Thursday, 30 November 2023
Bills
State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023
State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023
Council’s amendments
Debate resumed.
Sam HIBBINS (Prahran) (17:01): As I was saying, it was the scale of the issue that really drove the Greens response to this. In addition to the broader issues that we brought to the table, specifically in regard to this legislation, are concerns that even though the legislation expanded the vacant residential land tax – this tax on vacant homes – to across Victoria, the issues remained with its effectiveness. We raised two issues in regard to improving its effectiveness. Number one was the rate of the vacant residential land tax, and number two was the enforcement of that tax. We were largely concerned that this tax was not being effective in what its purpose is. The purpose of this tax is not to collect revenue but actually to push empty homes onto the market for renters and for people who are in need of their first home. The key amendments that are being brought before the house now are to increase that rate to 2 per cent if your home is vacant in the second year and then 3 per cent if it is vacant in that third year or subsequent years. My understanding is that this will cover a significant number of empty homes and will go a long way to pushing those homes onto the market. Secondly, enforcement – we will be seeing a pilot by the State Revenue Office (SRO) to look at every dwelling. That will really go a long way to ensuring that with the current system, which is the opt-in system, people simply are not avoiding or simply not paying this tax.
Another issue that was raised with us with this legislation was the significant increase in the fire services levy for renewable energy and storage projects. What we were told by the industry is that this would essentially put the brake on investment in renewable energy and storage in Victoria. So we were pleased to be able to work with the government so that rate would be lowered. Those projects would now be covered by a public benefit.
There are a number of other amendments within this bill that we will be supporting. We will not be supporting the opposition’s amendments. I want to put on the record my thanks to the Treasurer, to his staff and to the SRO for working constructively with the Greens, working constructively to address the housing crisis and working constructively to address investment in renewable energies. The Greens were elected on a platform at this election to make housing more affordable and to increase support for renewable energy and on climate change. As I said, we looked forward. We were elected on a platform of pushing for more affordable housing and for more investment in renewable energy, and in our constructive negotiations with the government we now have a bill that the Greens are prepared to support where previously we were not. So we will be supporting these amendments, and we look forward to further constructive negotiations with the government to address the housing crisis.
Nick STAIKOS (Bentleigh) (17:05): I rise to make a brief contribution on the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023 amendments. I have always been a supporter of the vacant residential land tax because this government is a government that wants to boost housing supply. We have a comprehensive housing statement, and these taxation measures are part of a suite of measures to boost housing supply. And do you know what – the Treasurer has said in the past that we as a government hope we do not generate any revenue from these new tax measures. They are not about generating revenue, they are about releasing these vacant properties and this vacant land into the economy so that people can have a roof over their heads, because those on this side of the house understand Victorians who are struggling. We understand Victorians who are struggling with the housing crisis. The member for Sandringham was talking about struggling families and the tax burden on struggling families of this vacant residential land tax. I do not know any struggling families who own vacant residential properties. That was just an unbelievable argument.
These are sensible measures, and I have got to say that these changes are very measured and balanced. They also recognise that there are extenuating circumstances as to why in some cases there might be vacant residential land. Under existing vacant residential land tax exemptions new dwellings that remain unsold can get an exemption from the VRLT for up to two years, and to ensure that new residential developments are not discouraged, we are making changes so that owners of new dwellings can apply for a third year exempt from VRLT if it can be shown that the owner has made genuine attempts to sell at or below the price they expected to receive when they began construction. These are measured and balanced changes, and I have got to say the member for Sandringham moving amendments after this has already been debated in this house, debated in the other place, where amendments have been made, coming back here at 10 past 5 to move his own amendments – I mean, this matter is now settled. We are going to win this vote. That is all there is to it.
