Short Stay Levy Bill 2026 (No 13)
Wednesday 2 September 2026
[3.39 p.m.]
Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - Mr President, I don't question the seriousness of Tasmania's housing crisis, nor do I question the sincerity of those who want to see more Tasmanians able to buy or rent a home. Those are worthy goals and, more often than not, urgent ones. But good intentions don't make bad legislation good.
This bill asked the parliament to endorse a new tax without proving that it will solve the problem it claims to solve. It's presented as a housing measure. It's defended as a modest visitor levy. It's marketed as support for first home buyers. The government says the bill fulfils an election promise to impose a 5 per cent levy on short‑stay accommodation, that the levy will be paid by visitors and that the revenue will support first home buyers. The second reading speech says the primary purpose of the levy is to raise revenue for first home buyers, while also suggesting it may make more housing available for long-term rental. That word matters, 'may'. 'May' is not a housing strategy, is not evidence and is not enough when parliament is being asked to create a new tax. If this is truly a housing policy then the first question must be simple: will it materially return homes to the long-term rental market? On that question the evidence is unconvincing.
The housing crisis is real, the pressure on renters is real. The difficulty of entering the housing market is real. There's no doubt about that. In some parts of Tasmania, whole-home short-stay accommodation has placed additional pressure on the rental market. Recent comments from the Greens reflect this concern. They've pointed to rising rents, low vacancy rates, the public housing wait list of more than 5000 people and CBOS data showing an increase in homes registered as short-term stays in Hobart. They've also referred to analysis suggesting some whole-home short-stay approvals were former rentals. Those concerns deserve to be taken seriously but acknowledging the problem does not mean accepting this bill is the solution.
That's the distinction this Council must make. If the problem is whole homes being converted from long-term rentals into short-stay accommodation, then the response should be targeted at that problem. It should distinguish between an urban investment property that was formerly a rental and a regional holiday shack used occasionally by its owners. It should distinguish between a Hobart whole-home listing and a farmstay, an eco cabin, worker accommodation or visitor accommodation in a place where there's no practical long-term rental alternative.
This bill does not make those distinctions adequately. It imposes a 5 per cent levy on the total booking fee for short-stay accommodation booked through a booking platform provider. It excludes a range of accommodation classes including hotels, motels, inns, hostels, bed and breakfasts, caravan parks and certain specialist accommodation. It also excludes direct bookings and accommodation in a dwelling usually occupied by the owner. Those changes are welcome as far as they go. They show that some concerns raised during consultation were heard.
I also acknowledge that commencement is now expected to be no earlier than 1 January 2027, which provides more time for adjustment than the original timetable, but those improvements do not resolve the central policy problem. This remains a selective tax on one part of the visitor accommodation market, with an uncertain relationship to the housing outcome it claims to support.
The government received 220 submissions during consultation. That shows how significant this proposal is across housing, tourism, local government, small business and regional communities. Some community organisations support the levy in principle. Shelter Tasmania, the Tenants' Union and others have long argued that short-stay accommodation can affect housing availability, and they've called for stronger action but even among those who support action on short-stay accommodation, there remains a serious question about where the revenue should go.
If the justification is housing need, why is the revenue directed exclusively to first home buyer assistance rather than social and affordable housing, crisis accommodation, rental support, or measures that directly increase supply?
The Housing Industry Association makes a similar point from a different perspective. HIA warns that if levy revenue is used to reinforce stamp duty concessions for established homes, the policy may stimulate demand in the existing housing market rather than increase supply. HIA's point is straightforward: only new dwelling construction adds to the housing stock. If the problem is supply, policy should add supply. If the problem is visitor contribution, policy should be developed transparently and consistently across the visitor economy. This bill does not do any of those things clearly enough.
Mr President, the tourism consequences also require careful consideration. Tourism is not a side issue in Tasmania. It's not a luxury, it's one of the core pillars of our economy and one of the great employers in our regions. The Tourism Industry Council Tasmania submission states that tourism contributes around $4.55 billion or 10.8 per cent to Tasmania's gross state product; it directly contributes about $2.27 billion; and directly and indirectly supports around 50,800 filled jobs. That's about one in six jobs in this state.
In some highly tourism-dependent region, such as the east coast, more than half of all the jobs rely on visitor spending. Any legislation that increases the cost of visiting Tasmania dampens regional dispersal or undermines confidence in regional accommodation providers is not a minor inconvenience, it's a matter of statewide economic significance. Yet the Tourism Industry Council has stated that no proper impact assessment was undertaken on the effect of this levy on visitation, particularly to regional Tasmania. The proposal was also developed outside the collaborative framework of the 2030 Visitor Economy Strategy, which is meant to guide sustainable growth, regional dispersal, destination management and visitor contribution in a considered evidence-based way. That matters. Government should not ask parliament to endorse a visitor-facing tax without demonstrating how it aligns with the strategy it's publicly committed to.
