Victoria’s hot seats week two as it happened: Air guitar-playing Greens promise tax breaks for live-music venues

There are not many better places to hold a press conference than a pub on a sunny Friday. Today I was in the beer garden of the Retreat Hotel in Sydney Road, Brunswick, for a Greens announcement on live music. It’s a tough job sometimes!

Wills candidate Samantha Ratnam was joined by Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young and two performers, Taylah Carroll and Isobel D’Cruz Barnes, to launch a policy that would provide tax breaks for venues, touring artists and theatre productions.

These are the details:

• Live music venues – 10 per cent tax offsets for the costs of hosting live music.
• Touring artists – 50 per cent tax offset for travel expenses.
• Theatre productions – 40 per cent tax offset for the costs of live theatre production (similar to screen producer offset).

The Greens said the policy had been analysed by the Parliamentary Budget Office and would cost $700 million over the forward estimates. They are citing modelling that it would lead to an 18 per cent increase in live performances in the first year and a 35 per cent ongoing increase.

Hanson-Young, who helped spruik the policy with some air-guitar playing on Instagram, said it was aimed at helping venues such as the Retreat stay open after the COVID-19 pandemic led to a downturn for the music industry.

“This policy is for the artists, it’s for our loved local venues, and it’s for making sure that artists can tour around the country,” she said.

A federal parliamentary inquiry into the “challenges and opportunities within the Australian live music industry” recently proposed a tax offset for live performances among its 20 recommendations for the sector.

The report did not suggest a precise model, but it did cite a submission from APRA/AMCOS (which administers royalties on behalf of songwriters, composers and music publishers) that claimed: “A combined venue offset (of 5 per cent of expenses …) would boost the incomes of musicians and artists by $205 million per year with an additional 203,200 gigs.”

During the policy launch, Ratnam was asked for her favourite live music venue in Wills. After thinking for a moment, she nominated Bar Oussou on Sydney Road.

“We have attracted artists to come and make this their home, because they are surrounded by other artists and performers. But also because we’ve had the venues to support live performers for a number of years,” she said. “But that is under grave threat, which is why this proposal is going to be so welcomed by so many venues across the electorate.”

One of the musicians appearing with the Greens, Taylah Carroll, said the policy would help relieve some of the financial risk and strain on artists, who often provide free labour.

“It’s never been easy to be an artist, but in this increasingly unstable climate ... it feels harder than ever,” she said. “The world will always, and perhaps now more than ever, benefit from the cultural and human enrichment that music provides.”

If you live in Kooyong, you’ve probably seen this number everywhere — on posters, billboards and pamphlets stuffed into your letterbox: 77 per cent.

The Liberal Party is campaigning hard against teal independent MP Monique Ryan with its “Teals Revealed” campaign, using data sourced from the Parliamentary Library to highlight her voting record in parliament.

Their headline claim? That Ryan has “voted with the Greens 77 per cent of the time” — a figure designed to stoke fears of a Labor-Greens-teals minority government.

“Don’t risk it,” the pamphlets warn.

Ryan – who is being challenged by Liberal candidate Amelia Hamer in the seat – has hit back, labelling the campaign misinformation. In response, she issued a five-page pamphlet of her own, accusing the Liberals of spreading “egregious falsehoods”.

She points out she voted in favour of just 21 out of 37 Greens motions — that’s 56 per cent — citing figures also drawn from the Parliamentary Library.

So, who’s right? Well … both, kind of. Because they’re talking about two very different things.

Only MPs can request Parliamentary Library analysis — not journalists — but both the Hamer and Ryan camps have shared the data they got from the library with me. We’ve put together a few tables and graphs to show you the difference.

The 77 per cent figure comes from a dataset that measures how often Ryan’s votes in the past three years aligned with the major parties on all matters in parliament — not just on legislation. By this metric:

• Ryan voted with the Greens 77 per cent of the time;
• With Labor 44 per cent of the time;
• And with the Coalition 31 per cent of the time.

But this includes votes on everything — including procedural matters. These can be motions to extend debate time, move an amendment, or suspend standing orders. All are counted equally.

There’s a strong argument this is a blunt tool for understanding ideological alignment. For example, crossbenchers often support each other procedurally out of solidarity — even when they disagree on substance. This could look like Ryan backing Bob Katter’s right to propose an amendment, but then vote against that amendment.

When you narrow it down to substantive legislative votes, the picture shifts. According to the figures the Liberals are working off:

• Ryan voted with the Greens 86 per cent of the time to consider amendments, but only 64 per cent of the time to accept them.

• With Labor, she voted to consider amendments 43 per cent of the time and accept amendments 51 per cent of the time.

• With the Coalition, she voted to consider amendments 20 per cent of the time and to accept them 37 per cent of the time.

Ryan’s team argues a more accurate reflection of her record comes from looking at how she voted on motions according to who sponsored (or moved) them.

By that measure, across 504 votes in the past three years, Ryan voted:

• In favour of 51 per cent of Labor motions;
• 88 per cent of non-Green crossbench motions;
• 42 per cent of Liberal-National motions;
• And 56 per cent of Greens motions.

This dataset also includes procedural motions, so it carries similar limitations when interpreting ideology. But the Liberal argument is that procedural motions can be political, too — suspending standing orders or ruling that a member be no longer heard are, in their view, strategic moves used to achieve political outcomes.

Whether you agree or not, the key point is this: both sides are using the same pool of votes and slicing them to suit their narrative.