James NEWBURY (Brighton) (17:08): I rise to speak on the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023 amendments immediately. These amendments and this bill are based on a con, because what the government is saying is ‘We have a plan to increase housing and we will increase housing by 80,000 homes each and every year’. From the first quarter of reporting post that promise the government will fail to meet their promise, and they will fail to meet their promise every quarter of the first year and every quarter for the 10 years after that. They will never meet that promise. It is a con. Forty times they will fail to meet that promise. What the government has said to people who are concerned about housing, to all Victorians who are concerned about housing, is if you let us tax you more, we will build more homes. That is the government’s plan. That is what they are saying to the community: just let us tax you more and we will build more homes. It is a con, and it will fail at each and every hurdle because we have not reached that level of development – we have never reached it – and to see this government prey upon Victorians who are concerned about housing and the shortage of housing in the most craven way is outrageous. We know that part of the money raised is just going to be going to fund the minister for European travel’s next trip – the Treasurer.
Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the Manager of Opposition Business knows that the debate is not an opportunity to impugn members on this side of the house, and he should refer to members by their correct titles. I ask you to bring him back to speaking directly on the amendments.
James NEWBURY: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, I do apologise – the treasurer for European junkets.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Brighton! I can rule on the point of order, Leader of the House. The member for Brighton is well aware about using correct titles and is pushing his luck.
James NEWBURY: The concerns in relation to these amendments are not just concerns that have been raised by the coalition. The concerns around what is being proposed in these amendments have been raised by industry and by experts in industry. To refer to the property council’s most recent analysis of the amendments, they said:
… we do not consider the passage of this Bill to be a positive development for the property industry in Victoria …
Members interjecting.
James NEWBURY: I will not take up the impugning interjections from the government. Further:
Victoria already has the heaviest property tax burden of any state in the nation. The reality is that this is creating an economic environment where Victorian businesses are struggling to attract capital investment to our state – jeopardising the capacity for our industry to build more homes.
I repeat: ‘jeopardising the capacity for our industry to build more homes’. The experts are saying exactly the point that I raised earlier. We know that the government’s commitment to build 80,000 more homes each year over the next 10 years will fail. We also know the government has been exposed as raising taxes purely as a revenue-raising measure but using the property and housing crisis as an excuse to introduce those taxes.
On the principle of the matter, as a Liberal these taxes go against the very property rights that we should all fundamentally believe in. I know that previous Labor speakers have spoken with glee at introducing vacant property taxes, because the Labor Party does not fundamentally believe that you have the right to your own property. They want the government dipping into your pocket. That is a fundamental difference of principle between our parties. These new taxes go to a fundamental principle and to differences in our philosophical positions. These amendments are a con. They will not deliver the outcome of the promised housing increase. In fact at every step the government will fail – every quarter, every measurement – to reach their housing target.
But the second point – and the final point that I will make on these amendments – is what it should show Victorians: that Labor, like Julia Gillard, were willing to sell their soul to the Greens.
Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, on relevance, Deputy Speaker, the Manager of Opposition Business is using this debate to insult a former Prime Minister, and I ask that you bring him back to speaking directly to the amendments in the bill.
James NEWBURY: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, these amendments have passed due to an agreement between the government and the Greens. It is entirely relevant to note –
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I can rule on the point of order. It is a matter for debate.
James NEWBURY: Hear, hear, Deputy Speaker. Today is the day that all Victorians should mark as the day they know that the Labor Party, like Julia Gillard, has sold their soul to the Greens. It is outrageous. It is absolutely outrageous. We know it. All Victorians have now seen it. What is the difference between this government and the former Gillard government? I remember watching the former Prime Minister clapping, shaking hands with Bob Brown as she did a dirty deal with the Greens, and that is what we are seeing today in this chamber – a deal between the Greens and Labor. What it means for all Victorians is that the government, when it comes to future pieces of legislation – they will do deals on future pieces of legislation. The taxes that are punitive, that will hurt all Victorians will always be worse now that this deal has been done between Labor and the Greens – on every policy from now on.
Members interjecting.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Kew can leave the chamber for 10 minutes.
Member for Kew withdrew from chamber.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And the member for Berwick can leave –
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Berwick can leave for an hour. I will be referring that to the Speaker.
Member for Berwick withdrew from chamber.
Members interjecting.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am still on my feet, for God’s sake! Settle down.
