Thursday, 31 October 2024

Bills

Transport Infrastructure and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Danny Pearson:

That this bill be now read a second time.

David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (10:23): I rise to kick off our contribution from the opposition side on the Transport Infrastructure and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. Can I say at the outset we have seen a number of major projects in this state, and we certainly support the need for major projects – doing them properly, doing them so it benefits the whole state and ultimately doing them in such a way where we do not have the kinds of blowouts we have been experiencing. So when the government are proposing the kind of legislation that we are seeing today it did prompt my attention to think that maybe after 10 years of financial incompetence when it comes to these major projects we will finally see some efficiency, some ways of being able to deliver these projects better. We have seen $40 billion worth of blowouts on these major projects under Premier Allan, because we know that Premier Allan in addition to being the Premier for the last 12 months was a major projects minister for the nine years prior. We have a Premier that has been responsible for the Big Build that has left Victorians with a big bill that we are all still paying for and we will be paying for decades to come. But on top of that we have been calling for better ways to do things, so it did spark my attention in terms of this Transport Infrastructure and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill.

Initially it is about looking at the different agencies – how we consolidate the agencies, how we fast-track the ability to look at major infrastructure through transport corridors – because at the moment we have different agencies that are responsible for it. We have got the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009, we have got the Suburban Rail Loop Act 2021 and we have got the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986. There are a number of agencies and people that are responsible for ensuring that there is transport infrastructure when you are building new infrastructure throughout the state. This was sold to us about how we can do this in a better way, in a more timely way, so we do not see the kind of time blowouts that we have seen for the last 10 years under the Allan Labor government.

The problem with this bill is it fails one key thing, which is the most important of all: it fails to consult with the public. It actually cuts Victorians out of the equation, and if you did not have to worry about voters and you just had a state and that is all you had to do, then this would be great. And if you just said, ‘We’re just going to build infrastructure, and we don’t care about where people live, we don’t care about what we do to people’s backyards, we don’t care about their sporting fields and we don’t care about their community facilities, their hospitals or their schools. We just want to build infrastructure,’ this would be great. But it is not, and unfortunately this bill should be renamed the ‘Local Voices Ignored Bill’, because local voices have been ignored. Third-party rights have been ignored. The ability for community, for councils, to raise issues when it comes to land acquisition, when it comes to various agencies coming onto their land and when it comes to easements and the acquisition of easements is ignored. Local voices have been ignored again.

The other really important thing about this bill, which leaves locals and residents and Victorians out in the cold, is that this really is not a transport infrastructure planning bill, but this is all about housing, a housing bill, and building sky towers throughout many of the suburbs and the precincts. And so the government needs to call this what it is, because what it is giving for the first time is unfettered powers to the Premier, to the minister, to literally declare any precinct they like, and no matter where you might live, you can wake up tomorrow and all of a sudden you have got a whole lot of issues dealing with where you live and what you live and how you live because your backyard has become part of a precinct. So that is concerning, and we know that the government had eight initial priority precincts – and the Minister for Precincts is at the table at the moment – and many of those eight precincts are absolutely prime for development, prime for high-rise, great opportunities, but have been missing in action for quite some time. That was one of the key things with Arden, with the hospital: now the hospital is gone, how do we fill the housing in with it?

So these particular existing precincts that have been there for a long while were a great opportunity for the government to put housing into them, but they have failed, and now all of a sudden after 10 ‍years we are meant to believe that we are going to have a magic pudding and all of these 80,000 ‍homes that the government has promised – 800,000 homes over 10 years – are going to happen. We know they are not going to happen, because the government themselves have readjusted that figure. That initial press release has vanished into thin air, and now we have a different set of numbers in terms of what the government wants to deliver on housing.

No-one believes that they are going to actually deliver the housing that they promised, but on top of the eight precincts we have now got seven Suburban Rail Loop precincts. Within those SRL precincts, we know that the government has said that as part of the $34.5 billion – hang on a minute – $40 billion, because the Premier herself has said that all the major projects since 2021 have gone up by over 20 ‍per cent except the Suburban Rail Loop. No-one believes that the Suburban Rail Loop will be delivered for $34.5 billion. I am willing to bet whatever you like on it. If anyone from the government wants to have a bet with me that SRL East will be delivered for $34.5 billion, I am happy to give you good odds. That will not be delivered for that money, like every single major project – $40 billion worth of blowouts. No-one believes this government could deliver anything on time or on budget.