It’s a classic case of selective data storytelling — and a timely reminder of how statistics can be used to shape political messaging.

There are not many better places to hold a press conference than a pub on a sunny Friday. Today I was in the beer garden of the Retreat Hotel in Sydney Road, Brunswick, for a Greens announcement on live music. It’s a tough job sometimes!

Wills candidate Samantha Ratnam was joined by Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young and two performers, Taylah Carroll and Isobel D’Cruz Barnes, to launch a policy that would provide tax breaks for venues, touring artists and theatre productions.

These are the details:

• Live music venues – 10 per cent tax offsets for the costs of hosting live music.
• Touring artists – 50 per cent tax offset for travel expenses.
• Theatre productions – 40 per cent tax offset for the costs of live theatre production (similar to screen producer offset).

The Greens said the policy had been analysed by the Parliamentary Budget Office and would cost $700 million over the forward estimates. They are citing modelling that it would lead to an 18 per cent increase in live performances in the first year and a 35 per cent ongoing increase.

Hanson-Young, who helped spruik the policy with some air-guitar playing on Instagram, said it was aimed at helping venues such as the Retreat stay open after the COVID-19 pandemic led to a downturn for the music industry.

“This policy is for the artists, it’s for our loved local venues, and it’s for making sure that artists can tour around the country,” she said.

A federal parliamentary inquiry into the “challenges and opportunities within the Australian live music industry” recently proposed a tax offset for live performances among its 20 recommendations for the sector.

The report did not suggest a precise model, but it did cite a submission from APRA/AMCOS (which administers royalties on behalf of songwriters, composers and music publishers) that claimed: “A combined venue offset (of 5 per cent of expenses …) would boost the incomes of musicians and artists by $205 million per year with an additional 203,200 gigs.”

During the policy launch, Ratnam was asked for her favourite live music venue in Wills. After thinking for a moment, she nominated Bar Oussou on Sydney Road.

“We have attracted artists to come and make this their home, because they are surrounded by other artists and performers. But also because we’ve had the venues to support live performers for a number of years,” she said. “But that is under grave threat, which is why this proposal is going to be so welcomed by so many venues across the electorate.”

One of the musicians appearing with the Greens, Taylah Carroll, said the policy would help relieve some of the financial risk and strain on artists, who often provide free labour.

“It’s never been easy to be an artist, but in this increasingly unstable climate ... it feels harder than ever,” she said. “The world will always, and perhaps now more than ever, benefit from the cultural and human enrichment that music provides.”

If you live in Kooyong, you’ve probably seen this number everywhere — on posters, billboards and pamphlets stuffed into your letterbox: 77 per cent.

The Liberal Party is campaigning hard against teal independent MP Monique Ryan with its “Teals Revealed” campaign, using data sourced from the Parliamentary Library to highlight her voting record in parliament.

Their headline claim? That Ryan has “voted with the Greens 77 per cent of the time” — a figure designed to stoke fears of a Labor-Greens-teals minority government.

“Don’t risk it,” the pamphlets warn.

Ryan – who is being challenged by Liberal candidate Amelia Hamer in the seat – has hit back, labelling the campaign misinformation. In response, she issued a five-page pamphlet of her own, accusing the Liberals of spreading “egregious falsehoods”.

She points out she voted in favour of just 21 out of 37 Greens motions — that’s 56 per cent — citing figures also drawn from the Parliamentary Library.

So, who’s right? Well … both, kind of. Because they’re talking about two very different things.

Only MPs can request Parliamentary Library analysis — not journalists — but both the Hamer and Ryan camps have shared the data they got from the library with me. We’ve put together a few tables and graphs to show you the difference.

The 77 per cent figure comes from a dataset that measures how often Ryan’s votes in the past three years aligned with the major parties on all matters in parliament — not just on legislation. By this metric:

• Ryan voted with the Greens 77 per cent of the time;
• With Labor 44 per cent of the time;
• And with the Coalition 31 per cent of the time.

But this includes votes on everything — including procedural matters. These can be motions to extend debate time, move an amendment, or suspend standing orders. All are counted equally.

There’s a strong argument this is a blunt tool for understanding ideological alignment. For example, crossbenchers often support each other procedurally out of solidarity — even when they disagree on substance. This could look like Ryan backing Bob Katter’s right to propose an amendment, but then vote against that amendment.

When you narrow it down to substantive legislative votes, the picture shifts. According to the figures the Liberals are working off:

• Ryan voted with the Greens 86 per cent of the time to consider amendments, but only 64 per cent of the time to accept them.

• With Labor, she voted to consider amendments 43 per cent of the time and accept amendments 51 per cent of the time.

• With the Coalition, she voted to consider amendments 20 per cent of the time and to accept them 37 per cent of the time.

Ryan’s team argues a more accurate reflection of her record comes from looking at how she voted on motions according to who sponsored (or moved) them.

By that measure, across 504 votes in the past three years, Ryan voted:

• In favour of 51 per cent of Labor motions;
• 88 per cent of non-Green crossbench motions;
• 42 per cent of Liberal-National motions;
• And 56 per cent of Greens motions.

This dataset also includes procedural motions, so it carries similar limitations when interpreting ideology. But the Liberal argument is that procedural motions can be political, too — suspending standing orders or ruling that a member be no longer heard are, in their view, strategic moves used to achieve political outcomes.

Whether you agree or not, the key point is this: both sides are using the same pool of votes and slicing them to suit their narrative.

It’s a classic case of selective data storytelling — and a timely reminder of how statistics can be used to shape political messaging.