government benches, out of the mouths of babes – isn’t that the truth? We have had a Labor government in this state for almost a decade. We have a social housing waitlist – for people to put their head on a pillow in a house somewhere – of 60,000 people, families and individuals who are desperate for a house. This is the legacy so far of a Labor government. And what are they going to do? They are going to reach in there and find a little niche space and find, as I said, mum-and-dad investors. We have heard that, and that is the truth.

Roughly 70 per cent of all people with a second home actually just have the one additional home, and they may well be renting it out on Airbnb or Stayz. Sixty-five per cent of the people who are in that market, who are part of that Airbnb market, are women. We have heard from this Labor government how much they care about women and how much they want to empower them. Well, what are they doing? They are targeting a sector, a group – 65 per cent of short-stay hosts are women – who may well rely on this income for their sole income, for their financial independence. This tax certainly taxes those sorts of people – single parents potentially, single mothers, women escaping domestic violence who have got out and have put their hard-earned cash in or have worked really, really hard to try and create a small level of income or are saving for their retirement. Sixty-five per cent of these short-stay hosts are women, and this is a government that purports to support women. Well, it does not.

The Nationals agree with the Liberals. We will be repealing this tax in government, and we will be certainly opposing this today. One of the things that is important that we heard from our lead speaker Mr Mulholland is that we will look to make some amendments, and again those amendments go to the very heart and the importance around how to support people in need.

A little while ago, when it came through the lower house, there was a fabulous person, Ashlee Morton, the general manager of Accessible Accommodation in Victoria. She is in a wheelchair. We met her with Tim Bull, our Shadow Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers, and she was very keen to impress upon us – and it was not lost on us at all – the fact that many people with a disability, whether they are mobility-impaired or the like, are not suited to motels or the like, particularly in regional Victoria. They look forward to that accessible nature that many of these Airbnbs, these short-stays, specialise in for them, and in order to go and sometimes take their family, maybe their support dog as well, they need these to be in the market. And so they are going to be taxed. They are going to be taxed on that because it is not reasonable to tax people and then expect them to absorb it. We have got high electricity costs, we have got a burden in terms of rates and now we are seeing this government come in and penny-pinch for $60 million – penny-pinch on people who cannot afford it.

Well, where is it going to play out? Of course it is going to play out in regional Victoria. It is going to play out, as we heard from Dr Heath, in my electorate, in Eastern Victoria Region. It is going to play out in Mrs Broad’s electorate and in the west as well. Many of our regional municipalities have a very high rate of Airbnb operations. Indeed I was down in Bass the other day, a great little place. I had been contacted by a lady, and her name is Jennie-maree Tempest. In Jam Jerrup, a lovely little town, a hamlet overlooking Western Port, she has set up, with her husband, an Airbnb. It specialises in disability access. The thing that is really frustrating to her is that she has set this up to support people, to enable them – and the view is beautiful; it looks over Western Port Bay. They accommodate and support these people in the disability sector who need a break, who want some rest, and of course the council has only given her a licence to run an Airbnb. It is short-stay accommodation. She cannot, even if she wanted to, run it as a long-stay rental. This government is saying, ‘Oh, we’ll create more long-term rentals.’ Well, here is an exact example of it not doing that at all. What will happen is she will have to pass on the cost impost – and this is just one example of thousands – and make it cost inhibitive for the people who want to go there. Also I spoke with another fabulous lady called Jillian Roland from Ventnor, and indeed Phillip Island has got somewhere around 900 Airbnbs. Of course you cannot – and this is part of the planning regime – just stick loads and loads of motels there. These Airbnbs certainly meet those markets. This government is all about hurting regional Victoria and not supporting it.

Our amendments look at exempting the disability sector and exempting people who are escaping from domestic violence. We have heard time and time again from this tired government about how much they support people escaping domestic violence situations. We want them to be safe and protected. They should agree with this amendment that we are putting forward today to exempt those who would be using short-stays as a vital link to separate themselves from a violent past and start to create some breathing space for them to have a new life. We also want them to exempt those travelling to Melbourne, for example, for medical appointments. I know of a very beautiful case of a friend of mine, which I will not go into in great detail, but she and her husband had to stay at a short-stay while he was getting cancer treatment. It is just not that easy for country people to be able to access health care and the important services that they need without these sorts of short-stays.

