Thursday,3 April 2025

Fire Services Property Amendment (Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund) Bill 2025

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Harriet Shing:

That the bill be now read a second time.

The state government has tried to dress this up as all about volunteers. It is not all about volunteers; it is all about a big fat new tax, that is what it is all about, and I think the community are now in outrage. Farmers across the state have contacted MPs’ offices. Certainly I have run into many farmers, and they are very, very angry. I was up in Kanya on Friday last week. I met Victorian Farmers Federation members up there and local fire brigade captains and others, and all of them are aware of the hit that this is on agricultural land, but it is not just agricultural land; it is every household, it is every small business, it is the lot. It is a nasty new tax.

The Allan government does claim that this was introduced as a response to the evolving landscape of emergency management. While the government positions this bill as a necessary update to enhance funding for emergency services, it actually broadens the tax so substantially that you can have no doubt about what the government is up to. The truth is the government has squandered so much money, it has got deeper and deeper and deeper into debt and now it is looking for a new and fat expansion of its taxing initiatives.

It is also going to use the funds to fund core government services. Do not let anyone be under any illusions. This is not intended to fund emergency services alone; it is intended to fund core government services, and that is because the government is running out of money and it needs to fund core government services. We had the previous Treasurer Mr Pallas saying he was going to cut the number of public servants. Actually we now know from the 2023–24 budget outcomes document that was tabled in the chamber today that far from achieving a reduction in public servants, as he promised – that is what Mr Pallas promised; he said he would reduce the number of public servants and the burden on the community – there are 79 more public servants. That is actually the number from my recollection.

Nick McGowan interjected.

David DAVIS: It is an increase, a modest increase, in the number of public servants but not what he had called it, which was a decrease. I know the new Treasurer has made announcements about using Helen Silver and others to look closely at the public sector, look closely at public sector wages, public sector costs and public sector –

A member interjected.

David DAVIS: Well, Helen Silver is a very fine individual, but I am sure that even this is likely to be beyond her.

The bill proposes to replace the fire services property levy, which currently funds just the CFA, the Country Fire Authority, and FRV, Fire Rescue Victoria, and it erects a new funding framework aimed at supporting a broader range of emergency services, including the Country Fire Authority, Fire Rescue Victoria, the Victoria State Emergency Service, Triple Zero Victoria, Emergency Management Victoria and the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety for funding in relation to emergency management and the Secretary of the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action to fund forest fire management. All of the information is that the government intends to use this money much more broadly to backfill and to actually fund the public service on a broad level.

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: Well, we will ask some questions when we get to committee. If that is the case, I am sure that the government will be happy to support an amendment that we will propose that says the money should only be used for these nominated emergency services, not for broader spending across the public sector.

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: I have a good understanding of how emergency services –

Jaclyn Symes interjected.

David DAVIS: But the problem is, Treasurer, I do not think people trust necessarily your government – it is not necessarily you that people have any doubt with but the broader government – and future Labor ministers to stick to an understanding that it will only be used in a narrow way. I think people are very, very nervous indeed that the money will be sprayed deep into funding backfilling the shortages elsewhere, and I do not think anyone has any confidence that that is where it will stay.

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: No, many are worried. Even the unions are worried about it, I have to say. However, the decision to nearly double the levy rates for property owners leaves the government open to the allegation that changes are more about massively increasing tax revenue to fund core services. Many of us have received correspondence from country councils and from many in the emergency services, certainly CFA members. The government have said they are going to give some relief and will ask about that for volunteers, but it is not clear how that is to be administered; it is not clear how that is going to be achieved.

The government says that there are more natural disasters. Well, I am just not actually sure that that is true. There have always been disasters. Some of us remember 2009 and the terrible, terrible bushfires and going into some of those areas very soon after the fires at that time. As health minister, I remember in January there were terrible floods in the north of the state, and I spent a lot of that January period working with communities, trying to deal with the loss of a hospital, trying to deal with all of the huge impacts. These are not new, the challenges that our state faces: fire, flood and a whole range of other natural disasters, as well as obviously fire in terms of domestic buildings and industrial buildings and so forth. All of these are staples. There is Dorothea Mackellar’s poem: ‘A land of sweeping plains’. People could go back and read that poem and they would see that actually floods and fire have been part of Australia, part of Victoria, forever. The government’s justification is very, very weak. They are broke. They have spent the money – they have squandered the money – on big projects that have blown out beyond belief.

Nick McGowan interjected.

David DAVIS: Yes, three tunnels – they want more than that, I have got to say, as well – but huge spending, huge cost overruns. In fact just the cost overruns that this government has generated on their projects – there is more than $40 billion, approaching $50 billion, in cost overruns. As we say, when you start a project out your way, the North East Link, it starts somewhere in the vicinity of $6 billion –

Nick McGowan interjected.

David DAVIS: It started at $6 billion, but let us be generous and say when they signed the contracts it was somewhere near $10 billion.

Lee Tarlamis: Is this his contribution or your contribution?

David DAVIS: I am engaging here.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Order! Mr Davis, it would be handy if you spoke a bit more through the Chair – or at least in the general direction.

David DAVIS: Well, Acting President, you will understand the North East Link is now over $26 billion. These are the projects that blow out, and the state government is now in a terrible financial position, with cost blowouts everywhere. Do not shake your head. The truth is the cost blowouts are there. You cannot deny that the North East Link started at one number and it is now way, way, way up. This is what is driving the bill.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Mr Davis, through the Chair, please.

David DAVIS: Sure, Acting President, I will make sure that all my comments are directed through the Chair. The fact is that these large projects have blown out on a massive scale, and this government has squandered tens of billions of dollars because it is incompetent, it does not know what it is doing, it cannot control the cost of these projects, and it is nobody’s fault but their own. If they had the proper scoping on projects and the proper cost control, we would not see these projects blowing out. Almost every project has blown out. It is hard to think of a Victorian state government project that is not either behind time or over budget or massively over budget. That is actually the truth. So you have now got a state government that is in deep financial problems. We have got debts escalating. As per the question in question time today, starting off in 2014–15 we were looking at around 6 per cent of GSP, and now we are looking at debt of north of 24 per cent of GSP. So these are huge figures, and they are dragging the state down. The state government’s solution to this is a big fat new tax – more than $2.1 billion of a big fat new tax. That is what we are seeing; that is all this is. It is a new tax on every single household and on every single business, a new tax that is actually clobbering people.

Nobody believes that this is about emergency services. We all believe, and the community believes, that this is because the state government has run out of money, and the state government is now coming in with these big new taxes. We strongly support our emergency services, we strongly believe they should be funded properly, but the state government should have been making proper provision for them all the way through. The state government has traditionally funded Triple Zero Victoria. The state government has traditionally funded most of our other emergency services to a greater or lesser extent. So the truth here is that the state government is now going to scoop in all of this money, and I have to say, the spending in a number of the emergency services areas has really not been well scoped and managed by the state government. We have seen the problems at Triple Zero over this recent period, we have seen the terrible problems that have occurred at Triple Zero, and we have seen the decline in the performance at Triple Zero.

Jaclyn Symes interjected.

David DAVIS: Minister, as much as you may wish to say something different, Triple Zero has not performed in recent years. It has not performed well.

Jaclyn Symes: Recently they have been going very, very well.

David DAVIS: Well, they have come up a bit from where they were, but they were in a terrible position.

Jaclyn Symes: They were smashed by COVID.

David DAVIS: Everything is COVID, everything is COVID. Everything is meant to be COVID. Actually the performance deteriorated before COVID, and you know that is the truth. It was actually in serious trouble before COVID, and you have now more recently started to coax it into a slightly better position.

A member interjected.

David DAVIS: And who created the problem? That is the question. So in committee we want to ask some questions about the funding model. We want to know why the government has decided to fund some emergency services and not others. We want to understand exactly where the government seeks to dispense the money and how that will operate.

We will on this occasion move some amendments. I think it would be good if the amendments could be circulated, and I will explain the amendments so that people know what we are proposing.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

David DAVIS: These amendments fall into three parts, in short. They firstly seek to limit the spending to the agencies where spending occurs now, plus the SES; that is the first tranche of amendments. The second, as an option and as a way forward, seek to limit it to funding of emergency agencies but not to be used to fund the department within the meaning of the Public Administration Act 2004. And the third set of points in the amendments here is an aspect that seeks to have better reporting. This would seek that each financial year the minister must cause the following information to be included in the report of operations of the department: the total amount of revenue raised from the levy in the financial year – so let us see that amount; the breakdown of that amount by collection agency – that is effectively councils – and by land use classification as set out, so we want to see what is collected from farming land, what is collected from housing and what is collected from industrial land and so forth, but we also want to know how much is collected out of the particular municipalities; and the amounts distributed to each funding recipient from the revenue raised from the levy in the financial year. So we want to see where the money comes from and where the money goes. We think that that is a very reasonable set of amendments, and I am happy to discuss those with anyone in the chamber, including the government, and we are happy to work to scope those.

