TRANSCRIPT:
I rise today to speak on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. This bill proposes a series of changes to the Emergency Services Superannuation Scheme, better known as the ESSS, by amending the Emergency Services Superannuation Act 1986. There are seven key amendments on the table, and I will discuss a few of those. First up, the bill sets out a new rule where executive officers and contract employees contributing to the ESSS will have their superable salary capped at 90 per cent. The bill also increases how often ESSS members can adjust their contribution rate each year, which gives a bit more flexibility to contributors. It extends the time allowed for a spouse, after the death of a contributor, to apply to join the ESSPLAN scheme. That gives families a bit more breathing space in what is usually a really difficult period. The bill also reduces the size of the ESSS board from 12 members to 10, and it scraps the requirement for members of the State Superannuation Fund (SSF) to elect representatives to the ESSS board. Instead of elections, union representatives will now be appointed to represent those SSF members. Finally, the position of the deputy board member is being removed altogether.
This scheme is not small, as we have heard today. The ESSS currently manages about $37 billion in assets and nearly 125,000 members. That includes current and former employees of Victoria Police, Fire Rescue Victoria, Ambulance Victoria and the education system, along with workers from Metro Trains, Yarra Trams, Corrections Victoria, Parks Victoria and V/Line, particularly those who started before 1994. These changes, while technical, as we have heard throughout the day, will impact a huge amount of people, including how they manage their contributions and how their funds are governed.
But this conversation around superannuation also opens the door to something bigger. It raises the need to look more broadly at the financial systems Victorians are trying to navigate, particularly when it comes to land tax. Let me share some stories from real people who are trying to balance these systems and getting caught in the crossfire. Rocco from Dhurringile is one of them. He bought a property through his superannuation fund, a holiday rental in Merrijig. Anyone who knows Merrijig knows it is heavily seasonal, absolutely beautiful and close to the alpine region. Despite this, Rocco does not qualify for any of the relevant regional exemptions and is still being hit with land tax through the Victorian residential commercial tenancy framework. Because the property is tied to his super, he is not even allowed to use it himself when it is sitting vacant. This is a system that just does not get the reality of seasonal properties or of superannuation investments.
Mary Kipping from Locksley is another local who has been unfairly treated. She owns just one property, yet she is being double charged. Why? Because the system is not built to reflect real-life, honest situations like Mary’s. There is also Elizabeth Grant from Goorambat. She is facing land tax on her primary residence, her actual home. Like so many others, she is being taxed on the roof over her head – not an investment property, not a side business, but her family home, and she is not alone. This is something I am hearing more and more: people being taxed on the homes they live in and love, often while they are just trying to keep their heads above water.
Matthew Trewin from Avenel runs a farm, and he is being taxed on the house that sits on his farming property, his home, which happens to be located on land that is also used for primary production. Instead of assessing that house separately, the government lumps it in with the entire property, massively inflating his land tax bill. It is not fair and it is not practical. Farmers like Matthew are doing it tough enough already without being hit with bureaucratic nonsense like this. And it is not just individuals. Our community organisations are getting smashed too. The Nagambie historical society is a small, volunteer-run group with just 60 members, and they sell jams and pickles to keep the doors open. Yet somehow they have received a land tax bill for $1000. When they reached out to the State Revenue Office for help they were simply told to write a letter –
Juliana Addison: My point of order, Acting Speaker, is on the relevance of jam being sold by the CWA.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): It has been a fairly wideranging debate, but I will ask the member for Euroa to come back to the bill.
Annabelle CLEELAND: When the Nagambie historical society – who do make amazing jams and pickles – reached out to the State Revenue Office they were told to write a letter. It is not good enough, not for a group preserving our shared history.
Juliana Addison: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, it seems that the member for Euroa is defying your ruling on relevance.
Brad Rowswell: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, it is clear that the Labor Party is running interference on the member for Euroa’s contribution. I respectfully suggest to members of the government that they sit, as we have sat and listened to the drivel coming out of government members, and listen to the member for Euroa’s contribution, which is a very worthy contribution.
Juliana Addison: Further on the point of order, Acting Speaker, my point of order is that it is not a race to the bottom.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): I will rule on the point of order. Again, member for Euroa, please come back to the bill.
Annabelle CLEELAND: Back to superannuation: David Russell from Ruffy is another one. He and his wife live in their one and only home, and still they are being sent land tax bills. Despite supplying proof that it is their primary residence –
Juliana Addison: On a point of order, Acting Speaker: relevance.
Annabelle CLEELAND: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, I am just referencing clause 15 in regard to individuals’ self-managed superannuation. We are talking about superannuation and how it should best work for people. This is through their land tax through their self-managed super fund.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): I will rule on the point of order. The member for Euroa is being relevant to the bill in discussing that particular item.
Annabelle CLEELAND: Thank you, Acting Speaker; I appreciate your support. Despite supplying proof that it is their primary residence, David has received debt collection letters. He has done everything right and he is still being treated like he is dodging tax. It is unacceptable. These are ordinary Victorians – people trying to live their lives, raise families, run farms and care for their communities – and they are being slammed with land tax bills that just do not make sense. There might be exemptions on paper, but the reality is that people are being left to fight through red tape, beg for help and jump through hoops just to get treated fairly.
Back to the bill: while the technical amendments might seem straightforward, there are real issues that cannot be ignored, particularly the changes around board representation for SSF members. The government wants to remove the ability for members to elect their own representatives to the Emergency Services Superannuation Board and instead hand that power over to unions, which will nominate someone on their behalf. The reason the government gives is that it is too difficult to find people to fill those roles. We do not buy it. There are more than 6000 SSF members who are still eligible. If we truly respect the democratic rights of members, especially when it comes to a decision about $37 billion in managed assets, we should bend over backwards to protect that democratic process and not scrap it. What is more concerning is the lack of transparency around how these unions will be selected. When asked, the government could not outline the criteria, process or safeguards. Officials were questioned in the briefing about consultation with SSF members, and they said there was none. It is not good enough, not when we are talking about people’s futures, their livelihoods and their retirement savings. There was not even an independent review; all we got was a desktop review by Treasury and some back-and-forth with ESSS. This is not how major structural changes to one of Victoria’s largest super funds should be handled. We need real consultation, clear evidence and transparent processes, and none of that has been delivered.
There is no solid reason – none – for stripping SSF members of their right to elect their representatives. We need to hold the line on this. If this government genuinely believes in fairness and accountability, it should be fighting to strengthen member input, not removing it. These proposed changes to the ESSS sit within a much bigger context – a financial environment where Victorians are being taxed unfairly, ignored by bureaucracy and left to fend for themselves. The least we can do is protect their rights to have a say in how their hard-earned money is managed. If this government will not stand up for those basic rights, we on this side of the house absolutely will, because the Allan Labor government cannot manage money, and Victorians are paying the price.