The West Gate Tunnel has had over $4.7 billion worth of blowouts and is three years late. We are told today that they are putting a whole lot more staff on to try and get that thing finished. Of course that is going to cost more. No-one believes, and yet the Minister for Transport Infrastructure came out today and said, ‘No, it’s not going to cost anyone any more money.’ Less than a month ago, on grand final eve, we were told that the Metro Tunnel has to be rescoped with more money – $800 million. The reason why? It is the Ukraine war and Gaza. That is what has caused those blowouts. No-one believes a thing this government says when it comes to these major projects. We know that because Labor cannot manage money, and Victorians again pay for it on absolutely everything.

Those SRL precincts, which I will call at $40 billion for argument’s sake – there is meant to be a third of that money in value capture. What does that mean for the listeners out there or those that live around those precincts? What that means for the areas of Cheltenham, Clayton, Monash, Glen Waverley, Burwood and Box Hill is that somehow $11.5 billion-plus needs to come from those that live within those precincts in some kind of tax. Call it what you like, someone has got to pay for this. We know that a third of it from the federal government – $11.5 billion or thereabouts – has not been committed for that project yet either. But we do know, because the government have said so and the Premier said in question time a few question times ago, that they will be following a similar model to Sydney when it comes to value capture. These high-rises – as part of this bill making way for the high-rises in these areas – will come with a tax bill. It will come with a tax bill and Victorians will pay for it.

Do not believe for one minute that this is affordable housing – not for one minute. Just talk to Michael Buxton and other key people who know about this stuff and who deal with this stuff. They will tell you that any of these apartments you will not get for under $1 million.

Members interjecting.

David SOUTHWICK: It is clear. The government are very keen to interject and carry on when you have got these experts that are telling you that this is wrong. We have had it from a whole range of experts that have said that this project does not stand up.

When it comes to the Suburban Rail Loop, it is underfunded, it is undercosted and ultimately Victorian taxpayers will pay for it as part of the third that they need to get the project on the ground. On top of that there are 25 station activity centres which have also been committed to, with another 25 to come. We have seen that. We have had a number of these announced already, and we have seen the Premier announcing some of these activity centres, including making an announcement in Brighton. Now, Brighton is a neighbouring electorate to mine – great. But who believes for one minute that you stick a sky tower up in Brighton and that is going to be affordable housing? Because the whole idea is to get young people into homes. So why would you put that in places like Brighton when we know the land already –

A member interjected.

David SOUTHWICK: The land you can find, if you can find it. The cost of that will mean that these projects do not stack up, and the ones that are going to be living in them will have paid well and truly $1 million, $2 million or $3 million-plus. We have seen that in some of the stamp duty stuff. We have seen some of the apartments in terms of benefiting from stamp duty will be worth several million dollars. So the government has no idea in terms of affordability and homes. They are lacking in the growth corridors; they are lacking in terms of getting these projects off the ground.

I know because in Caulfield we have had our fair share in places like Elsternwick, which has had some significant towers, and in Caulfield East. There have been significant towers with Caulfield train station. Many of those projects – including Caulfield East’s Caulfield station, a project of about 16 ‍storeys – were ready to go even before the government green-lit this new project plan that they have. It is ready to go, and it is not being built. It is not being built, even though the plan is ready to go. The question is: why? It is a very, very simple answer. They just do not add up at the moment because the cost of construction – the cost to build it – and the cost of taxation in our state are too high to get some of these projects over the line.

This is the irony of this bill. This bill is meant to be about ensuring that transport infrastructure planning is ready to go to make it more efficient to be able to do this, but really what it is doing is it is making an opportunity for the housing plan that this government has, not understanding that the one magic thing that the government could do is better plan their transport. If you had a situation where you did not have the Melbourne Metro Tunnel, which has blown out by at least $4.7 billion; the West Gate Tunnel, which has blown out by over $4 billion dollars and is three years behind schedule; the North East Link, which has blown out by $16.2 billion and is 1½ to two years late; our level crossing removals, which are another story in terms of the $3.3 billion, which I will come to in a minute; and the Suburban Rail Loop – who knows what that is going to blow out to. All of these projects I have just mentioned – Metro Tunnel, West Gate Tunnel, North East Link, the level crossings and Suburban Rail Loop – are all projects happening right now.