James NEWBURY: People in this chamber should reflect when they introduce policy under the guise of doing something to help people who genuinely need it and promise to do things that they will never once achieve – in fact the person who promised it disappeared immediately after making the promise, and it is a craven, craven promise that is going to hurt people. These taxes are going to hurt people, but every Victorian should know that all future policies will be worse because the government will continue to do deals after selling their soul to the Greens in a way that no Victorian has seen since Julia Gillard.
Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I would ask that you take the opportunity to review footage of the member for Berwick’s behaviour as he left the chamber. He reflected on you and your ruling in a way that I think sought to bring disrepute to you, and his behaviour was completely out of order and unacceptable. I ask that you look at that footage and report back to the chamber on his behaviour and whether or not it warrants further investigation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will refer the matter to the Speaker.
Darren CHEESEMAN (South Barwon) (17:19): I rise this afternoon to make my contribution on the amendments that have come back from the other place, and I do so by very clearly stating that the Allan Labor government recognises that in Victoria we have a housing crisis. Indeed right throughout this country and in many Western democracies right now people are finding it exceptionally difficult to get a roof over their head. That is a reality. The Labor Party of course will always strive to give every single Victorian that we can a roof over their head. We recognise that Victorians have a right to decent, secure and safe housing, and the housing statement and every action of this government are about bringing additional supply to the market because we recognise the dignity that comes from having safe and secure housing. That is why we have a comprehensive plan. That is why the housing statement went to bringing additional supply to the market, making sure that Victorians have that opportunity.
The reality in this state is that, unfortunately, properties that should be available to Victorians to see a decent roof over their heads are not available to them. What we have seen today, what we have seen over the course of this term of this government and what we have constantly seen is the Liberal Party running a protection racket for property developers. At every single opportunity when this government has brought legislation to this place that goes to increasing supply of property for Victorians, we see the Liberal Party time and time again getting in the way of that supply. From my end, we brought a bill to this chamber. We brought a plan to this chamber, and through goodwill and good discussion in the Legislative Council and through the hard work of Tim Pallas and others in that place an arrangement was struck that is fair and reasonable and that will bring additional supply to the market. What we have seen today in this chamber is the Liberal Party again running a protection racket for property developers. When we look at them, they are sitting there stonily silent because they are embarrassed by their efforts to protect those property developers. The reality is Victorians are entitled to a place. They are entitled to have secure housing. They are entitled to see the Victorian Parliament take the necessary steps to secure additional supply for Victorians.
I do not always like the Greens, but in this instance they came to this chamber and negotiated in good faith, unlike the Liberal Party, who are here to run –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member’s time in the Gillard government watching that dirty deal is not relevant to the current debate.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Frivolous points of order will annoy me even more than I am already annoyed.
Darren CHEESEMAN: We have a comprehensive plan. That plan goes to bringing additional supply to the market. The Allan Labor government at every single step will take the opportunity to bring supply to the market, and these small tax measures are about encouraging supply to the market. It is the right thing to do by Victorians that this government and this Parliament take every single step that we can to do that. What we are seeing today in this chamber, what we are seeing by that poor behaviour over there from this lot during this debate, is them running a protection racket for property barons and property developers. This is about doing the right thing.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance, the member should not be attacking the Premier for her support of the property industry yesterday.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member to continue on the amendments before the house.
Darren CHEESEMAN: These amendments are sensible amendments. We have seen poor behaviour in this debate this afternoon, as they have in their embarrassed way gone about trying to defend the interests of property developers. We will always strive at every opportunity to bring supply to the market. And why do we do that? Because we recognise that a lot of Victorians are doing it tough at the moment. We recognise that bringing additional supply to the market will drive down rents in this state. We recognise that bringing additional supply to the market through these measures and the other actions that this government is taking is about securing, for Victorians, housing supply. That is why I commend the hard work of this government in delivering the housing plan for Victorians. We will partner with anyone – any political party, any industry group – in bringing additional supply to this market. The reality is, as we have seen this afternoon, that the Liberal Party is again defending the interests of property developers and the wealthy. That is the reality.