I also think there is an argument that this bill has not been fully understood across the community yet. I know there is wide outrage in farming communities, and I think there are very legitimate concerns there, but I am not sure that the average person in metropolitan Melbourne fully understands that they are going to be clobbered by this as well.

I think there is a strong argument that a committee could look at this bill. We understand now from what the whip said to me earlier in the day that the government does not intend to see this bill passed today. We do not intend, as I understand it from the government’s perspective, to go into committee, so there is actually plenty of time, given that the chamber will not be sitting until the second week of May, for a relevant committee to do some serious work to look at this. It would enable firefighters, agencies, volunteers and others to make submissions and to make their views known perhaps at a public hearing. So there could easily be a very strong case made that this is the sort of bill that ought to be looked closely at by a parliamentary committee. We will have more to say about that as the debate proceeds.

The farming land issue is very real. Farmers by and large do it very tough, and these charges that are being considered on farming land are quite serious and they are going to hit many farmers at a time when they are facing natural challenges. We have heard from over that side of the chamber the government members talking about how the challenges are there, the weather and natural events. Well, natural events, as I said, have always been there, but farmers are at the pointy end of these natural events, and you would have to ask why they seem to have been singled out for special treatment with this bill. Why have they been singled out?

There is the issue of volunteers and how they are to be recognised, and we agree with the concept of recognising them through some reduction in their payments or their levy, but the government has not given a clear explanation on how the machinery for that will work. I think the polite way of putting it is it is a mess. This will be an opportunity. This could be done at a parliamentary committee – it is another task that a committee could well consider – or we could do it in committee of the whole when the chamber returns and there could be some close questioning of the minister so that we can all understand better how the government intends that volunteers should be recognised.

Acting President Bourman, I think you have foreshadowed that you are going to potentially move some amendments too. We will be happy to talk about those after you have circulated your amendments formally, and some of my colleagues, Liberals and Nationals, will no doubt make comment on those at that time. Amendments are one way of dealing with some of the issues.

There are questions about the title of the bill and the misrepresentation of the bill as concerned about volunteers. This bill is a tax bill, a dirty three-letter word. Make no mistake, it is nothing more and nothing less than a nasty tax bill, and the community should understand it in that way. The government has got the ability to jack up the tax. That is what they want to do. Why are they so desperate for money now?

I was in government when the fire services levy came in. We looked closely at how we should do this. There were a lot of debates. I sat in in a number of the cabinet committee discussions as to how we would do this. People can think back to how the money was attained for fire and other emergency services previously. There was a levy on insurance premiums, and people will remember that cascade of insurance. Michael O’Brien was the Treasurer at the time, and I think it was a good and very sensible reform. It was a fair reform. We needed to make sure that it did not clobber householders and small businesses too hard, and we needed to make sure it was fairer in the sense that if you look back to the old system, those who did not have insurance did not pay. They did not pay at all, and that was patently unfair. The system was brought in so every property made a small contribution to the emergency services, and particularly the fire services. It was then decided the levy would be collected by councils, because obviously they had the machinery there, and we did not necessarily want to set up a whole new collection approach.

But now, with the scale of what the government is proposing, this is also a body blow to councils. Councils by and large are obviously collecting their rates each year, and that is what they should do, but now they have got this additional charge, and it is going to be a whopper. On the bill, people are going to look at it and go, ‘Oh, my goodness, that’s a very, very big charge.’ They are going to see that it is not what it was and that it is now much, much higher. Councils are going to have to carry that load and collect that money, and that is not going to be as straightforward as it was previously. It was a more modest charge. As I say, when you add up the three forward years, 2025–26 onwards, you get to $2.14 billion in extra collection that the state government is imposing, and that is going to be collected by those collection agencies which are referred to in my amendment. The collection agencies are councils, let us be clear – that is what we are talking about: they are councils. Those councils have got to collect the money, they have got to deal with the bad debts, they have got to deal with carrying that bad debt load and they have got to go and recover money on some properties. That has always been the case, but now the scale of this is going to be much greater – in fact in this next three years $2.14 billion greater. It is a huge amount of money. New tax, new collection, councils facing –

Sheena Watt interjected.

David DAVIS: We agree with using the levy to fund fire; that is what we brought in in 2013. That is what I have just outlined. We understood that a fire services levy was a fairer way to do it than the old tax on insurance, which meant that some people did not pay anything, others paid a lot, and there was that cascade of GST and the levy and so forth. It became a very significant hit on your insurance premium. By making it low across all of the landholdings in the state, it was a fairer tax. But now this is a huge additional tax. If you look at the budget paper that came out at the end of last year, you can add up those three years quite clearly, and it is $2.14 billion, Ms Watt, if you look at it. It is a large amount of money in anyone’s knowledge. That is going to have to be not just extracted but plucked from those landholders, stolen from landholders, but it is going to have to be collected by councils. The councils say, ‘Why are we the bunnies that are collecting this huge, huge new tax?’ And I can see why they are saying that.

I am conscious that you might not want to set up another whole agency for the State Revenue Office to go and do that in replica, but at the same time the scale here is so big, the new tax is so big that is going to make it very, very hard for those councils. If people do not pay on time, they have got to go out and collect it, and that is not going to be straightforward. The state government does not seem to have appreciated that this is going to be a collection task for council. It is going to require more money and resources to collect, they are going to have to carry the load for a long period and they are going to have to be frankly quite unpopular when they go out as the tax collector for the SRO in effect and the Treasurer. That is the truth of the matter. It is not a great bill, and I do not think anyone thinks it is right.

I have only touched on a number of key areas. To summarise for people again, we have got some amendments. There are three, in effect, in that set of amendments: reporting, confining the spending to a small number of agencies and outlawing the spending on government core services. Our fear is that the government is going to take the rivers of gold that come from this and it is going to be used to fund the public service as a whole. We say that is not right. It is not right, and we say that the money that was in the fire services levy was designed for that emergency services arrangement. That is fair enough. We agree with that – that was our policy. But you have also got the government wanting to backfill Triple Zero and other parts of the system that have traditionally been funded by normal, everyday tax revenue.

Nick McGowan interjected.

David DAVIS: It is a pea-and-thimble trick, Mr McGowan, that is what it is. You see, you try and follow the money as you move it around through the public service. We pump up this bit, and we find a new funding source for another agency over here. Well, we are not buggerlugs. We think it is not right, and we are going to oppose this quite strenuously. I want to be clear to the Government Whip and to the Treasurer: this is going to be a long debate, a long fight, when the chamber returns. It might be as well that some of this is dealt with through a parliamentary committee.

Landlords are also set to bear a heavier financial load under this bill. The new levy is expected to generate an additional $2 billion from landowners, with landlords and short-term rental owners facing higher charges. This move comes on the heels of previous hikes in land taxes and new rental regulations, prompting many landlords to consider selling their properties. The increased financial pressure on landlords is likely to be transferred to tenants through higher rents, exacerbating house affordability issues across the state.

The government’s approach to implementing this levy has been marked by a troubling lack of community engagement. Unlike the comprehensive consultations undertaken during the establishment of the original fire services property levy in 2013, this bill has been introduced without adequate input from those most affected. Farmers and other stakeholders have been sidelined in the decision-making process, leading to widespread frustration and opposition.

Local councils tasked with collecting this new levy have expressed significant concerns about their capacity to manage the additional administrative burden and reputational damage amongst their ratepayers. The Municipal Association of Victoria has highlighted the complexity of implementing the levy and anticipates backlash from residents. Councils are ill equipped to handle the increased workload, and the financial impact on rural areas is particularly concerning.

Fire Rescue Victoria and the CFA also have concerns with the wording of the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund. As it stands, FRV receive 87.5 per cent of the fire services levy. The wording of this bill leaves the door open this allocation to be lowered, leaving a large shortfall in funding for an already cash-strapped vital service. With both FRV and CFA members relying on 30-year-old trucks and failing equipment to protect the community, both organisations are voicing their concerns with the distribution of this fund.

While the need for well-funded emergency services is undeniable, the Fire Services Property Amendment (Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund) Bill 2025 places an inequitable financial burden on farmers, landlords and ultimately all Victorians. The lack of community consultation and the administrative challenges posed to local councils further underscore the bill’s shortcomings. I urge the government to reconsider this approach and engage in meaningful dialogue with stakeholders to develop a fair and sustainable funding model for our emergency services.

Can I begin by thanking those workers and volunteers, some of whom are with us today in the chamber, and make very clear that there is an intention that has been made very clear by the Treasurer that there will be no reduction in funding. There is $970 million from last year’s budget committed to FRV. They will continue to receive 100 per cent of their budget as stated, and up to 87.5 per cent of that funding will come from this Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund. The budget determines the level of the ESVF levy. The ESVF and the collection of that does not set FRV’s budget. The ‘up to’ number provides government with flexibility when choosing the rates and how much of the FRV budget and other emergency services budgets are funded by the ESVF. It does not impact the budget of these entities. The other thing that I just want to say is that this has been made clear by the Treasurer. She has said it multiple times, as I understand, and she will absolutely stand by that. I look forward to her contribution on this, and it is worth acknowledging her work as the former Minister for Emergency Services. The Treasurer I know will speak to this with great strength and conviction, particularly as a regional Victorian.