The lack of modelling is particularly concerning in northern Tasmania. I've received representations from Tracy Mallett of Visit Northern Tasmania, the regional tourism organisation. Her concerns are practical, regional and serious. She's advised that visitation to northern Tasmania has been increasing quarter-on-quarter since 2024. That's good news. It's exactly the momentum we should be protecting. But there's a significant lack of hotel accommodation in Launceston. That means short stay accommodation is not merely an optional extra in the north, it's critical visitor infrastructure. It helps Launceston accommodate visitors when hotel supply is insufficient. It supports events, family travel, longer stays, workers groups and regional dispersal.
Tracy Mallett's concern is that this levy could affect accommodation choices. If short stay prices rise to incorporate the levy and there are not enough hotel rooms to absorb demand, businesses may simply bypass Launceston as a destination. The same issue applies to places such as Derby and Flinders Island, where in many cases there's no realistic alternative to short stay accommodation. In those communities, this levy will not move visitors neatly into hotels, it will simply increase accommodation costs. On Flinders Island, the situation is even more delicate. Travel to the island is already becoming more expensive, with rising airfares and limited aviation support. If the cost of getting to the island rises and the cost of staying on the island also rises, visitors are squeezed from both directions. For an island community where the visitor economy is critical to economic viability, that risk should not be dismissed.
This is precisely why economic modelling matters. The impact of this levy will not be uniform across Tasmania. It will not be the same in Hobart as in Derby. It will not be the same in Launceston as on Flinders Island. It will not be the same for a high yield urban investment property as for a farmstay, a shack, a family holiday home or a small regional operator.
Visit Northern Tasmania has also raised concerns about councils individually considering different approaches to short stay accommodation. Without coordinated consultation with local government and regional tourism bodies, the cumulative impact of state levies, council rates, local policy settings and market pressures remain unclear. Uncertainty affects business confidence. It affects investment. It affects whether an operator expands, renovates, hires or holds back. Regional Tasmania can at least afford that uncertainty.
Mr President, I also note the local councils are already pursuing more targeted measures. Hobart City Council, for example, has moved to increase the application fee for converting a home into shortstay accommodation from $435 to $5000. That is directed at the point of conversion. It deals with the act of taking a property from one use into another. That approach may raise its own questions, but it's more directly connected to the issue of homes moving out of the long term rental market.
The government says the levy is modest. It says it's only 5 per cent, but it's 5 per cent on the total booking fee. That includes accommodation charges, GST and additional fees such as cleaning and booking fees. It's not simply a charge on the nightly tariff.
For families, longer stays and regional properties with cleaning, linen, servicing and booking costs, that broader tax base matters. Cleaning and servicing costs are not profit; they are real operating costs. One short stay operator Moxxi Property has had a clear voice. They argue that the government's assumption that guests will simply absorb the tax does not reflect the reality of the accommodation market. If operators could simply charge another 5 per cent without consequence, they would already be doing so. Moxxi's submission argues that platform commissions and other charges can compound the real impact of the levy. Whether one accepts every part of that calculation or not, the broader point is sound. The cost will be borne somewhere. It may be borne by visitors through higher prices, by owners, through lower returns, by local contractors, through reduced hours, by regional economies, through fewer nights stayed and less discretionary spending. As my husband always used to say when he owned his hotel, someone always has to pay. The government cannot simply declare that it will be paid by the visitor, and assume no-one else is affected.
Moxxi manages more than 180 properties across Tasmania, and has pointed to the local jobs and services supported by the sector. Cleaners, linen providers, maintenance trades, gardeners, photographers, guest services staff and other small contractors. Those people are part of the visitor economy too. We also need to reject the caricature that every short-stay property is a speculative windfall asset, displacing a family from housing. That's not the whole story. Many short-stay properties in Tasmania are holiday homes or shacks, used intermittently by their owners and let out for short-periods to help cover rates, insurance, power, maintenance and upkeep. Many are in locations where long-term rental demand is limited, or where the dwelling is unsuitable for permanent tenancy. Moxxi submission categorises many of the properties it manages as seasonal lifestyle assets, mixed personal-use holiday homes, low-yield regional dwellings, or properties unsuitable for long-term tenancy. Airbnb's submission says that in a survey of Tasmanian hosts, 44 per cent said Airbnb income help them stay in their home. Whatever one thinks of Airbnb as a platform, the broader point remains. The sector is diverse and parliament should not legislate as though every property caught by this bill is the same.
That diversity is especially important in relation to agritourism and farm stays. Agritourism operators described a sector made-up of self-contained farm cottages, heritage buildings, glamping structures, tiny homes, shearers quarters, campsites and hosted or semi-hosted stays integrated with farming businesses. These are not interchangeable with CBD apartments. They're not the same as speculative urban investor stock. They're part of a farm diversification, regional resilience, intergenerational succession and the very brand of Tasmania that government promotes to the world. Agritourism Tasmania warned that the levy would create compliance burdens, classification uncertainty, competitive disadvantages in regional tourism markets, and heavier impacts on farm businesses operating with seasonal income, volatility and higher servicing costs.