The government will turn around and say, ‘Isn’t that great? That’s fantastic.’ But why do you think that housing affordability is out of the reach of most Victorians? You cannot get a tradesman and you cannot get materials because they are all working on these projects. We have been told this by so many carpenters, by so many builders and by so many in the industry who say, ‘I can’t get a carpenter on a house and land for $70,000 because they’re being paid $180,000 on the Big Build.’ We have even had family businesses that say to their son that has done the apprenticeship to be a carpenter – their mum and dad have had to say, ‘Goodbye. Go off and work on the Big Build because you are going to get paid 2½ times as much.’ That family business is struggling to survive because they cannot get labour. Is it any wonder why the government had to rip up their press release to say they were going to build 80,000 homes a year. It just cannot happen, and it cannot happen because you cannot get the labour.

The story today on the West Gate Tunnel is exactly that. They are trying to recruit whoever they can: ‘Come and work on this project, because it’s already three years late. Come and work on it so we can cut the ribbon by next year. We don’t care what it costs; just come and work.’ I tell you what, I would love to be in the situation that I had so much money that I could say to people, ‘How much do you want? Here’s a cheque. Go for your life and build it. I don’t care. Just get it built quickly.’ That is what the Allan Labor government have done: no care and no responsibility. That is what they have done: absolutely zero. They are spending money like there is no tomorrow. We know the debt crisis they have had, and we know what the implication is for each and every Victorian that has been signed up to a lifetime of debt thanks to this incompetent Labor government. We see it on every major project.

The Premier should not be patting herself on the back. It should be little wonder that in question time we ask financial questions of the Premier and the Premier is completely out of her depth. The Premier needs a calculator. The Premier needs the Treasurer’s help – heaven forbid. The Premier needs whatever help she can get. But I tell you what, when it comes to managing money, this Premier has no idea about managing money because unfortunately the Premier has never had to. That is symbolic of this government, and that is a problem every single time under Labor. It is really sad that the Liberals and Nationals have to always come in and fix up the mess of Labor because Labor are reckless when it comes to managing money. I know they do not like to hear it, but I tell you what: every time I go out not just in my electorate but across the state, I keep hearing time and time again, ‘Why are we broke? Why are we financially bankrupt? Why is this government continuing to mismanage money? Why do we keep having to pay so much money for these projects?’ And there is one common denominator: Premier Allan and the Allan Labor government. That is what is common to all of this. That is the problem with this particular government.

So these precincts, as good as they might be, will not be delivered in terms of what the government is aiming for until they actually take their foot off the accelerator and start to plan these projects better. The problem with all of that is what money we will have left over when it comes to doing this, because a lot of people have left the state and a lot of trades have left the state. And I can tell you a lot of the industry bodies – and I spoke to Consult Australia the other day – and a lot of the big contractors and the engineering firms working on these projects are saying, ‘You know what, we’re worried about how this is all being managed as well. We’re looking to other places as well. We’re looking to new energy because we don’t believe there is a future in all of this in Victoria because Victoria have run out of money.’

The level crossings are a classic example, and I will say that in terms of the level crossings they were a good idea. I support them and I have supported them. This government likes to rewrite history, but going into the 2014 election, I remind the government that we went for initially 40 level crossings being done properly and undergrounded, and the government went for 50. So they had more, but theirs were actually going to cost less because many of them were done above ground. That is fine, because some of the sky rail stuff has worked well in some areas, but some of it has not, and I draw the house to a couple of examples, Brunswick being one:

Brunswick sky rail plans put station metres from apartment windows

Residents in a Brunswick development celebrated for its livability say they are “astonished” by plans to build an elevated train station just metres from some of their bedroom windows.

This is not the first time this has happened, but it is just a classic case of zero planning and ultimately Victorians being left in the dark in terms of having to deal with it.

That is not the only one. We have another situation where in Keon Parade we had a former Darebin councillor who was part of a group of owners who expressed their frustration with their unexpectedly intrusive neighbour, the rebuilt Keon Park train station, which opened in June. Again, in Reservoir the station has been demolished and rebuilt, with elevated tracks 100 metres closer. In both of these situations –

Members interjecting.

David SOUTHWICK: It might be funny for the government, but I tell you what, it is not funny for those residents that have to wear earplugs and noise-cancelling headphones because of the trains coming by. The government’s solution is, ‘You know what, we’ll give you the noise-cancelling headphones and we’ll pay for those.’ In one instance they wanted some double-glazed windows and the government said, ‘Well, we won’t pay for those.’ I mean, this is appalling. It is just bad planning. So when you have got situations like those proposed by this bill, which are intrusively coming into people’s properties and into their neighbourhoods, there is a real concern.