I cannot think of a more fitting moment to speak on this bill than right now, because we are marking the 80th birthday in fact of the Country Fire Authority. For eight decades the CFA has been a symbol of selflessness, of courage and of community through fires, storms and unimaginable hardship. CFA members have stood strong. Their legacy is in the hearts of countless Victorians whose lives have been saved, whose homes have been defended and whose communities have been rebuilt in the wake of disaster. This bill is not just about maintaining this legacy; it is about strengthening it for the future. It is also about recognising that emergency services are not just a seasonal support system; they are a constant presence. Whether in the peak of summer bushfire periods or during unexpected flash flooding in the middle of winter, they respond, they reassure and they rebuild.

In fact on the weekend I had the honour of attending the Victorian State Emergency Service regional awards. It is one of those moments, I must say, that really ground you. It reminds you what this work and what this legislation before us are really about. I saw the awards given to volunteers for five years, 10 years, 20 years and even 50 years of service – 50 years. That is a lifetime of commitment given by Denis Brain, who joined the SES Footscray unit in its founding year of 1975 following the devastating West Gate Bridge collapse. I had the chance to talk to Denis, and he told me about the time he has spent being the head of boating operations at the VICSES in Footscray and how you can often spot him along the Maribyrnong River. Actually, part of the reason why he joined and why boating is now a part of the SES is because of his incredible work. He continues to train boating crews, and there are rescue folks with the skills that they learned from Denis right across the state.

That same crew went out and helped the crew along the Kensington flood banks in 2022. I want this chamber to be a part of the reason that Denis’s legacy continues in the SES, and that is only possible if Denis and the crew at Footscray SES have the resources they need to keep on going. While I was at the awards I had the good fortune to speak to Mike, Goldie and Mel. They are three absolutely unwaveringly dedicated SES members who did not just thank me for attending, they pleaded with me, pleaded with us in this chamber, that the SES needs this bill to pass to continue to do what they do best, helping Victorians when disaster strikes. So to Denis on the banks of the Maribyrnong River, who saw boating become central to SES rescue; to Mike, Goldie and Mel, who asked not for praise or applause but for practical support; to the CFA captain from Seymour, who told me they are still operating trucks older than many of their volunteers; and to every regional unit that has turned up in the dark with little more than a pager and a purpose, this bill is for them. It is for the families they helped evacuate, it is for the towns they have rebuilt sandbag by sandbag and it is for the future they protect even when their own properties lie in the path of destruction.

Can I say it is time that we move from applause to action to ensure that our emergency services, paid and volunteer alike, are not just equipped to respond to today’s emergency but ready for the ones that we do not yet see coming. To support our emergency services, the Allan Labor government announced a more than $250 million investment to boost the capability of our emergency services, because we know that funding reform must be matched with real, tangible support. This included, importantly, $70 million for a rolling fleet replacement program to deliver new and upgraded trucks, tankers and pumpers for CFA and VICSES volunteers right across the state. In fact I have had the good fortune to see them up here in the northern suburbs. We have also doubled that number – let me say it again, doubled – the Victorian emergency services equipment program, injecting over $62 million in local stations, vehicles and gear. I have seen the benefits of that right across the state. And because accurate information saves lives, we are investing $53 million to modernise the VicEmergency app, which I hope everyone has got, and EM-COP, with better accessibility, faster upgrades and multilingual functionality. Why you need the app is because climate change is real, and that is why you need the app, because it tells you when there are fires and where there are floods. It is absolutely important for absolutely everybody to download the app. And I tell you what, whether you are in the cities or in the country, we need that VicEmergency app being upgraded, and that is one of the things that will be funded by this bill, let me tell you. This is about giving our volunteers the tools, the training and the tech they need to protect our communities, not just now but into the future. This is only possible if this chamber here supports the levy.

Let me be clear to those interjecting and others: the threats facing Victoria are growing. Bushfires, they now burn hotter and they burn longer. Storms are more quickly unleashing, and I absolutely tell you they unleash more damage, and I have seen it. Our emergency response system cannot be funded on a model designed for the challenges of a decade ago. We need it for today and for the future. In 2013 in fact the fire services property levy was introduced, and it has served its purpose well; no doubt about it. It has provided consistent funding to the CFA and the FRV, but we all know – or some of us that live in reality – that the risks have changed. The risks have absolutely changed and the threats have intensified. Fires, they do not stop at shire boundaries. Storms, they do not discriminate. Floods do not stop and ask ‘Where’s the boundary of the property?’ and whether or not they are covered by a funding formula. It just does not work like that. That is why we are proposing this change. Can I just say we are looking to replace the FSPL with the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund levy, a funding model that matches the scale and the complexity of today’s emergencies. This new fund will fund not just FRV and the CFA but also the SES, Triple Zero Victoria, let me tell you, and Emergency Management Victoria. Anyone that says that someone that takes a call at all times of the day and night on that 000 hotline is a bureaucrat does not know the absolute commitment and dedication of those workers.

So to everyone at Triple Zero, I say that I stand with you. This bill is about standing with you, while those opposite denigrate your professionalism and the work that you do, and I am not going to stand for it. Those that are with Forest Fire Management Victoria out there fighting fires in regional Victoria and on our forest farms –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): Order! Mr McGowan, if you could perhaps tone it down a little bit. It borders on badgering, and the member has a right to present her position.

Sheena WATT: I have only just gotten to the bit about forest fire management and the State Control Centre, and I have got some words to say about that. But I am going to bring myself back before I start talking about my experience with Black Saturday and let you know that this bill before us and the levy will ensure that the coordinated responses and managing recovery efforts are supported by not just those on the front line but right across our state, including at the State Control Centre. Let me tell you, they are important workers doing incredible things. It will fund up to 95 per cent of annual reporting budgets for some of these services, providing a stable, long-term source of investment in equipment, in technology, in training and in boots on the ground. No longer will these agencies need to cobble together funding through really unpredictable channels, and hopefully there will be some safer ways of being funded than standing at the traffic lights. Let me assure you, this bill provides certainty. It is a change that brings Victoria into line with other jurisdictions right around the country. Other states have already moved to broader based models that reflect the real cost of emergency preparedness and response. It is time we caught up, because every delay puts lives and communities at risk – every single delay.

The funding uplift by this levy is substantial. The levy is expected to generate an additional $610.9 million in 2025–26 and $765 million more in 2026–27 and 2027–28. Every single dollar raised will go towards life-saving equipment, modern vehicles, staff training, volunteer support, public education and disaster recover initiatives. I am going to say that again: every single dollar raised. The Treasurer will absolutely support me in that, because she has said it many, many times, and I am here to say it again: every dollar raised will go towards those things that matter most.

This is not just about raising money; it is about using funds in the smartest and fairest way possible. That is why this bill ensures that those that contribute to our emergency services through their time and through their sweat and often risk their safety – our volunteers – are recognised and supported. From this year onwards eligible volunteers will be able to apply for a rebate on the levy from their principal place of residence or for farmland they own or have an indirect interest in, including via family trusts or farming companies. This is a direct, tangible acknowledgement of the time and personal resources our volunteers commit. Let me be clear, this is not just tokenism; this is meaningful investment that will absolutely save lives. Let me tell you, the eligibility criteria for the rebate has been debated, but it will be set by the Treasurer in consultation with the Minister for Emergency Services, and it will be published transparently for all to see. This means volunteers will know exactly where they stand and what support they are entitled to. There will also be a cap on the rebate for farmland based on land value – again, a fair approach to ensure that the rebate reaches those who need it most.

Can I just say, there is so much more that I could speak to with respect to the levy, but there are exemptions. We are looking after our volunteers out there, and I know that there are others here, on our side in particular, that are standing with our volunteers in supporting the Fire Services Property Amendment (Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund) Bill 2025. There is so much at risk by not funding these services, including the reality that climate change is here. It is real, and the way that it manifests itself is in much more ferocious fires and much more ferocious and fierce storms. We must equip and support our volunteers so that they can be there day or night, rain, hail or shine, for the Victorians that depend on them and need them most.

With my last 20 seconds can I just say that this more than a piece of legislation. It is a statement of our values, a declaration that we as a Parliament believe in protecting those who protect us – that we will not leave them to face disaster alone, that we will stand with them before, during and after the storm. I commend this bill to the house.

Members interjecting.

Nick McGOWAN: Here we go, we have got the peanut gallery straightaway – actively destroying and actually pitting legislation against workers. That is right, yet again. You did it with WorkCover last time and here you are again doing it to firefighters – firefighters, volunteers, CFA firefighters, you name it across the board. You are absolutely decimating the workers of Victoria. You know, before there was no-one in the chamber at all because they are so ashamed, all of your colleagues, they will not even come into this chamber to talk about it. They will not have a discussion about it. You have absolutely abandoned firefighters in this state, and to pretend like this is anything other than a disgraceful, despicable –

Members interjecting.