We know that tourism is certainly an important factor in our regions, but as I have highlighted, just one part of it is the usage of the short-stay accommodation market. Finally, if I can leave you with some thoughts, this holiday tax will not contribute to building new homes or increasing long-term rental availability. We know that this government has had an 80,000 new homes policy for 10 years. For a decade we have heard the Minister for Housing spruik it, and what have they done in the last 12 months? They have built 55,000 new homes. That is well under that aspiration. It is not creating the housing that we need. This tax is solely around filling a budget deficit that is blowing out to incredible proportions, and we have heard it quoted at $187 billion – with a B – by 2028, a million dollars an hour in tax. This is a cheap shot from the government. It is going to punish regional Victorians and punish women, and certainly the Nationals oppose this bill.

Adem SOMYUREK (Northern Metropolitan) (17:23): I am a little bit 50–50 on this bill, because I do believe the housing crisis is the biggest issue facing Victoria and Australia at the moment, and I have very strong views on that. I think the government could be doing more in fact. However, I was the local government minister and Minister for Small Business when we had the bushfires in 2019 and 2020. As the house will recall, rural and regional Victoria was devastated during that period of time. Holding the ministerial portfolios that I did, I was at the coalface of the recovery aspect, getting in and meeting with the community and meeting with the small businesses who have to rely on the tourism industry for their livelihoods. We did promise them at that point that we would be there with them all the way through the recovery stage and that we would be doing what we could to ensure that they restored their livelihoods, even when the cameras went away. We did not quite fulfil all those expectations, but we had a good reason: we had the COVID crisis that happened, so you have got to cut the government some slack there.

That is a pretty strong influence on me at the moment, the promise that we made to them that we would be supporting them all the way through. Sure, they are doing much better now, but ultimately what I would like to see is some more data – trend data – on whether we are seeing a whole host of rental accommodation being converted to short-stay accommodation. I really would like to see that data. If it is a real big problem, where people are just capitalising on the housing prices and making a buck, I would take a very dim view of that. I have not been convinced at the moment. Sure, I do recognise that anything helps, I think. My position is not as clear-cut as the opposition’s, who see it as just a tax grab. I have a more nuanced position. I do have empathy. I do understand that we do need to do anything possible for the housing crisis. But my experience as a minister at the coalface of the bushfire crisis and the recovery, having my conversations and my meetings with the small business community, who invariably were tourism operators, leads me to not support the bill at this stage in its current form without seeing more data.

In terms of the proposed amendments, I will be supporting two of the amendments, those amendments that go to providing exemptions for vulnerable people in our community, such as victims of domestic violence and people with disabilities.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (21): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Noes (17): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Adem Somyurek, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (17:34)

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Minister, under the changes that the government is proposing to council powers, can you confirm that local governments will be able to apply conditions, limit the number of days and limit the number of properties in any area they prescribe and prohibit short-stay accommodation within their municipalities?

Jaclyn SYMES: The government is giving local communities the ability to respond to local concerns, including by making changes to the planning system to give local councils the power to regulate short-stay accommodation if they choose, including requiring a planning permit, imposing conditions and restricting the number of nights a property can be used. This approach is about striking the right balance for local communities. These changes are not in the bill, and further work is underway on how this will be implemented. Any change to the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) and any amendment to a local planning scheme to regulate short-stay accommodation would need to be justified based on the objectives of the act and state planning policy.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Can you explain a little more the mechanism by which these powers will be granted?

Jaclyn SYMES: Changes would be progressed through the Victoria Planning Provisions to enable councils to regulate short-stay accommodation in their municipality should they choose. Further work is underway on how this will be implemented.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Under the proposed changes to council powers, will these council regulations be able to be applied to all existing and future properties that are being used as short-stay accommodation in their municipality and not just triggered upon the application of a planning permit for another matter?