Tim Parsons explained that many bona fide farm stays do not fit neatly within conventional definitions, such as hotel, motel or in-house bed and breakfast, despite being legitimate visitor accommodation businesses. His submission argued that rural and regional agritourism businesses are not responsible for the urban housing crisis, and should not be taxed as if they are. Jodie McQueen of Paradise Road Farm has raised similar concerns about small farm stays, eco-cabins and on-farm visitor accommodation being caught up in a policy aimed at a very different behaviour. I acknowledge that the House of Assembly amended the bill, and that reports indicate agritourism was carved out, and that's welcome. But it also raises a question, if the bill needed an amendment to avoid capturing accommodation that plainly should not have been captured, does that not show the original design was too broad?
There's another question this chamber should not let pass, administration. The government says 100 per cent of the levy will go to assisting first-home buyers. That sounds simple, but legislation does not administer itself. The levy will be administered through the State Revenue Office, and we heard this morning from the State Revenue Office that while they can add levies and grants pretty easily, there is a lot of work to do, and they would have struggled if the start date was 1 November. Booking platform providers must register, returns must be lodged, compliance must be monitored, assessments, refund and enforcement must be managed, declarations must be provided and retained, joint liability may arise if declarations are incorrect. All of that has a cost. So, the question is who bears the cost? I know the answer from the Leader is going to be off the side of a desk. Well, I would dismiss that and I don't believe it can be done.
Ms Rattray - Through you Mr President, I haven't received that response as yet.
Ms ARMITAGE - But I have heard that in briefings that off the side of the desk. So, I will wait to hear it, but I don't believe that off the side of the desk, and I'm saying it now so that we don't get that answer, because I don't believe that is possibly correct. If administration is funded from consolidated revenue, Tasmanians pay indirectly. If it's absorbed within existing agency resources, other work may be displaced. If it reduces the net-value of the revenue raised, then the claim that 100 per cent goes to first-home buyers becomes, at the very least, incomplete. This matters because the revenue estimate itself has already moved. The public was originally told the levy would raise around $11 million.
The lower House debate then referred to estimates between $8 million and $10 million, with some briefings suggesting the figure could be close to $7.8 million. That is a modest and uncertain revenue stream when weighed against the scale of Tasmania's housing challenge.
It's more modest again once administrative costs, compliance costs and economic impacts are considered.
Mr President, some may say that we must do something, and I agree. We must do something, but doing something is not the same as doing the right thing.
If whole homes are being taken out of the rental market in Hobart and other pressure areas, then let us address that directly. The member for McIntyre will recall because she was part of the committee I'm sure, that I chaired the committee on Airbnb and many owners at that time told us that they changed from rental to Airbnb-type homes often because of damage to their homes and because it was all to do with how difficult it was to actually be a landlord as opposed to having Airbnb when people stayed for one or two weeks.
If former rentals are being converted into short stays, let us examine planning controls, registration rules, local caps, vacancy impacts, and targeted interventions. If housing supply is inadequate, let us support new builds, modular construction, land release, planning reform, social housing, and affordable housing.
The Premier has spoken about modular housing and the need to increase supply more quickly and efficiently. That's the right direction of travel. Supply matters. Removing barriers to supply matters, but this bill does not sufficiently connect the tax being imposed with a supply outcome being promised.
A better approach would distinguish between whole homes in high pressure urban rental markets, the reason former long-term rentals are converted to short stay, principal residences and hosted accommodation, farm stays and agritourism, regional accommodation where no hotel alternative exists, island communities such as Flinders Island and purpose-built visitor accommodation that's never been part of the residential rental market. That is the kind of careful policy Tasmania needs.
Mr President, I accept that the government is seeking to respond to a genuine issue. I accept that short-stay accommodation can in some markets reduce rental availability except some homes are being removed from the long-term rental market but I do not accept that this bill in its current form is the right response. It is not sufficiently modelled, aligned with housing supply, sensitive to regional Tasmania and is not sufficiently transparent about administration and net benefit.
If the government is serious about housing, then bring us legislation that increases supply, supports new builds and strengthens social and affordable housing.
If the government is serious about visitor contributions, then bring us a properly modelled, transparent and equitable approach developed with industry and aligned to the 2030 Visitor Economy Strategy.
The housing crisis is too serious for a measure that may not materially improve supply. The visitor economy is too important for a levy whose impacts have not been properly modelled. Northern Tasmania is too important for guesswork. Regional Tasmania is too important for a one-size-fits-all policy.
This Council's duty, to my mind, is to ensure that legislation is not merely well-intentioned but sound.
For those reasons, Mr President, I oppose the bill.