Nick McGOWAN: I beg your pardon? A dollar for what? I tell you it is a despicable attack on every Victorian –

Ryan Batchelor: On a point of order, Acting President, I just draw the member’s attention to the standing orders with respect to pointing in the chamber.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): It is not appropriate to point, Mr McGowan. I think it alludes to aggression. Please continue appropriately.

Nick McGOWAN: If the Parliament prefers, I will go for jazz hands. I will go jazz hands if that would make those opposite more content, because this is what they do time and again. Time and again they do not want to discuss the issues at hand. What they want to do is deflect, because this is a disgraceful, woeful attack on every single worker in Victoria, and in particular on this occasion it is a disgraceful attack upon the firefighters themselves. Those opposite know this. They absolutely know, because what they are doing is they are actually taking from column A and giving to column B, and there is no guarantee at all that those in Fire Rescue Victoria will get an extra cent. In fact what you are doing is worse than that. For the first time since the royal commission – I will come to the royal commission; I cannot wait to come to that, I tell you what, and we will come to the royal commission – and for the first time in history you are actually factoring into this legislation a cut to Fire Rescue Victoria, a cut to every one of our firefighters. It is disgraceful.

Michael Galea: On a point of order, Acting President, the member does have an obligation to be truthful. The government has been very explicit that there is no cut to FRV in any way whatsoever.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): That is not actually a point of order.

Nick McGOWAN: I will take up the interjection and the point of order nonetheless. A cut – I will explain to those opposite with my jazz hands. I will explain to those opposite that when you are adding to the legislation – the minister knows this, the minister is very clever, so I do not put it past the minister, but for those on the backbench let me take a moment or two of my precious time to explain the fact – when you say ‘up to’, the reality is with this government they have a woeful track record. We only need to look back in the past. I mean, you guys learned nothing from the royal commission. Remember this is how the fire services levy began. It began because what we needed was a consistent and a viable and an appropriate level of funding for the fire services and our firefighters. Well, you are going way away from that. Suddenly you came up with a mega tax on the eve of Christmas – never forget this. On the eve of Christmas what did this government drop? A doubling of the fire services levy. That is right – shrug our shoulders all we want in this chamber, but I tell you what, in a cost-of-living crisis this government has decided that it has run out of money. It is digging tunnels everywhere; they have got sinkholes that they cannot even manage, and what do they do? They just flog the Victorian people, and what is worse than that, worse than flogging Victorians, is doubling this tax – $2.1 billion – billions and billions. If the people of Victoria thought they were going to get something for their money, then that would be fine. But I tell you what, I came back after Christmas – I had a short break; I had a longer break in the end but I did have a short one, and I came back – and I went straight to my fire station in Ringwood, and do you know what I found? Straight after the Palisades fire, straight after the fires in America, we should have learned something from them because there the firefighters went to the fire hydrants and, guess what, there was no water. Well, I tell you what: today Victoria is exactly like the Palisades was then. The truth hurts.

Ryan Batchelor: On a point of order, Acting President, I am concerned that Mr McGowan’s tie breaches the standing orders. I believe that the tie is in breach of the standing orders, and I would ask you to address that.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): I will take advice on that.

Nick McGOWAN: On the point of order, the tie does not breach the standing orders. All it says is ‘Allan government burns FRV’. It is factual, it is correct, and I would ask that it obviously be allowed to be worn.

Ryan Batchelor: Further to the point of order, I think the standing orders are very clear about political slogans on items of clothing being worn by members in the chamber. We would not be able to have that on a badge, for example, if it was worn in the chamber, so I do not think it is appropriate that Mr McGowan wears that in the chamber. I ask either for you to direct him to remove it or for him to remove himself from the chamber.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): The wearing of a union badge is contrary to a President’s ruling, and marking or promotion on any item is contrary to a previous President’s ruling in this place, so I would direct you to remove it.

Nick McGOWAN: On the point of order, it is not a union badge. I am not sure quite what the Labor government has against unions, but this is an irony; it is a parody of some sort. This is not a union badge. It is not a slogan. It is a tie that fairly says ‘Allan government burns FRV’. It is a factual statement.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): It is a political statement, and I ask you to remove it.

Nick McGOWAN: If it pleases the Acting President, I shall remove and strip my tie. This is what it has come to. This is the problem with this government, you see. They would rather a member strip in Parliament. They would rather a tie –

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): Please, we do not need any commentary.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): Order! I will ask for the President to come in and rule on this, or you can conduct yourself appropriately and not reflect on the ruling from the Chair.

Nick McGOWAN: I will continue with the substantive debate, because that is really what is important here. Going back to the royal commission, let us never forget the royal commission – 155 days of hearings. How many days of hearings have they had for this bill? Not a single, solitary day, because they did not have the guts to do it. Why – because what they are doing is burning every single worker in Victoria. The second time I have been in this chamber – absolutely burning the workers of Victoria. You did it last time with WorkCover. That affected not only firefighters; WorkCover also affected firefighters, police officers, ambulances, paramedics – you name it. You are doing a great job.

No wonder you are absolutely failing in the polls, because I tell you what, if this is how you treat the workers of Victoria, in 18 months time you will hear what they think of your efforts, because they are absolutely appalling. What you are doing is you are taking from column A to put into column B. You are stealing from the people of Victoria. Never in my lifetime have the services of this state, the fire services, much less the associated services, been funded out of anything other than general revenue. That is precisely where it should come from. Why – because general revenue is absolutely guaranteed.

What you are doing is playing politics with firefighters. You are playing politics with the CFA. You are playing politics with the SES. If you need any further proof, just look at your proposed legislation. Your proposed legislation does not just fund those things. No, you go further than that. You are putting it in legislation, it is that insulting. You are funding the head of a department – a bureaucrat. It is insane. What are you people on? Who dreamed this stuff up? Who came in and actually said to the caucus, ‘This is a fantastic idea. I’ve got an idea. We were doing so bad economically that we’re going to tax every other Victorian double – a tax overnight. We’ll flog them, because that’s what we can do to the people of Victoria.’

Let us never forget what the royal commission found. The commissioner said that both the former CFA chief Russell Rees – we all remember him; maybe you do not, because memories are very short in this place – and the head of the Department of Sustainability and Environment Ewan Waller ‘did not demonstrate effective leadership in crucial areas’. This is the same person that is being funded by this bill. You should hang your heads in shame on that side – absolute shame. But do not forget police commissioner Nixon. That was back in the good old days when we had a police commissioner. I have lost count of what we do and do not have any more. It is in an absolute perilous state, this state. The fact is that we do not have a chief commissioner, the acting commissioner will not stay on and there is absolute rancour across all of the members and levels of the police force. And not content with that, not content with dismantling the police force, now you are going to do with fire services, with the CFA and SES volunteers.

Lee Tarlamis: On a point of order, Acting President, on relevance, I think the member is straying very far from the contents of this bill. I would ask that you bring him back to the bill.

Renee Heath: On the point of order, Acting President, I think that all the contributions so far have definitely done that.

Members interjecting.

Renee Heath: No, I think they have. So I would just ask you to apply the same standard.

Sheena Watt: Further to the point of order, Acting President, I believe my remarks for the full 15 minutes were very direct to the bill. They spoke to the impact of the bill. They spoke to what it will and will not fund, and I ask that that be withdrawn.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): I ask the member to return to the topic of the bill, please.

Nick McGOWAN: Not only does this legislation not guarantee the current funding level to fire services in Victoria – it does not; it explicitly does not. It says ‘up to’. And in political speak – we are not dumb. And you know what, the people of Victoria are not dumb. They know what you mean. They know exactly what you are up to. This is the problem with you lot. You have been caught with your hand in the jar, and you think, ‘Oh, no, that’s not me. I didn’t do that. Look over here.’ That is exactly what they are doing. It is an absolute disgrace, and we have caught them out on it.

This is the same government who are allowing at the FRV at the moment – that is at the echelon, the pen pushers – to spend up to $33 million a year on consultants, while in my brigade out in Ringwood, I come back from overseas, as I was saying earlier on, and guess what, a Teleboom, one of the two appliances they are supposed to have in that place, they do not have. If there was a fire tomorrow, if there was a fire during the summer season, guess what, those firefighters do not have it. Worse than that, one of the two appliances they do have – the one that was working, that is – was not working on the automatic function, so they could not control the flow of the water. No, no, that is okay. That is fine. It also had no fire-over protection. So here we are in 2025, and what this government is trying to claim is somehow that they are doing a good job to start with. Well, they are doing a woeful, horrendous job to start with. There is no rolling replacement program, and the ultimate insult here in this legislation –

Members interjecting.