Jaclyn SYMES: The government’s intention is to enable local councils to regulate all short-stay properties via the planning system if they choose. A change to Victoria Planning Provisions and any amendment to a local planning scheme to regulate short-stay accommodation would need to be justified based on the objectives of the act and state planning policy.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Can you explain the mechanism that would allow councils to apply limitations and conditions on all existing and future short-stay accommodation properties?

Jaclyn SYMES: Changes would be progressed through the Victoria Planning Provisions to enable councils to regulate short-stay accommodation in their municipality should they choose. Further work is underway on how these changes will be implemented. Any change to the Victoria Planning Provisions and any amendment to a local planning scheme to regulate short-stay accommodation would need to be justified based on the objectives of the act and state planning policy.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Will the government make the changes to the VPP and all planning schemes by ministerial intervention and commit to a fast-track process to make the council planning scheme amendment process as quick, easy and cost efficient as possible?

Jaclyn SYMES: The government is giving local communities the ability to respond to local concerns, including by making changes to the planning scheme to give local councils the power to regulate short-stay accommodation if they choose, including requiring a planning permit. Further work is underway on how this will be implemented. Any change to the Victoria Planning Provisions and any amendment to a local planning scheme to regulate short-stay accommodation would need to be justified based on the objectives of the act and state planning policy. The government intends to develop state planning policy related to short-stays so that council planning scheme amendments can be processed efficiently.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Will the levy extinguish the ability of councils to make local laws and charge fees on short-stay accommodation?

Jaclyn SYMES: The government is not legislating to explicitly prohibit councils from making local laws to charge fees on short-stay accommodation and does not expect that the creation of a short-stay levy will disturb councils’ ability to make local laws to impose fees with respect to short-stays.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Through what mechanism will councils be able to impose fees on short-stay accommodation?

Jaclyn SYMES: The government understands that several local councils currently use local lawmaking powers to impose fees on short-stays and expects that councils will continue to be able to use these powers after the introduction of a short-stay levy following the passage of this bill.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: When does the government intend to bring forth subordinate legislation that will allow local councils to regulate short-stays in their communities?

Jaclyn SYMES: My advice is that work is underway on these changes and the government is aiming for commencement in 2025.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Will short-stay property operators have to register their properties with the State Revenue Office (SRO), and what penalties will exist if they fail to do so?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Puglielli, platforms taking short-stay bookings or property owners taking bookings directly will be obliged to register with the SRO. Normal state tax related penalties will apply to those not meeting their tax obligations. The SRO will have the same compliance and investigation powers as it has in relation to other levies and taxes, and the same penalties will apply to those not meeting their obligations.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: What information will councils have access to that will allow them to develop policy and to enforce any regulations? Will this include the name, the address of the property and the number of nights used as a short stay, for example?

Jaclyn SYMES: My advice is that the bill includes amendments to empower the State Revenue Office to disclose protected information to councils to facilitate councils’ regulation of short-stay accommodation activities. Councils already hold lots of data on properties in their municipalities; the data that will be shared will only be data collected in relation to the short-stay levy, principally whether and when a property is being used for short stays. Councils will be prohibited from providing this data to others.

David DAVIS: I just want to make a short statement then ask one question. To my mind this bill is very misconceived, and what it will do is put enormous pressure on regional communities. It is a new tax that will have a profound impact on many of our regional centres, our tourist centres. It will change the way individuals are able to utilise their property. Even occasional or casual Airbnb or short-stay-style arrangements will be very, very problematic. I will just put it on record. I for one think this is a very retrograde step and will have a profound and negative outcome for the community.

Leaving that to one side, what I want to understand is what modelling the government has based this on. What steps has the government taken to model the impact? Specifically, the question I would ask is: has the government modelled how many additional long-term rentals will become available because of this change?