It is the right thing to pass these amendments. It is the right thing to have a strong, comprehensive housing plan, as we do, and that is why I commend the hard work of the Allan Labor government and those that are willing to partner with us on this journey of delivering the housing statement, delivering housing supply to Victorians. It is a right to have decent, secure housing in this state. That is something that only a Labor government will ever deliver, because we see those opposite time and time again defending the interests of property developers against Victorians. I commend these amendments to this chamber – I am looking forward to them passing this afternoon, as they will – and I am disappointed but not surprised that we see the Liberal Party again defending the interests of property barons in this state.
Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (17:27): I want to start with a statement, and I challenge any of those opposite to discredit it: taxing property does not create any more of it – not a single property. We heard the previous Premier – and I very, very rarely ever agreed with the previous Premier – make the point that getting housing affordability and availability for both private and public renters is all about supply, supply, supply, and taxing property does not create any more of it.
I want to take up the commentary of the member for South Barwon attacking the Liberals – only the Liberals, apparently – for being the friends of the property developer. I am a little bit confused because today the government has done a deal with the Greens; only yesterday in answer to a question from the Greens the Premier sat right there and said, ‘It’s property developers that actually create property, that create homes’. And now they are standing there saying somehow that property developers are evil because they have done a deal with the Greens today. So I am very confused about where the Labor Party stands: is it with the Greens, or is it against them? Is it with the property developers who create homes for Victorians, or is it against them? It is very, very confusing, what they are saying.
There is always a very fine line, when you are in opposition, between opposing bad policy and bad legislation and trying to improve bad policy and bad legislation, and the member for Sandringham I think has struck a good balance with our position on these new amendments. We will support the things that actually will help reduce the burden on property owners, and we will oppose those that simply create more taxes, because taxing property does not create more property. The Leader of the House was standing there yelling at us before: ‘We’re trying to make housing available’. You do not make housing available when you introduce more taxes on it. These taxes being introduced by these amendments today, including the increase from 1 per cent to 2 to 3 per cent of capital improved value, will include the 53rd new or increased tax under this government, and 25 of those are taxes on property. The government seems to somehow think that taxing property is actually going to increase housing availability and affordability. Well, I would like any of them over there to go and do an economics course and understand the reality of supply and demand, particularly as it applies to taxation.
Members opposite have also said that this is only about property developers. Tell that to the couple from Rosedale that contacted me after the budget this year, one of whom is relying on her superannuation and one of whom who has one day of work a week because he lost his job during the pandemic. They have an inherited house on the beach, they do not have a couple of coins to rub together and yet they are now going to be subject to these taxes. Yet the member for South Barwon seems to think that it is simply all about property barons, and I think that you will find there are plenty of Victorians who for various reasons have a second property who are not wealthy, not even remotely wealthy. I am sure the member for South Barwon will be hearing from those in his electorate as well.
I would like just to talk about again the government’s failures on property. The Leader of the Opposition asked this week about Maddy Baker from my electorate in Sale, who has been on the waiting list for three years for public housing. The member for Polwarth raised a question today about Abbas, who has been on the list for 16 years, and I remind those members opposite of the failure so far on public and social housing. In the Gippsland region there are less houses in public and community housing now than there were in 2015 – less houses. Despite the Big Housing Build, there is less public and community housing in Gippsland now than there was in 2015, so this government has failed. It has introduced a windfall gains tax, it has introduced a COVID debt levy and now it is topping up with these additional taxes, which are only going to make the situation worse.
I would add to those that are saying we need to tax the property developers, did the government ever consider, if it wants to get vacant properties back on the market, perhaps an incentive rather than punitive measures? Did it ever consider maybe there was a way that we could say ‘Hey, you’ve had that house unlived in for a period of time, maybe if you put it back on the market, we will give you a rebate on your land tax’? Did the government ever think of something like that? No. The Treasurer just sat there and thought ‘No, I can actually kill two birds with one stone. I can put out a press release that says we’re getting more housing back into the market, and I can rake in a few more dollars cash to try and fix the budget deficit and the debts that this government has got.’