Nick McGOWAN: Seventy million dollars for the CFA – read the papers. It is for the CFA. How could you not see that? There is no rolling replacement program for the FRV. It is for the CFA. If you cannot even get this at this point, then I am lost. I have absolutely no hope of cracking through, because if the backbenchers of this government do not understand what is going on, if they do not understand there is not a rolling replacement program for the FRV and that it only applies to the CFA, what they are missing is that it is political. They are trying to stick their finger up at the union. They are trying to stick their finger up at every firefighter there is in this state. Meanwhile, they get up and they laud the effort of the firefighters. ‘Aren’t they heroes? Blah, blah, blah, blah.’ Nonsense – absolute nonsense. What they would rather is trucks that work, trucks that get there in time and trucks and equipment that protect them every single day when they do do those jobs. Increasingly, not only are they fighting fires, but more than 50 to 60 per cent of every incident that occurs or every emergency that occurs, it is not a paramedic there – and we love them – it is not a police officer there, and we love them too. But guess who it is? That is right, it is a firefighter. The more they do of that, the more they are offline. And guess what is happening at every station? It is having a ricochet effect.

Yesterday when there was an incident down at Moorabbin Airport, the trucks rocked up there, and what happened? One appliance went to one gate and one went to the other gate, the north gate and the south gate of the airport. Guess what, there was no foam because the truck does not work. Do you know there are some trucks in this state – just go up here, 300 metres away. They have got a vehicle there that is 33 years old. It qualifies under VicRoads for a classic car number plate. But wait for it, if it just holds on a couple of years it can have a vintage one. This is a fully servicing fire appliance today, and those opposite want to sit here, lecture us and tell us how good they are and tell us this is going to be good for the state and ‘Just trust us because we know it’s so good.’ Well, the last time we trusted you, police commissioner Nixon sat there, and to quote the royal commission, they said she had her ‘hands off’. ‘Oh, I’ve got to have dinner.’ She had her hands off. That is what she did. Worse than that, the royal commission said her conduct ‘left much to be desired’. I am not just saying that; I am quoting a royal commission report.

Those opposite want to sit there and tell us that this disgusting, despicable bill, this disgusting, despicable tax, this disgusting, despicable impost on every Victorian in a cost-of-living crisis should somehow pass through this chamber because we are all so stupid on this side and stupid on the crossbenches and the Greens and the Legalise Cannabis Party and everyone else is so stupid that we will just agree with it. Well, I hope we do not. I hope we block it. I hope that we actually send a strong message that never again should you put up legislation that says to firefighters, ‘We’ll fund you “up to”’. No, the question we should be asking is: how much money can we give you? How can we protect those who protect us – protect not only us and our families and our children but also the property we own, not only in the urban areas but in the country areas and everywhere else. I am all for funding the CFA and the SES and all these other things, but you can do it from general revenue as you have always done. This is a disgrace.

As you can see from the multiyear budgeted commitment, our support is not limited to one election. We announced $2.5 million in additional funding to the VICSES through the volunteer emergency services equipment program grants. What does that mean? It means our hardworking emergency service volunteer agencies will have the modern equipment and resources they need when this bill comes into play. Specifically, this bill will replace the fire services property levy, or FSPL, with the emergency service and volunteers fund levy, or ESVF, to broaden funding capabilities to widen the range of natural disasters response activities and to ensure long-term support for our hardworking first responders as they support Victorians through floods, bushfires, storms and more, which is incredibly important in a world increasingly impacted by climate change. The bill renames the principal act the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund Act 2012 to reflect its broader aims.

We are lucky here in Victoria to have a broad and varied array of services ready to protect us from everything life can throw at us. I had the pleasure of visiting the Malvern SES unit volunteers a couple of weeks ago, which I spoke about in my members statement back on 18 March. Established in 1981 they have served the Malvern community for over 30 years – 40 years in fact. Their unit boundaries consist of areas between Punt Road, Warrigal Road, Dandenong Road, Victoria Street, Barkers Road and Toorak Road. There are some 57 volunteers from all walks of life, with three members having been with the SES for over 30 years. With training on a weekly basis and the expectation of a 60 per cent attendance rate, ensuring that volunteers are the best equipped to service the community, they have responded to over 2500 requests for assistance, totalling almost 14,800 hours of service to the community of Malvern, spanning across the local shires of Stonnington, Boroondara and Yarra. Much of the Malvern area is prone to flooding, with the Yarra River and Gardiners Creek running through the area, so their work is absolutely critical for the local community. They also travel across the state to assist other units when necessary, and they host community education awareness programs to promote proper prevention tactics and good safety habits. This year they deployed volunteers to western Victoria to support the bushfire response and to Queensland for the cyclone response. These volunteers make sacrifices and work tirelessly to keep our community safe, and I want to give them the recognition they deserve today. A special thankyou to the volunteers I met, including unit controller David Tobin and deputy controllers Helen Canny and Alex Rock.

As I mentioned just then, this year we saw Queensland and northern New South Wales struck by Cyclone Alfred. While downgraded from a category 2 cyclone to a tropical low, this natural disaster wreaked havoc on local communities, with evacuations, trees falling and flash flooding. The New South Wales SES responded to several dozen rescue operations and call-outs numbering in the thousands. In our own home state we have seen the Grampians heavily impacted by bushfires over the last two years. Just this year two bushfires in the area swept through more than 135,000 hectares of the Grampians National Park. And of course I do not think anyone can forget the Black Summer bushfires that burned through our state five years ago. The member for Monbulk in the other place spoke of the fire last week that began in her electorate, which was contained by our incredible emergency services within a few days in Montrose and Kilsyth.

Coming into effect on 1 July 2025, these changes will allow our incredibly hardworking emergency response services, including Fire Rescue Victoria, the Country Fire Authority, the Victorian State Emergency Service, Triple Zero Victoria, Emergency Management Victoria and the State Control Centre, Forest Fire Management Victoria and other recovery agencies to access the resources they need to protect our community, because when Mother Nature rears her ugly head in Victoria, be it fire, flood or any other natural disaster, we need emergency services to be ready, resourced and supported to get the job done.

The Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund levy will be a significant investment into our emergency services, expected to raise $610.9 million more for natural disasters response in the 2025–26 fiscal period and in addition $765 million in the 2026–27 and the 2027–28 fiscal periods, once fully implemented. This is in line with the Allan Labor government’s commitment to investing over $250 million in additional support for CFA and VicSES volunteers, which the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund levy will achieve on the passing of this bill. It will serve to replace the fire services property levy, which has had Victorians contribute to the funding of Victoria’s critical SES and CFA first responders since 2013. The FSPL is collected through local councils, as it is applicable to all land, including non-rateable land. A fixed charge higher for non-residential land and residential land is applied through rates notices or separate notices for non-rateable land through the FSPL. These processes will remain similar in the phasing in of the ESVF. Rates will be determined by the Treasurer and published in May of each year, in which process councils will be notified of the 2025–26 rates through the ESVF.

The new Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund levy will contribute up to 95 per cent of the annual budgets for VicSES, Triple Zero Victoria, Emergency Management Victoria and Forest Fire Management Victoria. The bill makes amendments to the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 and the Fire Rescue Victoria Act 1958, which gives the ESVF greater capability to fund the CFA and the FRV respectively. The phasing out of the FSPL to bring it in line with the ESVF will see an increase in funding from a fixed 87.5 per cent of the FRV’s annual budget and a fixed 77.5 per cent of the CFA’s annual budget to variable proportions of up to 95 per cent of the CFA’s budget and up to 87.5 per cent of the FRV’s budget.

Why are we doing this? Because we need to keep investing in the local infrastructure that matters to our CFA. Think of the $18.6 million we committed for delivering 15 replacement urban response pumpers to the CFA and the 48 heavy tankers and two light tankers we funded. These heavy tankers have already been delivered right across our state, from Mildura to Ballan, from Creswick to Daylesford and to Miners Rest and Wendouree as part of our $126 million capability package. Home and farm owners will still see exemptions from the ESVF as aligned with the FSPL, as explained by Minister Shing in the second reading of the bill.

From 1 July 2026 Victorians will see an increase of the fixed charge for residential land to align with the higher fixed charge that applies to non-residential land. In consideration of this, owner-occupiers will be eligible for a 50 per cent fixed-charge concession on principal place of residence land.

Amendments to the Taxation Administration Act 1997 give the State Revenue Office the power to share relevant and appropriate data with local councils. The bill amends the Taxation Administration Act 1997 to authorise the SRO to share appropriate data with councils on the principal place of residence status of different properties to facilitate administration under the safeguards provided by the act’s secrecy provisions, such as the strict requirements prohibiting secondary disclosure.

The non-reviewable nature of the levy rates determined by the minister annually is to be codified through clause 19 of this bill, amending section 84 of the principal act to revise sections 5, 12, 15 and 37 and consequently altering section 85. The distinction matters to unnecessary litigation proceedings, with the determination based on allocation of Australian valuation property classification codes to all land under the Valuation of Land Act 1960 and aligns with the review and appeal processes under the VLA as well as levy amounts and interest, where the commissioner may require earnings obtained by the collections agency to be paid to the commission if it is determined the third-party organisation has failed to perform its duties or is in breach of its obligations under the principal act.