I finally want to get to this because the bill ultimately needs improvement, and the only way to fix this bill is to ensure that there is transparency and that ultimately Victorians get a say. So I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government commits to conducting community consultation on each major precinct project declaration enabled by this bill.’

This is really important, and I would hope that the government support what we are putting forward today in this reasoned amendment, because this is about each and every one of your constituencies and ensuring that locals get a fair say. I know that the member for Box Hill would be very, very supportive of this, because in his situation with the Suburban Rail Loop we had a number of businesses in Box Hill that were meant to be evicted, and all of a sudden they got a stay of execution just last week to say, ‘You know what, you can stay for another nine months.’ Many of these businesses are up in the air in terms of what this actually means for them.

We also have a family who have got 13 townhouses which are meant to be demolished, nearby in Burwood. He is still waiting to understand what is going to happen with that as well. Michael Yu is trying to find a location for his restaurant, and he is up in the air in that he does not have a new restaurant in terms of where he is going to be, but he has been given the letter in terms of his Qipo Skewer Bar on Whitehorse Road and was informed that he has been given another nine months.

Well, that might be great, but the devil is in the detail – what does this mean? We do know that as part of this bill the government can come into certain properties, into yards, and look at easements. They may not necessarily purchase the whole lot as part of the acquisition; they may only need a certain part of it. This could leave people like Michael and the others with those townhouses with only a partial acquisition of their property, and that is a question we have put forward to the government: what does that mean in terms of the acquisition piece? What does that mean in terms of some of these easements? What does that mean in terms of coming into businesses and coming onto premises?

A number of the suggested parts of this bill look at things like timing as to when people come onto the premises. We will be putting forward a whole lot of changes to that, because we do not feel that it is right to give people seven days notice and 30 days notice before literally coming onto someone’s property, coming into someone’s house and starting to look around and determine what they are going to do with your backyard, what they are going to do with a council hall, what they are going to do with all of this. We have heard already from a number of people that have concerns with this.

I want to point out a couple of stakeholders particularly. I know the government take issue with Professor Michael Buxton, who is a great authority on this stuff, but he has consulted with colleagues on this. He did say that a lot of other people in the urban statutory planning sector, a lot of experts in this sector, were not even consulted on this bill and had no idea that the bill was actually coming. He did express concern at the role that legislation could play in allowing unfettered ministerial authority and approval of buildings, which would shut down community voices. Professor Michael Buxton said this would shut down community voices. He said the legislation gives additional direct powers to the government to approve the construction of non-transport-related structures in the SRL precincts and activity precincts. The intention of the legislation does not make this clear, and the government may not intend to use it or approve a private sector development in precincts. However, the legislation seems to apply in principle to the approval of other developments or works apart from the SRL infrastructure – that is, to residential or commercial buildings in declared precincts. He went on to say the new legislation gives the Premier and the project minister broad powers for development approval for an as-of-right or permitted application. There are few prohibitions to commercial zones, usually no mandatory height controls and the six-storey control would need to be mandatory for higher developments to be prohibited.

Also, talking to the Municipal Association of Victoria, clause 22 makes changes to activities that are typically managed under the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986. The clause appears to provide the government or those authorised – get this – to occupy and carry out works on private land in declared precincts by giving them 30 days notice. The MAV questions why such a short notice period is given for landowners and why the government should not follow through with transparent compulsory acquisition processes to ensure procedural fairness and to not pre-empt outcomes of that process. That is what we call fairness – local voices, transparency – which this government seems to know nothing about.

Clause 45 provides seven days notice to enter private and council land to undertake, amongst other things, soil boring, geotechnical and site survey works, ecological and archaeological surveys and utilities and contamination surveys. The MAV questions the tight timeframes of this and why the government has not provided any information on what rights of review a person or council might have. Again, what ability do councils or locals have in terms of appeal? Under this bill: zero. That is why we are suggesting the amendment that we are. In addition, obviously this will cause disruption to business operations on private and council land. The MAV also notes that this is not the first time the Victorian government has sought to expand its approval powers through an expedited omnibus approval process. For example, the Victorian government has expedited precinct planning processes in the Suburban Rail Loop Act 2021. These changes sidelined local government and community oversight for the strategic project of the SRL.