I have not been able to catch the details because of the noise in this place about the deal that has been done with respect to renewable energy, but it sounds like, from what the member for Prahran has said, it is simply another subsidy for the renewable energy sector, so another deal between Labor and the Greens. These amendments are taxing property again: 25 property taxes out of 53 new or increased taxes under this government. I say again, supply is the answer, and taxing property never created any more property.
Paul HAMER (Box Hill) (17:33): I also rise to speak on the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023 new amendments, and I want to thank the Treasurer and his office for working these amendments through. They are important amendments. I would just like to start where the member for Gippsland South finished off. He talked about the supply of housing, and the supply of housing is critical: the supply of social housing, the supply of community housing and the supply of private housing. As I referenced when I was speaking on the initial bill, this bill is going to be really important in areas such as Box Hill, where we have a number of parcels of large vacant landholdings where the property owner has sat on that land for many, many years and it remains undeveloped. There needs to be a system in which these parcels of land are actually brought to market. With all respect to the member for Gippsland South, I do not see that offering them a payment to actually get that happening is going to generate that level of demand. If those developers do not want to bring it to market and they do not want to pay the tax, they can sell it off and provide it to another developer or another property owner who does have the capacity and does have the willingness to bring that to market.
When I look at and hear the responses of my constituents, that is what they want. Even today I received an email about a particular vacant property in the Box Hill electorate, asking what the government is going to do about bringing this site on and getting some development. They see that we have a housing crisis, and they want the government to do something about it. They went to council, and council said, ‘It’s not our problem.’ It is an issue that the state is taking very seriously, and I am very glad that we have a bill in place and now amendments in place that will help facilitate these outcomes.
The other key element to the bill is the vacant residential land tax. I am glad to say that the amendments that have been agreed to are an escalation of rates based on the time or the duration of the level of vacancy. I think that that is an appropriate response to encourage and incentivise the use of vacant land. Having a house that is vacant for an entire year or an entire two years or an entire three years means one less dwelling that is available to the rental market or available for sale for use by a family. It is really important that we make this stock available to our community. We are not going to just build the supply of homes by building new dwellings; we need to make use of the dwellings that we have.
I did actually reference in my initial speech on this bill the importance of having the State Revenue Office get involved in this process. I am pleased to see that as part of the amendments agreed to there will be a compliance trial established in 2024 focusing first on the apartment towers and then in 2025 going into suburban areas such as Box Hill, so that the State Revenue Office uses existing capabilities and compliance to identify the relevant property owners – to make sure if we do have a tax that applies that it is applied fairly and equitably, and that those that are required to pay it do in fact pay it. I commend the amendments and the bill to the house.
Jess WILSON (Kew) (17:38): I rise to speak on the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023. Further to the member for Gippsland South’s contribution, property taxes do not increase the supply of housing. Never has a property tax increased the supply of housing, and Victoria already has the greatest burden of property taxes anywhere in the country. The amendments today seek to actually increase property taxes, from 1 per cent to 3 per cent, and put a tax on unimproved land – the 52nd and 53rd taxes when it comes to Labor’s new or increased taxes over the past nine years.
We are in the midst of a housing crisis in Victoria, and the Labor government’s answer to that is to put more and more property taxes in place, which will do nothing to increase the supply of housing. The Labor government talks a big game: 80,000 new homes each and every year, totalling 800,000 new homes. That is more than 220 homes a day to be delivered under that target. To date the best Victoria has been able to do is 56,000 new homes, and that was at a time when our building and construction industry was not under the immense pressure it is now, so how these new homes will actually be delivered is not clear. But the answer to that of course from the Labor government is to put in place new property taxes. What we have here today is a dodgy deal with the Greens to increase property taxes on Victorians at a time Victorians can least afford it. We saw in fact in the house yesterday the Greens posing a question to the Premier. The Greens asked why the government would not call out the poor behaviour from the property industry.