This is important to assure compliance to avoid impacting the funds of Victoria’s emergency services in the case of noncompliance. The reason for limiting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in relation to levy amounts and levy interest collected by the collection agency to be kept in a dedicated account under section 37 of the principal act is simple: the commissioner may require interest earned on the collection of levy amounts and levy interest to be paid to the commissioner should they determine that the collection agency has failed to perform its duties or if they may be in breach of their obligations under the principal act. This section is intended to encourage compliance and penalises collection agencies that fail to perform their duties under the principal act, and this is important because a breach of the collection agency’s obligation may compromise the funding of Victoria’s emergency services, and that is something that we take very seriously. This section limits the jurisdiction of the courts to ensure the effectiveness of this provision as a penalty and deterrent and to preserve the integrity of Victoria’s new emergency service funding model, which guarantees long-term funding for emergency services where it is so needed. This investment will save the lives of Victorians well into the future, ensuring that first responders can address natural disasters and crises as swiftly as possible. We need more resources to tackle a changing climate, not less, and we cannot put our emergency services in a position where they must choose between one fire or another, because the other option, to make Victorians pay for all these services, is just not acceptable. The safety of our constituents is not something that should be bought and sold.

This substantial piece of legislation makes a wide range of amendments and small changes to existing arrangements. While the expansions of our fire services property levy provisions to a wider range of emergency services can seem straightforward on paper, it requires some changes throughout the existing legislation. For example, there is a matter of rebates for volunteers in helping our fire services in regions and how it can relate to VICSES volunteers. Under these changes eligible Country Fire Authority or Victorian State Emergency Service volunteers will be entitled to a rebate through the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund. Volunteers can determine whether this rebate relates to the levy for either their principal residence or their farmland, because under these changes farmland will qualify for a rebate where it can be shown that the volunteer has some ownership interest in the farmland.

The rebate scheme outlined in this bill will be administered by a state government entity that will be determined by the Treasurer following the passage of this bill. This is a very good way for us to deliver our services and the volunteers in the emergency services that we need without unnecessarily expanding administrative burden on our public services, and it means local councils will not have to burden themselves under more unnecessary administrative work trying to enact, enforce and manage the levy. Nonetheless the state government already provides financial support to council to administer the existing fire services property levy and will provide additional support to councils to administer any changes associated with this bill.

Natural disasters are becoming all too common in Australia and the world at large and increasingly are touching the lives of more and more Victorians. The reality is borne out in this data: between 2009 and 2013 the VICSES handled more than 20,000 call-outs and incidents on average each year. Compare that to the last three years, when the VICSES have managed around 35,000 call-outs on average each year. That is nearly on average a 75 per cent increase in just under a decade. That is why the Allan Labor government is moving ahead with these comprehensive changes to expand the scope of the original legislation. It is to adapt to changing times and circumstances and accept the reality that natural disasters and emergencies are holistic and require cooperation from a wider variety of services. I have already mentioned how this legislation will expand the scope of the fund to finance the VICSES, Triple Zero, Emergency Management Victoria, forest fire management, Emergency Recovery Victoria and the State Control Centre. These organisations were chosen because they complement the hard work of the fire service agencies, including response to flood, storm and other emergencies, because natural disasters are not something we can deal with alone. They require all of us to chip in and work together, and these emergency services complement one another to help all Victorians.

There are a range of circumstances where emergency services will be needed, which is why vacant lands will still be subject to the levy. This is because natural disasters or bushfires do not necessarily have to stem from human activity. Land can present a fire or flood risk even when there are no buildings or structures on it. But regardless of whether or not there are structures these plots of lands can pose a risk. If such stretches of land pose a risk, it is only fair that those who own, manage and maintain that land are the ones who help fund our emergency services through the levy. There are of course provisions in place to accommodate these circumstances. Just as they do with ordinary rates, councils are able to waive or defer the whole or part of the levy subject to a ratepayer’s circumstances. The difference is that the council can only waive or defer this payment if the levy waives or defers the payment rates for that property. With that, I commend the bill to the house.

We are the highest taxed state in the nation. This is the bottom of the pits. This is not what we want to be achieving, but we are through this government. We are up to I think now around the 60th new and increased tax. This tax is another hit to everyday Victorians. Under Labor, Victoria is an economic basket case, and this spending will not fix it. More spending will not fix it. We are getting a second-rate service. What is going to happen through this bill is that from 1 July everyday Victorians will have imposed upon them an additional $2.1 billion worth of taxes over the next three years as this tax takes hold. This government cannot manage money, and regional and rural Victorians are paying the price.

So what is it doing? It is shifting the fire services property levy – of course that did come in as result of the royal commission as one of the recommendations. It came through the former Liberal and Nationals government as a fairer way to apply a levy that supported our volunteers fund and the CFA to provide those emergency services. But what this bill does is it extends it to the core government agencies. It extends it to Triple Zero Victoria. It extends funding to the State Control Centre, Emergency Recovery Victoria, Emergency Management Victoria, the emergency alert program, the emergency management operation communications program and Forest Fire Management Victoria (FFMV) in my new portfolio of public land management. It does this without acknowledging the vital work that our SES, our CFA and FRV do. What does it do? It doubles the rate of a residential tax from 8.7 cents to 17.3 cents per $1000 of capital improved value. Commercial and industrial rates are substantially increased, and primary production will see somewhere around a 154 to 189 per cent increase on their tax. It is $2.1 billion over the forward estimates. This is a massive impost and increase. Rural Councils Victoria have written to many of us, and they say that, in comparison, their calculations show that primary production landholders will on average be expected to fund a 154 per cent increase from the fire services levy to the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund.

There are three startling examples: South Gippsland – it is actually my home shire – Wellington shire and Colac Otway shire will each have an additional $5 million taken out of their communities every year. That means that is $5 million that is not spent by people living in their communities, organising their lives and buying products and services in our regional towns. They have to find this funding, and it is going to hit everybody’s hip pocket – in a cost-of-living crisis, I might say. Let me give you another example, from Baw Baw shire – and I thank the mayor Mr Danny Goss for providing this information. Their finance team has calculated that there will be a further $5.37 million in levies raised above the existing $8 million – and again they go to specific increases.

And what happens to our farmers? They face a staggering increase in their average levy. One of the comments was – and I have been speaking with the Victorian Farmers Federation president Brett Hosking – on average there will be a $50,000 annual increase for certain farms above a certain acreage or hectare area. Fifty thousand dollars extra – that is an abomination. You can imagine even for the average well-off person on a good wage that would be incredibly hard to bear.

Brett Hosking said this, and I quote from a media release:

This is an outrageous new tax that will hit every Victorian’s hip pocket, and farmers are being forced to pay the highest price with no justification. It’s a direct attack on the people who put food on our tables.”

At a time when families are already struggling with skyrocketing costs, and farmers are battling drought, bushfires, and rising expenses, this tax grab couldn’t come at a worse time. It’s completely unacceptable …

I concur entirely with him.

The other thing about this tax is it has actually got a new charge. If you look to the government website, it is taxing residential non-principal place of residence applications, so property owners who provide rentals will be hit with a double fixed and a double variable charge. And of course what is that going to do for property owners who rent out their homes? In regional Victoria it is paramount that we get these people. Whether they be teachers, nurses, doctors, firies, people who work in the IGA, people who work in small school settings, whatever, they are going to be hit with this increase because property owners who supply those rentals are going to have to pass on those costs.

What do we not get with this legislation? It does not offer additional support for volunteer and emergency services like the CFA and the SES. They do not get the equipment that they need – and I am going to discuss that shortly. They have outdated equipment to the nth degree. It also lacks clear guidelines around how exemptions for these groups will operate.

Indeed, from speaking with Adam Barnett from Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria, this government has had no conversation with the grassroots volunteers on this tax. They have not gone to them at the grassroots level and provided that opportunity to discuss and thrash it out. That is in complete contrast to when we, the Liberals and Nationals, back post the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission, introduced the property services levy. There was a white paper and a green paper, and they went out to all volunteers who had the capacity to provide feedback. How much consultation has this government done? Zero with the people who matter the most – indeed zero with many, including our property owners and our farmers, but zero with those grassroots volunteers. This is the contempt that they continue to dish out to our volunteers in the CFA. Let us look at what else it does not do. We know that it cost shifts. We know that the legislation cost shifts from a government that cannot manage money. We heard Mr Davis. I will not repeat all of his comments, but I endorse them – the fact that this government has blown out metropolitan-based construction projects to an eye-watering multi-multibillion dollars, and it is just frightening the level of ineptitude that lets this happen.