Jaclyn SYMES: Thank you, Mr Davis, for your question and in your usual way your statement putting your comments on the record. Of course we as a government have looked at this question, including looking at market responses in other jurisdictions where similar policies have been put in place. There are around 50,000 entire properties that are currently used for short stay in Victoria, and the policy that we have landed on will mean that more of those properties become available for long-term rental and will help fund the growth of Victoria’s social and affordable housing stock. So if a landlord is encouraged to put up a property for long-term rental, that is a benefit there; if they choose not to, the levy then goes into the ability for the government to invest that in the housing stock. There is inherent uncertainty in how Victorian property owners will respond to the particular policy, and we will be watching the market closely to see exactly what the response looks like, but as I have indicated, whether it is an incentive to put a property on the market or whether it indeed creates revenue for social and affordable housing, we would consider that either outcome is a positive benefit for Victoria.

David DAVIS: I just notice the simple question of ‘how many’ is not answered. There is modelling, and so consequently I would ask two further questions. One is: can that modelling be released? That is the first question. The second but related question comes back to actually what number of long-term rental arrangements rather than short-stay arrangements are modelled to be created.

Jaclyn SYMES: As is standard practice, the government does not intend to release the modelling behind its revenue estimates or other work undertaken in developing the policy. As I indicated in my answer to your first question, there is uncertainty in how Victorian property owners will respond to the particular policy that we are proposing. We will be watching the market closely to see what the response looks like. But as I have indicated, there is a benefit to the Victorian public and particularly those that are seeking housing, whether it is an incentive for people to put their houses up for long-term rental or indeed, if they do not, it is a revenue source for additional housing in Victoria.

David LIMBRICK: I only have a few questions. The bill’s definition of ‘premises’ includes:

the whole or part of any building or other structure; or

a caravan or any other vehicle …

This seems to apply explicitly to caravans and motorhomes at campsites. Is that correct?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Limbrick, to answer your question, it is not intended to apply to caravan parks. However, if you think about a tiny home or a granny flat, if you put a caravan in your backyard, for instance, and seek to put it on a short-stay platform or rent it out for short stays, then it is intended for that to be captured.

David LIMBRICK: I would respond to that that many places that you would call campsites do have permanent caravans or motorhomes and to my mind would fit this definition of ‘premises’. Is that not correct? A caravan that is basically permanent would appear to meet the definition of ‘premises’ by this, wouldn’t it?

Jaclyn SYMES: I would draw your attention, Mr Limbrick, to commercial residential premises as defined. They generally include:

a hotel, motel, inn, hostel or boarding house

premises used to provide accommodation in connection with a school …

a caravan park or camping ground

anything similar to residential premises described above.

Commercial accommodation providers will be familiar with this concept. I would say that we are using the Commonwealth GST definition in relation to this legislation.

David LIMBRICK: Just for clarity then, campsites, as I have described them, would be excluded from this levy, but the purpose of including caravans and other motorhomes is if you have it connected to a house or near a house or something like that. Is that correct?

Jaclyn SYMES: My advice is that we are excluding hotels, motels and other commercial residential premises from the levy. We are using the definition from the Commonwealth GST act to define commercial residential premises, and that is generally accepted to include hotel, motel, inn, hostel, boarding houses, caravan parks or camping grounds.

David LIMBRICK: That does clarify it. Thank you. Another question I have is around the definition of ‘platform’. Some platforms that short-stay home owners use for bookings are not like Airbnb and these other platforms; they are more like classifieds platforms, like Gumtree. I do not know if you are familiar with that, but it is basically a classifieds platform, similar to eBay and that sort of thing. Would these types of platforms satisfy the definition of a booking platform under clause 4? Just to clarify for the benefit of the Attorney, it is my understanding that the payments are not necessarily facilitated by this platform but the connection with the short-stay owner would be.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Limbrick, I would start by answering that the key is who takes the booking. The levy only applies to platforms taking bookings. It does not apply to classified-type advertisements, so in a Gumtree situation if it is just facilitating your communication with an individual, the individual will be the one taking the booking. That would be my understanding of that arrangement.

David LIMBRICK: That does clarify that. That is very good. Thank you. Again on the topic of booking platforms, it may be the case that there are platforms that serve Australians which do not have business operations in Australia – they operate in foreign markets. How does the government intend to enforce these tax arrangements in foreign jurisdictions? Australians may be using their services, but they may not have operations in Australia. How would the government enforce those arrangements? Who would end up being liable for this tax – a foreign multinational or the property owner?