We have heard from the property industry over recent months about their dealings with this government. They initially signed a partnership, when it came to the government’s grand housing statement, that would look to deliver these new homes. Then, less than two weeks later, they were blindsided when the Treasurer decided to stand up at a Property Council of Australia breakfast and announce these new taxes without any consultation with the property industry. They were absolutely blindsided after, in good faith, signing a partnership with the government just two weeks earlier. At that time the property industry put out a notice that said to the other governments in Australia ‘Don’t do a Victoria’ when it comes to property taxes and actually trying to increase the supply of housing. Then we have seen today that the property industry has put out another note, which says:
Victoria already has the heaviest property tax burden of any state in the nation. The reality is that this is creating an economic environment where Victorian businesses are struggling to attract capital investment to our state – jeopardising the capacity for our industry to build more homes.
We encourage the Victorian government to focus their attention on delivering policy outcomes that incentivise the construction of new homes, reduce the burden on business and allow the property industry to get on with delivering the housing supply that Victorians need and expect.
Those opposite like to demonise the property industry. They like to blame them for all the woes, but in fact they are the industry that will build their 80,000 new homes. Just yesterday, when asked by the Greens – the Greens that the Labor government have done a deal with to get this legislation through at the last minute, on the last sitting day of the year, with two new taxes for Victorians – about why the Premier would not call out the property industry, the Premier herself said:
… it is the property industry who help us build homes. It is the property industry and all the carpenters and all the plumbers and all the tradies that they employ that help us build more homes, that help us make sure that more Victorians have the dignity of a roof over their heads.
Danny O’Brien: Who said that?
Jess WILSON: The Premier, just yesterday, when asked a question by the Greens about why they support the property industry. But at the same time we have a government that is set on demonising the property industry, putting in place two new taxes. When asked by my colleague Mr Mulholland in the other place today what work the government had actually done on modelling, how this would increase the supply of new homes, how the increase in the vacant residential tax would supply new homes and how the tax on undeveloped land would supply new homes, the government could not provide an answer. They did not have an answer on how many new homes would be delivered because of these taxes. That is because putting a property tax on property in this state does nothing to increase the supply of new houses in Victoria.
Victoria desperately needs new homes. They need a construction industry and a property industry that have the confidence to invest in building new homes, but this government’s only answer is to put in place more property taxes at a time Victorians can least afford them.
Assembly divided on Council’s amendments:
Ayes (54): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Sam Hibbins, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson
Noes (25): Brad Battin, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson
Motion agreed to.
The SPEAKER: The question is that further amendment 1 be agreed to. The member for Sandringham has moved an amendment to the motion. He has moved that the words ‘new clauses to follow clause 27’ be omitted and replaced with a new clause to follow clause 27. Members supporting the member for Sandringham’s amendment should vote no. The question is:
That the words proposed to be omitted from further amendment 1 stand part of the further amendment.
Assembly divided on omission (members in favour vote no):
Ayes (54): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Sam Hibbins, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson
Noes (25): Brad Battin, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson
Amendment defeated.
The SPEAKER: The question is:
That further amendment 1 be agreed to.
Assembly divided on further amendment 1:
Ayes (54): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Sam Hibbins, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson
Noes (25): Brad Battin, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson
Amendment agreed to.
The SPEAKER: The question is that further amendment 2 be agreed to. The member for Sandringham has moved an amendment to the motion. He has moved that the words ‘New sections 88EA to 88EC inserted’ be omitted and replaced with ‘New section 88EC inserted’. Members supporting the member for Sandringham’s amendment should vote no. The question is:
That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Assembly divided on omission (members in favour vote no):
Ayes (54): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Sam Hibbins, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson
Noes (25): Brad Battin, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson
Amendment defeated.
The SPEAKER: The question is:
That further amendment 2 be agreed to.
Assembly divided on further amendment 2:
Ayes (54): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Sam Hibbins, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson
Noes (25): Brad Battin, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments 3 to 6 agreed to.
The SPEAKER: The question is:
That further amendment 7 be agreed to.
Assembly divided on further amendment 7:
Ayes (54): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Sam Hibbins, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson
Noes (25): Brad Battin, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson
Amendment agreed to.
The SPEAKER: A message will now be sent to the Legislative Council requesting their agreement.