Let us talk a little bit more about the CFA. The government has said, and I have heard these comments, that it will provide $10 million for new CFA vehicles. But in practical terms, what does that actually mean? They are roughly, give or take, about half a million dollars a tanker, so out of $10 million you are going to get 20 tankers. The CFA has over 1700 tankers across the state and about 220 pumpers, and many of them are so far past their use by date it is not funny. So many trucks are well overdue for replacement. If we have the ability to replace them, it is going to take decades upon decades upon decades. So this government, in spruiking that it actually cares about the volunteers, is redirecting these funds into core government services, which is solely about propping up its bottom line, its budget blowouts. It is not about producing better outcomes for our volunteers and the trucks and equipment that they have. Alarmingly, over 230 CFA trucks are already between the ages of 31 and 35. I did hear my colleague Mr McGowan speak about them being able to get different licence plates because of their age. As I said, it is completely unacceptable.

What is also concerning is around FFMV. That is my particular passion in public land management and the need for better management of our public land, our forests, and the need to have better fuel mitigation. We know that this government over the last 10 years has introduced a thing called Safer Together and it has a target of 70 per cent residual risk. I was actually talking to someone recently who was in the department some years ago and he said that they were part of the team that helped design it and so many people now are saying that it is too confusing, that the government does not meet its own targets – and it does not – and indeed that it needs to be disbanded. Over the past 10 years we have seen under Safer Together a rough average of around 1.6 per cent of fuel reduction across the forest estate when the royal commission spoke about a 5 to 8 per cent rolling target of treatable forests. This is what the government should be focusing on, and yet it is not. I have met many of the people who work in forest fire management and I respect them entirely, but the government is spending more on the bureaucracy and not doing these preparatory burns and not having these bushfire mitigation practices and actually bringing them to fruition.

Over the past five years FFMV has consistently overspent its fire emergency management budget by approximately $550 million – a 27 per cent blowout. Now, instead of fixing this mismanagement, the government is shifting onto everyday Victorians the cost burden of this government bureaucracy. Well, it is not the people on the ground lighting these fires that are the issue, it is the suits in Melbourne, where there is government mismanagement and government waste.

I have said that the Nationals strongly oppose this tax. This is not in support of the wellbeing of those agencies. We value our SES. Again, if you talk to SES members in my Eastern Victoria Region, they have ageing equipment and I know they have to rattle tins and raise funds for basic services like chainsaws, like fuel, just to keep themselves rolling out the door when that pager goes off. We on this side value these people. We know that this is a wasteful government and that these taxes only burden our communities when they can least afford the impost. We know that this government cannot manage money. The Nationals most strongly oppose this new tax and this new legislation. We do support the amendments put up by Mr Davis on behalf of the Liberals and Nationals. We do support the retention of the Country Fire Authority, Fire Rescue Victoria and SES as funding recipients but deleting the others, which are core government services.

I think it is a little bit unfortunate that not all participants in this debate today in this chamber have taken these issues with the seriousness which I think they deserve. The sideshow act that was put on earlier I think disrespects the thousands of emergency services volunteers that work exceptionally hard to keep our state safe in times of emergencies. Certainly for those of us who have been involved in the proceedings of committees of this Parliament that have examined some of those issues, heard the stories and read the evidence of the enormously difficult work that our emergency services volunteers and paid professionals do to keep our state safe, whether it be from flood or fire, I think the spectacle we saw earlier from certain members of this chamber opposite disrespects all of that work and disrespects the seriousness with which we should be taking these issues. I am a little bit ashamed to be in a chamber where that kind of activity occurs.

The bill today seeks to do an important task of amending the fire services property levy and replacing it with an Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund levy to fund several additional fire emergency services authorities from 1 July 2025. The bill also introduces a volunteer exemption from the levy for eligible volunteers from CFA and VICSES, and the bill and the arrangements will facilitate the release of $250 million in a support package for the CFA and VICSES.

The core driver of this legislation, the core driver of this reform, is to make sure that our emergency services and their volunteers have the resources that they need to look after our state, to look after the people of our state and to look after our fellow Victorians and keep them safe in times of natural disaster. We know that unfortunately natural disasters are very much part of our lives, with increasing frequency of extreme weather events, periods of drought and periods of exceptional fire conditions. We saw the news just today that March was the hottest March ever recorded, coming off another year where we had the hottest year ever recorded in this country. In circumstances like that we know that the way our climate is changing means that the environment in which we live is changing, whether it be the built or natural environment. Those environments are becoming increasingly susceptible to extreme events, whether they be floods, fires or storms. No-one can deny the increasing dangers that are presented from the natural environment. We do not have the power to legislate the weather. We do not have the power to make it rain more when we want it to rain more or less when we want it to rain less or for the winds to blow slightly less intensely.

But we do have the power as legislators to make sure that our systems in the state run by the government or supported by the government through funding, whether they are our professional services or our volunteer services, have the support and resourcing that they need to respond to these increasing natural disasters.

I heard the evidence as a member of the Environment and Planning Committee’s inquiry into the 2022 flood event. We heard quite stark evidence when we were in the Macedon Ranges of some responders who were responding to fire and flood on the same day. We heard evidence in the course of that inquiry in particular about the absolute devastation that the most significant recorded flooding event in Victorian history has had on Victoria; flooding that affected regional areas and affected metropolitan areas. Major population centres across the state were affected – major population centres where volunteers turned out to support their fellow members of their community. During that flood, around two-thirds of volunteers were involved and the VICSES were involved in flood response activities, coming from 98 per cent of units from across the state, and that was less than three years ago.

That flood event underscored the urgent need for the continued support of our emergency service organisations and their volunteers. It underscored the need to support the operational capabilities of the Victorian State Emergency Service and it underscored the need for better support and equipment. Every dollar raised through this legislation, through the funds that this legislation will create, will go towards equipment, staff, training, community education and recovery support for when Victorians need it most. Every dollar raised is going to help support the volunteers and professional responders who support us and Victorian communities in their time of need. What it will not do is reduce any funding to anyone, and I will come back to that in a minute.

The other thing that we learnt out of the response to the 2022 flood event was that we need to better support the SES as the primary agency responsible for responding to floods. I think the committee was a very cooperative and cross-partisan endeavour to get to real and sensible recommendations about how to improve for the future, understanding that natural disasters are becoming more frequent and becoming more common, and our state’s emergency responders need to be better supported operationally with training, resources and equipment to make those responses. Our committee recommended that they get more funding, they get better resources, that the VICSES in particular get more resources to do that essential work. That was what that committee said we needed to do. That was the cross-partisan recommendation from that important parliamentary committee report. So it is disappointing that we get to this point where the rubber hits the road, and as legislators we have got an opportunity to live up to the recommendations that we made in that report, to vote to change the law the same way we voted or we agreed to make recommendations to the government. When there is an opportunity as a member of a committee to vote for legislation that implements something that you have recommended in a report just a short time ago, I feel proud and honoured to be able to do it. I think it is disappointing that not everyone who participated in that process is doing the same.

The legislation before us today is going to make some key changes. Critically, I think a further illustration of the support that we are providing to emergency services volunteers is that active volunteers and life members of the volunteer organisations that the levy applies to will not have to pay the levy on their primary place of residence. A recognition of the contribution that they are making through their voluntary service is how we as a state recognise and support them. Obviously, they will not be obliged to take the exemption, but if they so choose, that will be available to them. The support that that brings will hopefully give an important symbolic recognition of the support that they give and actually demonstrate that we can do more than just say nice words. People come into this chamber often and make very genuine statements, very genuine members statements and other contributions, about how important volunteers are to their local communities and what a great job they do – and they do, they are right and they are genuine. The bill today gives us an opportunity to back up those words with deeds, to back up those words with action and to back up those words with funding, and that is why I am proud to support it. If we do not back up those words and deeds with action, with resources and with funding, they are pretty hollow words, and the next time someone walks into this chamber and says nice things about CFA volunteers or VICSES volunteers but does not actually support them when it matters, I think we can all take a moment to reflect on the shallowness and the hollowness of those contributions.

The fund that is raised by the levy will be used to fund budgets for Victoria State Emergency Service, for Triple Zero Victoria, for Emergency Management Victoria and their responsibilities for emergency management, for Forest Fire Management Victoria, the State Control Centre and state’s recovery agencies. It provides significant additional resourcing to support those organisation – about $250 million of additional resourcing, which is contingent on the bill being passed. If we cannot raise the money, we cannot provide the support. For those who come and say that we should be better supporting our volunteers, obviously if we do not support the bill, then we cannot support those volunteers.

There has been I think some pretty significant contribution. I think the contributions that have been made over the course of the debate have understood the importance of that work. I think it is, though, important to address some of the concerns that have been expressed by other speakers in the course of the public debate. Some in the course of this debate have been peddling misinformation, and we need to address that and in doing so underline that those who have made those contributions in the course of this debate clearly have not read the bill and clearly do not understand what it does. There are no funding cuts. There are no reductions in funding to FRV on the basis of the changes in this bill, and any claim that there are is untrue. That is not the purpose of this legislation. That is not, on the face or in the text of this legislation, what is going to happen. The only thing that will happen if this bill does not pass is that funding will not be available for emergency services volunteers and there will not be the support and the resourcing for our emergency services volunteer organisations to tackle future disasters, which we know are going to keep on coming. The climate is changing. Weather events are getting more extreme, and we are going to be calling again and again on our volunteers to help us all out in times of crisis. The least we can do as members of this Parliament is to support legislation that will support them when we get the chance, and that is why I am exceptionally proud to support this legislation and urge all members to do the same.