Jaclyn SYMES: I am sorry, Mr Limbrick, can I just explore what you are talking about? Are you talking about an international platform or an international landlord?

David LIMBRICK: An international platform that does not necessarily have assets in Australia, so they can operate on the internet wherever they like throughout the world. They may facilitate these payments, they may facilitate the advertisements, but they do not have any operations in Australia necessarily. How would the government actually enforce the tax obligations on those platform providers?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Limbrick, my advice in relation to this matter is that foreign companies operating within Victoria are required to comply with Victorian law and the State Revenue Office can use its normal compliance and enforcement powers against those companies.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I want to ask if the government has quantified the impact of any reduced spending or modelled the impact of any reduced spending in Victoria’s regions as a result of this new levy, particularly with regard to border communities.

Jaclyn SYMES: The government has looked at these questions. Although it is standard practice, we do not intend to release modelling. As I said before, although it is standard practice, the government does not intend to release the modelling behind its revenue or other work undertaken in development of the policy. What I can say is the government has heard through consultation that the availability of tourist accommodation in regional areas needs to be balanced with the availability of long-term rental accommodation, including key worker housing in regional areas.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Noting that one in seven Victorian businesses rely on tourism, how many businesses will reduce their offerings or shut down as a result of this new levy?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, Victoria has a thriving tourism sector. As somebody who spends a lot of time in country Victoria, particularly on weekends, I can attest to that. We have a range of measures that we put in place to support the growing industry in relation to supporting workers, supporting tourism assets and supporting country communities.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Noting that 40 per cent of short-stays are booked for purposes other than a holiday, has the government considered, or did the government consider, tax exemptions for the following Victorians who utilise short-stay accommodation: people with a disability, people who travel for medical care or someone undergoing treatment, people at risk of physical or mental threat to their safety – for example, family violence or natural disasters?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, at the outset the statistic that your side has continued to suggest today does not stack up with the information that I have. In fact I think some of our members might have drawn the house’s attention to a recent Urbis report that found 94 per cent of people said that their last short-stay was when travelling for a vacation or holiday to visit family or friends or to attend a special event – 94 per cent. The same survey found that zero per cent were travelling to access medical facilities in relation to using these types of platforms.

The legislation does include a range of exemptions, including principal place of residence and commercial accommodation stays that are for 28 days or longer. Exemptions are also provided for a range of specialist accommodation, including temporary crisis accommodation, supported residential service or accommodation provided by or in connection with a facility to accommodate a contractor, employee or client, such as a hospital providing accommodation for a visiting nurse. The government considered, as part of its policy development process, exemptions for the types of categories discussed. The approach taken by the government is based on what is workable. Exemptions based on property type or who is providing the accommodation are workable because it is possible for the State Revenue Office to check that properties and providers are meeting the criteria and to ensure that they are not being rorted.

On the question you have asked, although it is well meaning, it is not workable. I understand you have got amendments that will go to this, but they are not able to be implemented in a workable way because anyone could claim that they meet one of the exemption criteria and it would be therefore impossible to verify that. I think you probably know that, and you might want to explain how you think it could be workable when you are moving your amendments, because that is not the advice that I have received. Hopefully that answers your question, Mr Mulholland.

Evan MULHOLLAND: To respond to the first point, it was the Victorian Tourism Industry Council that confirmed that 40 per cent of short-stays are booked for purposes other than a holiday. I believe the Attorney was referring to a survey of people that booked in short-stays, whereas this seems much more comprehensive in terms of taking a look at those who provide short-stays and who they provide them to. But I wanted to note your refusal to release any modelling or identify the details of any modelling. Given that, will tourist towns will be worse off because of this new tax?

Jaclyn SYMES: No, we do not believe that any tourist towns will be worse off. We do not believe that any tourist business will shut down.

David LIMBRICK: I have a question for the Attorney just to clarify the interaction of this levy with GST. Clause 13 specifies that the rate of the short-stay levy will be 7.5 per cent of the total booking fee. Does the total booking fee include the GST?

