跳到内容
现在

报道

塔斯马尼亚游客征费遭平票否决，而征费初衷早已落空

一场6-6的平票扼杀了5%的短租住宿征费——而它原本要资助的首置业印花税减免，早在十周前就已到期。

文字 阅读需 5 分钟 · 49 个来源

HeyDex

原语言视频

译自英文原文。

六比六，随后陷入沉默。2026年9月9日星期三，在塔斯马尼亚州规模不大的上议院，《2026年短租住宿征费法案》以六票对六票陷入僵局。德温特选区工党议员、议长克雷格·法雷尔起身投下反对票，打破僵局。⁠2⁠3 这一张决定性反对票，扼杀了自由党两年前作出的承诺——让游客帮助塔斯马尼亚人购买首套住房。⁠12⁠2 而法案原本要为之提供资金的首置业者优惠，早在十周前就已到期。⁠18⁠19

该法案提交立法委员会时势头正盛。2026年5月8日，它在众议院以22票对9票通过。⁠13⁠15 法案拟对通过Airbnb和Stayz等平台预订、入住时间不足28天的短租住宿，在总预订费用上加征5%，原定于2027年7月1日开始实施。⁠5⁠28 酒店、汽车旅馆、住宿加早餐旅馆和房车营地不在征税范围内；经过磋商后，业主自住住宅中的空余房间也获豁免。⁠5⁠14 换言之，这是一项范围狭窄、明确针对整套度假出租房的税费。⁠12⁠14

6-6导致法案夭折的上议院平票 23
5%短租预订费用征费 512
~$8M修订后的年度收入估算 213
6%普通收入者买得起的房屋占比 20

这项征费从来不只是旅游税。它是自由党2024年选举承诺的资金引擎：购买价值不超过$750,000的现房，首置业者可免缴印花税。⁠12⁠16 这项100%的豁免自2024年2月18日起实施，至2026年6月30日止，每户最多可省下约$28,935。⁠18⁠19⁠21 2024年近1,700户家庭享受了该优惠，政府称截至2025年11月，近4,000笔购房交易已获豁免。⁠25⁠18 这项政策的说法很明确：游客付钱，塔斯马尼亚人受益。⁠12

从承诺到夭折

  1. 2024年2月18日

    首置业者购买不超过$750,000的房屋可享印花税豁免。

    1819
  2. 2026年5月8日

    众议院以22-9票通过征费法案。

    1315
  3. 2026年6月30日

    印花税豁免到期；7月1日起恢复全额产权转让税。

    1819
  4. 2026年9月9日

    立法委员会以6-6票陷入僵局；议长投反对票。

    23

数字先缩水，随后骤然归零

从数字来看，这项承诺不断缩水。2024年提出时，预计每年收入约$11 million；修订后，财政部估算降至约$7.3 million至$8 million。⁠12⁠13 政府称，其中80%至83%将来自州际和国际游客，并承诺将征费收入的100%用于帮助塔斯马尼亚人购买首套住房。⁠12 与此相对的是已经产生的支出：豁免项目约耗资$40 million。⁠2⁠18 最初的两年成本估算显示，豁免的总成本为$64.3 million，预计征费可抵销约$44 million，净成本略高于$20 million。⁠45⁠47 无论如何，这项征费一分钱也没收上来。⁠2⁠3

83%将由海外和州际游客支付，征费收入的100%将用于帮助塔斯马尼亚人购买首套住房。

塔斯马尼亚州州长 12

正是这句话解释了法案为何夭折。反对者称，这项征费是一项定位混乱、难以实施的旅游税，背后没有经济模型支撑。⁠2⁠4 他们认为，游客占比80-83%的说法依据的是行业提供的数据，而非政府分析；没有法律规定这笔钱必须用于首置业者；对游客征收少量费用，无助于增加出租房源或缓解住房危机。⁠4⁠6 工党在两院均投了反对票；在立法委员会中，来自劳恩斯顿选区的独立议员罗斯玛丽·阿米蒂奇、来自默西选区的独立议员迈克·加夫尼、来自蒙哥马利选区的独立议员凯西·希斯卡特、来自纳尔逊选区的独立议员梅格·韦伯，以及来自默奇森选区的独立议员露丝·福雷斯特也投了反对票。⁠2⁠11 绿党立法委员会成员卡西·奥康纳投了赞成票，将其视为一项收入措施，但对其住房效果表示怀疑。⁠6

更棘手的问题在于时机。征费原本要维持的印花税豁免于2026年6月30日到期，且未在2026-27年度预算中延长。⁠18⁠27 自2026年7月1日起，购买现房的首置业者再次需要全额缴纳产权转让税。⁠19⁠18 预算中保留的唯一减免是首置业者补助：2026-27年度新建住房补助定为$20,000，低于此前临时上调后的$30,000。⁠22⁠27 法案被否决后，政府既未宣布替代性收入措施，也未恢复$750,000的豁免。⁠2⁠3