At the community forum the Labor representatives were unable to answer questions as to how the Treasurer came up with the calculations and why the percentage increase is higher for primary producers. Further analysis done by ACM, the publisher of the Bendigo Advertiser, shows that rural communities will bear the brunt of this new levy and will have to pay 50 per cent more than the statewide average. I made it very clear at that community forum that the Liberals and Nationals oppose this new tax. This is actually the 60th new or increased tax or charge that Labor have introduced or sought to introduce since they came to office in 2014.

Amendments can only go so far in trying to fix something that is an absolute shambles. The Labor government are trying to raise more revenue because of their massive spending on projects like the Suburban Rail Loop. We saw this week that there is a very poor business case. With the Commonwealth budget just recently, there was no further funding for the Suburban Rail Loop. Our state debt is hurtling like a fast train, but there is no light at the end of this tunnel. We are heading towards a state debt of $188 billion and interest repayments of $26 million every single day. If this government were serious about supporting our emergency services and our volunteers, then they would stop wasting money on projects like the Suburban Rail Loop, a project that they have already put billions of dollars towards without any idea of where the rest of the money is coming from to pay for it.

The emergency services levy is another tax. Households are set to pay almost double. Commercial rates are set to increase by 100 per cent, and industrial rates are jumping by 64 per cent. Primary producers are facing increases of up to 189 per cent. The proposed tax, I will remind you, was announced in December, when most people are thinking more about Christmas and they like to switch off from politics. Perhaps that timing was deliberate. But now the government have passed the legislation through the lower house without even working out the details, yet they plan to introduce it on 1 July this year. I would say, if we are not going to vote today, then hopefully that is certainly not can happen. But the proposed exemptions that the government has put forward are dog’s breakfast, and it will be a nightmare to administer. How much will it actually cost to administer this new tax?

I note that Mr Batchelor referred to the exemptions for volunteers who are primary producers, but if you know farms too, you know that there are often multiple properties. And when we got the department’s bill briefing, which I have in front of me, it just goes to show the complexity of this tax. It is not straightforward at all; administering it will be an absolute nightmare. I will quote one of the examples – because there are different examples. There is the principal place of residence example. There is also a multiple owners and parcels of land example. The document states:

In this case, where a company holds several land parcels and has multiple shareholders who are eligible volunteers, each volunteer can claim the rebate for a different property if the property has a separate valuation. Because each family member has an indirect ownership interest in the four properties, the rebate cannot be claimed more than once for the same property.

And on and on it goes. That is an absolute mess.

And they cannot actually define what an active volunteer is – not sure, no, still working that out. Councils are saying, ‘Hey, we don’t want to deal with this. This is going to be a nightmare appearing on council rate notices.’ Many councils have said they do not even want to collect this tax. Consider the State Revenue Office, for example, if they are going to administer this proposed tax. They are already experiencing a whole lot of issues with land tax – incorrect assessments, people who no longer own properties receiving land tax bills. Now, the Shadow Treasurer has called for the Auditor-General to investigate and report, but this new tax, if the State Revenue Office are expected to administer it, is only going to make things worse.

I am coming back to that ‘active volunteer’. I spoke with people at the community forum, and I received an email from one that said some brigades do not offer life memberships. So even if you consider, say, that an active volunteer might be someone who is a life member, well, some brigades do not have life memberships. So someone could have been serving for 50 years or more and not be eligible for the exemption. I received an email that says:

our local cfa brigade does not award life memberships or recognise years of service it was an agreement that was made in the early days of the brigade …

She goes on to say:

… speaking to a cfa member from another brigade yeasterday he made a comment that we will get an influx of members that we dont want they will only be there for themselves not the community and wont work as a team

So this is the concern. As I have said, I have spoken to mayors of different councils, and they are very concerned. I know there is correspondence that has been received from Mansfield shire. They talk about this new tax. They are certainly keen to stop it. They mention all the services that are proposed to be funded under this new tax. It says that Forest Fire Management, Triple Zero Victoria, State Control Centre, Fire Rescue Victoria do not have volunteers, while ‘On the other hand, most people in the country, those targeted unfairly by this tax, volunteer for the CFA and SES.’ If, as Mr Batchelor says, you want to support the volunteers, then you can do that by stopping this tax, because the burden is going to be on them.

Rural Councils Victoria have also made it very clear that they object to this new tax, because local councils have got so many questions that remain unanswered. I know Mr Davis has talked about perhaps further investigation into this whole set-up, because it certainly has not been well thought out. I was speaking with the mayor of one council, and they noted how the state government likes to put caps on any increase to rates. They say, ‘Ooh, you know, cost of living, people can’t afford it. Councils, you need to keep your rates down.’ But hang on, the state government can increase by up to 189 per cent. To apply that in a practical sense for a local council like Campaspe – they have done the math –the cap increase, say, is a $60 increase to rates but the state government increase proposed under this new emergency services levy would mean $653 more. That is absolutely ridiculous. The state government are expecting local councils to be doing their dirty work and collecting this tax, but indeed many are saying no.

The Herald Sun today has done an opinion piece. I think they have said it very well. It says:

Now, an attempt to rebadge and ramp up the Fire Services Levy, under a new Emergency Services and Volunteer Fund, which will hit primary producers hard and flow through to fresh food prices, is facing a hurdle in parliament’s upper house. The peak body representing rural councils is urging the government to scrap the tax and warn it will be difficult to administer and collect.

Rural communities shouldn’t disproportionately pay for emergency services as a result of a government that has condemned the state to record debt.

I know farmers, as I said, are facing very difficult times. They are facing escalating costs already, very dry conditions, particularly in northern Victoria, and this is the last thing they want to see on the horizon.

Brian Fitzgerald – I just want to acknowledge him – is a resident that was very concerned about this tax. He took it on himself to put an ad in the paper to contact his local community, and he held the community forum at Baringhup. I attended that, as I mentioned, with other Labor members who were also on the panel. A number of questions were put forward by the community, and I think it is important that the government considers these, perhaps in the break that we have from Parliament, because we will certainly be wanting to raise them. One of the questions was: ‘What guarantee do we have that a fair share of the tax collected through the new fund will find its way to rural emergency services?’ Other questions were: ‘Why are farmers singled out to pay a much higher Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund rate? What if farmers cannot afford to pay this significantly higher ESVF? What advice is the government giving councils about concurrent rate increases in 2025? Why is the new levy significantly higher than other states? Will there be full disclosure of where the ESVF money is spent? How will councils handle ratepayers who default on the new tax?’ There are many more questions, and they certainly need to be answered by this government.

Our CFA and SES need additional resources – we know that. They are driving trucks that are 35 years old – it is extraordinary – and yet they are the ones that volunteer, do the training and go out and protect their neighbours, their friends and their community. They deserve so much better. The government should not be trying to sell this tax as something for volunteers when it is actually a cost-shifting exercise. This new tax will raise over $2 billion over three years, yet the government only talk about a small package – I think it is a $250 million package – for CFA and SES. The rest is to fund public agencies like Emergency Management Victoria, Forest Fire Management Victoria, the State Control Centre, Emergency Recovery Victoria and so on. It is absolutely ridiculous that this government are trying to blackmail the Parliament by saying that emergency services will not be supported if we do not pass this bill. I thought to myself, ‘Gee, it’s very odd to hear that,’ in the briefing that we received with the department, but we have heard it from Mr Batchelor here in the chamber today. He said it very, very clearly: ‘If we don’t pass the bill, we can’t support our volunteers. Funding won’t be available for our emergency services volunteers.’ That is absolutely extraordinary. I hope that the crossbenchers are listening to that, because I think it is incredible to be treating our chamber in that way. We will not be blackmailed, because this bill is not one that does support volunteers. Victorians are not idiots. The state government has created record debt, and now they are introducing another new tax. The Premier and the Treasurer are looking for coins in the back of the couch, they are looking for coins in the back of the car and they are looking for coins in rural and regional areas. This tax is unfair, and it hits rural and regional communities the hardest.

I heard it said, and I think it is worth saying here, that every dollar sent to Spring Street is one less dollar in our rural towns, supporting local businesses and families. But the impact of this tax will be felt across the state. It is the 30th new tax on property under this government. As a Herald Sun editorial states:

Property taxes have been the goto target for the government but investment, rents and the overall cost of housing is paying the price.

You cannot keep adding tax upon tax on property and then scratch your head and wonder why rent is so expensive, because one directly impacts the other. We do have amendments, but let us be clear: the government should scrap this bill, and the members of this chamber have the power to stop it. On behalf of the rural and regional residents that I represent right across northern Victoria, I ask the members of this chamber for your support in opposing this bill.

That debate on this bill be adjourned until the next day of meeting.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until next day of meeting.