Jaclyn SYMES: GST applies to commercial accommodation, such as hotels and motels. It does not apply to non-commercial residential accommodation, which is what the levy applies to.

David LIMBRICK: GST does apply to the booking platforms, does it not? Therefore the booking fee would include some form of GST. I am trying to ascertain whether the short-stay levy – basically I am trying to figure out: are we looking at a tax on a tax?

Jaclyn SYMES: Just to start with, ‘total booking fee’ means the total amount that is paid for the short-stay and includes mandatory fees associated with booking, such as cleaning and admin fees. However, it does not include amounts charged for using a particular payment method – surcharges et cetera. GST, as I said, applies to commercial accommodation. The levy will not be payable on any commercial accommodation that is liable for GST. GST does not apply to non-commercial residential accommodation, as I have just said. In some cases short-stay accommodation is bundled with other ancillary services, such as cleaning, which may attract GST, to simplify administration. The levy is payable on the total amount paid for the stay, which in such cases could include GST if payable on those ancillary services.

David LIMBRICK: Clause 15 specifies the obligation of a licensee to pay the owner or the renter the amount payable on the short-stay levy plus, under subclause 1(b), the amount of any GST payable on the amount referred under paragraph (a). What is the purpose of this mention of GST in clause 15? It is around the obligation, I believe, of the platform to pay the owner some form of GST. I am just curious as to what the purpose of this clause 15 really is.

Jaclyn SYMES: The purpose is picking up the fact that licensees are not in control of property.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Just picking up on a similar line of questioning to Mr Limbrick, what items are taxable? Are services which a provider may include as part of a booking, such as a tour, to be included in the total booking cost used to calculate the levy?

Jaclyn SYMES: Can you repeat that?

Evan MULHOLLAND: If I can explain it more simply, I know with many Airbnbs – and in fact I have used one myself – part of the Airbnb cost includes a tour. Would that also be included and calculated as part of this levy?

Jaclyn SYMES: No. Optional things like tours would not be included.

Evan MULHOLLAND: If they are optional, would that mean then that the provider would have to perform some sort of base calculation of the accommodation to the SRO? If that is in the total cost of the booking and that is how it is calculated, what is the process to exempt something like a tour?

Jaclyn SYMES: Already there is the ability to exclude amounts from the total. As I indicated before, the total booking fee means the total amount that is paid for the short-stay – that is, all mandatory fees associated with the booking, including cleaning and administrative fees – but it does not include things like using a particular payment method. It does not apply to things like credit card surcharges or other payments or other amounts credited, and it does not apply for refunds or cancelled stays in relation to how that is reduced. But at a higher level it is up to taxpayers to self-report in relation to that. This is consistent with obligations that the SRO may then undertake in compliance activities.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Stakeholders across the tourism and property industries have criticised the government’s lack of consultation on this bill. What consultation did the government undertake?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, this is not something that is a new announcement. This is not something that has had a short gestation. This is a policy position that has been subjected to consultation over 12 months, including round tables speaking to the tourism industry. I understand there were a number of round tables.

David LIMBRICK: I just want to clarify a couple of things around the funds raised from this. It is my understanding that the government has mentioned that funds from this tax will be going to Homes Victoria to fund social housing. A quarter of that will be used for regional social housing. Is that correct?

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes.

David LIMBRICK: I thank the Attorney for clarifying and confirming my understanding of that. But it is also my understanding that regional short-stay properties account for about half of the industry. Is that correct also?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Limbrick, the government has committed 25 per cent of the revenue raised by this levy to be spent by Homes Victoria in regional Victoria. The level of the commitment is not explicitly linked to the amount of short-stay levy collected in regional areas. Other factors such as social housing needs of regional Victoria have also been considered relevant.