这个市场异常严峻。2026年9月的报道显示，待售房屋中只有约6%在塔斯马尼亚普通收入者的承受范围内；经济学家将这一缺口归因于供应不足，而非需求端援助不足。⁠20 对度假住宿预订加征5%费用从来不可能建成住房，它的批评者也清楚这一点。⁠6⁠17 但该法案夭折仍然重要，因为它暴露了事件的先后顺序：承诺提供优惠，为此花费约$40 million，任由优惠到期，随后又未能通过为其恢复提供资金的法案。⁠2⁠18 首置业者如今又回到了起点，只是钱更少了。⁠20⁠21

已知

  • 《2026年短租住宿征费法案》于2026年9月9日以6-6票遭否决。 23
  • 现房印花税豁免于2026年6月30日结束。 1819

未知

  • 尚无经核实的恢复豁免或替代征费收入计划。

后续

  • 在仅有6%的房屋处于普通收入者承受范围内的市场中，政府是否会提供新的供给端或需求端援助。

来源24

在此处引用的来源中，ABC News (Australia)最先发布，比本报道播出早15小时。
  1. ABC News (Australia)
  2. HeyDay News

23家媒体未注明日期：tas.gov.auABC listenPulse TasmaniaMirage NewsThe Examinerwikipedia.org

按媒体查看所有来源

来自 24 家媒体的 49 个来源· 引用最多的优先

播出原貌
  1. Tasmania's visitor levy is dead — killed in the upper house on a six-to-six tie. The first-home buyer benefit it was supposed to fund had already lapsed two and a half months earlier. So with both now gone, what replaces the help Tasmanians have already lost?
  2. The bill is the Short Stay Levy Bill 2026. It died when the Legislative Council split six to six, and the chamber's President, Labor MLC Craig Farrell of Derwent, cast the deciding vote against it. It had cleared the lower house comfortably — twenty-two votes to nine, back in May.
  3. The levy was a 2024 Liberal promise — a five per cent charge on short-stay bookings to help pay for zero stamp duty for first-home buyers of established homes worth up to 750,000 dollars. The exemption ran from February 2024 to the end of June this year. The bill cleared the lower house in May; the upper house killed it in September — ten weeks after the exemption it was meant to fund had already lapsed.
  4. The levy itself was narrowly drawn. It would have added five per cent to the total booking fee for short-stay accommodation — stays under 28 days booked through platforms like Airbnb and Stayz. Hotels, motels, bed-and-breakfasts and caravan parks were excluded, and after consultation, so were owner-occupied spare-room listings. It was due to start on 1 July 2027.
  5. That was the promise in black and white: four-fifths of the cost carried by travellers, every dollar of the levy pledged to first-home buyers.
  6. On the numbers, the promise kept slipping. Pitched in 2024 at about eleven million dollars a year, the levy's own Treasury estimate fell to roughly seven-point-three to eight million after amendments. The government said eighty to eighty-three per cent of that would come from interstate and international visitors.
  7. On one side, roughly eight million a year in revenue. On the other, the cost already on the books. The exemptions have cost about forty million dollars. The original 2024 costing put the two-year exemption at sixty-four-point-three million, with the levy expected to offset about forty-four million — leaving a net cost of just over twenty million. Either way, the levy never collected a dollar, and the bill it was meant to pay is already paid.
  8. That's the contradiction at the heart of the defeat. Labor opposed the levy as a confused, unworkable tourism tax. Opponents in the chamber argued there was no economic modelling, that the bulk of the revenue would come from a share estimate sourced from industry rather than government analysis, that no law guaranteed the money would reach first-home buyers — and that a small charge on visitors would do nothing to add rental supply or ease the housing crisis.
  9. After the vote, Treasurer Eric Abetz publicly blamed Labor; the Premier's government pointed to the housing revenue the levy would have reinvested. On the floor, it was the chamber's own President who broke the tie — against the bill.
  10. But here's the sharper problem. The benefit the levy was meant to preserve is already gone. The stamp duty exemption lapsed on 30 June and was not extended in the 2026-27 Budget. From 1 July, first-home buyers of established homes pay the full transfer duty again. The only relief the Budget kept was the First Home Owner Grant — twenty thousand dollars for new builds this year, down from a thirty-thousand-dollar temporary boost.
  11. And the timing is what makes the loss sting. This month, only about six per cent of homes on the market were within reach of an average Tasmanian earner — a figure economists tied to a shortage of supply, not a lack of demand-side help.
  12. So the question the defeat leaves open: what replaces either? The government has announced no replacement revenue measure, and no restoration of the expired exemption. No alternative funding plan for reviving the 750,000-dollar threshold has been published since the vote. First-home buyers are back on full transfer duty — and with six per cent of homes within reach, economists say the real fix is supply, not another levy.

译文更新于

近期播出