David LIMBRICK: What I am getting at is: if half of the industry is from regional Victoria yet only a quarter of the funds raised from this are going to regional Victoria, isn’t this bleeding money from regional areas – regional tourism – to fund housing in metropolitan areas?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Limbrick, I believe I have answered that in response to your previous question, but I would also draw your attention to the investment from this government in regional Victoria tourism offerings. I have seen it firsthand as a member for Northern Victoria in terms of the amount of support we provide to producers, wineries, distilleries, food producers and a lot of hiking and rail trail upgrades – that is something that I have been personally involved in – as well as the free camping announcement. There are a range of measures designed to support regional Victorian tourism offerings, and as I said, the way this commitment has come about is it is not explicitly linking the amount of short-stay facilities to where money might be spent in a housing perspective. But I think when you look at it holistically, the government has a very strong record of investment in regional Victoria.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I have just got one last question, I think. The Greens have been quite public in claiming credit, as you would, for the inclusion of local councils’ ability to regulate and charge for Airbnb. Would it be correct that that part of this bill is as a result of the Greens, or did the government have a view that this should be included?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, in the normal way we have consulted with a range of stakeholders over the last 12 months, including local councils, the short-stay industry, the tourism sector and members of this place. The final policy parameters that we are announcing stem from those consultations and we believe get the balance right for the Victorian community.

Clause agreed to; clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (18:09)

Evan MULHOLLAND: I move:

1. Clause 3, after line 10 insert –

“disability has the same meaning as it has in section 4(1) of the Disability Service Safeguards Act 2018;

family violence has the same meaning as it has in section 5 of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008;”.

This is an amendment to provide for an exemption from the short-stay levy. I went into detail of those with a disability and those fleeing family violence who should not be taxed for utilising short-stay accommodation. We have heard some pretty harrowing stories over the years including in royal commissions and other reports and everything else about people, women in particular, fleeing family violence finding it really hard to find crisis housing and accommodation, and short-stays are one of the ways they do that. I am really concerned that we are punishing people in those situations. There is only one fully accessible disability-serviced hotel in all of Melbourne, being in Burwood East. Many people with disability, to have everything they need, book specialised short-stays in order to travel around the state. This amendment would provide for an exemption for those vulnerable people, which we on this side of the chamber think is really important.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, I refute your characterisation of the fact that you went into detail to explain your amendment. You have not in any way demonstrated that your amendment is remotely workable. Of course it sounds as though it has merit, but how do you think it would be possible to implement in practice? In fact if we were to agree to this amendment it would completely undermine the purpose of the bill in trying to have the effect of bringing more homes onto the market and supporting more social and affordable housing. I do not think that you have the answer, so I will just put on record that we are not in a position to support an amendment that is unworkable.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Attorney, there are existing ways to demonstrate a particular situation. The State Revenue Office does have an established process for receiving points of evidence. Evidence may include a doctor’s certificate. Evidence of an NDIS package has been used. A reference from a community health service or a statutory declaration – all can be used as points of evidence by the SRO, so I will just respond to that in those terms.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I welcome these concerns being raised by the opposition. I share the Attorney’s concerns in regard to the workability of what is being proposed, alongside my colleagues. I think it is also quite a shocking state of affairs right now in Victoria that there are many vulnerable people who are put in the position of being effectively profiteered on by platforms like Airbnb. People who need support and should be getting that support from government are instead having to seek short-stay providers as an avenue for addressing their needs. I think that is something that we need to have longer conversations about addressing. This particular amendment I do not think is the way forward, and as such we will not be supporting it.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarian Party will be supporting this amendment. I do not believe that it is unworkable at all. In fact it could be quite simply implemented by a platform provider providing a tick box and putting the onus of proof on the person applying for the booking. So I do not believe that it would be onerous at all. These sound like very reasonable situations to be exempted from this tax, and therefore the Libertarian Party will be supporting this amendment.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (17): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Adem Somyurek, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (21): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendment negatived.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I move:

2. Clause 3, after line 13 insert –

“house has the same meaning as it has in section 4(1) of the Housing Act 1983;”.

3. Clause 3, page 3, after line 9 insert –

“rural and regional Victoria has the same meaning as it has in section 3(1) of the Regional Development Victoria Act 2002;”.

For a review of the act it is important to see if the supposed aims of this particular tax are achieved. We have heard of modelling, but there is nothing more important and better than real-life examples.

Jaclyn SYMES: The government will of course review the operation of the levy as appropriate, as it does with all tax lines, but the government does not support this amendment as it will prevent the government from adopting the most appropriate approach in considering how the levy is operating in respect to its goals.

Council divided on amendments:

Ayes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (21): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to; clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 (18:24)

Evan MULHOLLAND: I move:

4. Clause 5, lines 31 and 32, omit “commercial residential premises within the meaning of” and insert “premises described in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d), (da) or (e) of the definition of commercial residential premises in”.

This amendment is in regard to the meaning of ‘commercial residential premises’ in particular and proposes to include a line similar to residential premises in the definition of ‘commercial residential premises’. Without this change there will be significant uncertainty about many classes of short-stay accommodation such as boarding houses.

Jaclyn SYMES: I will not be supporting the amendment. My advice is it will have unwanted consequences in applying the levy to certain commercial residential property types.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (21): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendment negatived.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I move:

5. Clause 5, page 5, line 24, omit “facility.” and insert “facility;”.

6. Clause 5, page 5, after line 24 insert –

“(j) premises located on land that is exempt under section 54(1) of the Land Tax Act 2005 from land tax imposed under that Act.”.

I will be quick. This is a principal place of residence exemption. It provides tax exemptions to mirror existing land tax exemptions. Properties already exempt from land tax would also be exempt from the short-stay levy.

Jaclyn SYMES: Unfortunately, Mr Mulholland, these are other unworkable amendments. The legislation already provides an exemption from the levy for principal places of residence, which is broader than a land tax exemption because it includes tenants’ principal places of residence. The existing approach is workable and appropriately targeted for the short-stay levy.

Council divided on amendments:

Ayes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (21): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendments negatived.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Jaclyn SYMES: Given the collective efforts and the progress that we are making to almost finishing this bill, I move:

That the meal break scheduled for this day, pursuant to standing order 4.01(3), be suspended.

Motion agreed to.

Clause agreed to; clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 (18:31)

Evan MULHOLLAND: I move:

7. Clause 7, page 7, line 3, omit “booking.” and insert “booking; and”.

8. Clause 7, page 7, after line 3 insert –

“(c) any amount included in respect of the short stay levy; and

(d) any amount included in respect of GST.”.

9. Clause 7, page 7, lines 5 to 12, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert “for a short stay booking includes any amount payable for any period during which the person does not occupy the premises, unless that amount is waived or provided as a credit or refund.”.

This is in regard to the total booking fee. The amendments have been circulated so I will let them stand.

Jaclyn SYMES: The government is opposing this amendment. We are implementing a simpler approach that can be more easily understood by taxpayers. I would note that the general GST applies to commercial accommodation such as hotels and motels, which are excluded from the levy. In general GST does not apply to non-commercial residential accommodations, which is what the levy applies to.

Council divided on amendments:

Ayes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (21): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 8 to 20 agreed to.

Clause 21 (18:35)

Evan MULHOLLAND: I move:

11. Clause 21, page 16, line 18, after “accommodation” insert “and the booking platform provider had reasonable grounds to believe the declaration was false or misleading in a material particular”.

With the current bill, booking platforms may be liable to pay land tax penalties due to false declarations made by the owner-occupier of the property. This amendment protects providers in cases where there was no reason for them to have believed the declaration was false.

Jaclyn SYMES: We are opposing the amendment. It is not necessary. The legislation already includes provisions to allow platforms to recover any liability resulting from a false declaration from a property owner, and given their relationship with the property owner this is the appropriate division of responsibilities.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (21): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 22 to 31 agreed to.

Clause 32 (18:40)

Evan MULHOLLAND: I invite members to vote against this clause.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If you want to vote in favour of Mr Mulholland’s omission, vote no to the clause.

Council divided on clause:

Ayes (21): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Noes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 33 and 34 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (18:44): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (18:44): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

The PRESIDENT: I am of the opinion that the third reading requires an absolute majority.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (21): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Noes (15): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Adem Somyurek, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Motion agreed to by absolute majority.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: The question is:

That the bill do pass.

Council divided on question:

Ayes (21): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Noes (15): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Adem Somyurek, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the bill has been agreed to without amendment.