This is really important because the actual consultation was open during the time of council elections, so you could not even have councils appeal a lot of this stuff. Councils had no ability to contribute to the SRL precincts, and this will happen again; the government has not learned from its mistakes. So we will be suggesting to extend some of those consultation periods, which we will look at possibly and debate in the upper house after this, should this bill go forward.

But I just say this in conclusion: this is a poorly thought-out bill. It really does not take into any consideration local voices. We have just seen so many times Victorians being absolutely silenced, sidelined – on many, many occasions. I have seen it in Elsternwick, I have seen it in Glen Huntly and I have seen it on just about every level crossing – Progress Street, Surrey Hills, Ringwood East – there are so many situations with level crossings where people have not been consulted properly. Small businesses are still not recovering. Glen Huntly Road, Glen Huntly – still not recovering. Why? Because this government does not listen. They just want to do their own thing.

I will finish where I started: this would be a good bill if there were no Victorians living in Victoria. It would be a good bill if no Victorians were living here, because then you could just do what you like, and it would not impact anybody. But the unfortunate – or actually, on our side of politics, the fortunate thing is that we are all about people. We are all about caring and listening to people. The Allan Labor government could not give a toss about people, and this bill absolutely shows that. They could not give a brass razoo about Victorians. They do not care. They do not care about the money that they waste, they do not care about the blowouts and they do not care about giving locals the opportunity to have a say. Victorians are being silenced by this bill, and that is why, unless this reasoned amendment is supported, we will oppose it.

Josh BULL (Sunbury) (10:53): I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to debate on the Transport Infrastructure and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, a bill that is about both communities and major projects – a bill that is not about Professor Michael Buxton, member for Footscray. It is always interesting to follow on from the member for Caulfield, who sort of parks himself there at the front table and tries in every single way to block, stop and oppose the major projects that Victorians voted for and of course this Allan Labor government is delivering. We know and understand that these major projects support local communities, help people get to where they need to go and, on the journey, create thousands of jobs in the process. We know that when those opposite had four years to be on this side of the house, to be in government, what we saw was of course very little. Dithering, incompetence, inertia – a whole range of adjectives could describe what we saw in this state. There are of course more. I was reminded as the member for Caulfield was on his feet about the printing of the airport rail tickets for Melbourne Airport rail and of platform 9¾ out of Harry Potter, member for Footscray, where the trolleys are pushed through the wall and, mythically, you end up at Hogwarts.

What we have seen from those opposite and what we saw for those four years, not just from a local perspective as a local member but right across the state, was of course a policy vacuum and a major transport project vacuum. There was nothing in the cabinet. There were no major projects that were delivered. The member for Caulfield maybe half believed he could come into this place and perhaps point to some of those projects that had been started – maybe Metro Tunnel. As I was travelling from Sunbury this morning on a very fine train service, I thought maybe I would have been going through the Metro Tunnel already if those opposite had got their house in order and perhaps started a major project in our state.

Fast forward to November 2014, when we were fortunate enough and thankful to win the election. From day one we set about a strong, bold, ambitious plan to get on and deliver not just Metro but level crossing removals right across the state, the delivery of the North East Link and the delivery of the West Gate Tunnel, which are transformative projects that have set us up to do exactly what has been done in the last week by the Premier. And what, Deputy Speaker, I hear you ask, is that? They are the announcements around housing and transformative announcements around activity centres, making sure that we can provide homes and opportunities for so many people around our major transport projects. This of course could not have happened had it not been for the strong and sustained investment in these major projects. We know and understand that next year when Metro opens and when the West Gate Tunnel opens these will be opportunities that will help every single Victorian get to where they need to go and provide skills and opportunities for so many.

Just on Friday night I had the opportunity as the parliamentary secretary to attend the National Association of Women in Construction Awards ceremony, and what particularly stood out for me were the training opportunities, the new skills and all of the things that were provided through working on many of the transport projects that those opposite oppose, knowing and understanding that these are new skills and an ability to work on what are incredible projects across our state. There is a really long shopping list.

Why would we possibly as a government want to connect transport, planning and housing? Why would you want to do that? Well, it ensures that you get to live in a place where you can access transport to see family, to see friends, to go and study – to do all of the things that you need to do. What we see time and time again from those opposite is they come into this place and they rant and they rave about housing and they carry on like I have never seen. The Premier goes out and makes terrific announcements around housing, and they are all terrible. They rant and they rave about major transport projects, and they come in here and it is not good enough. It is astounding.

Anyway, put all that aside, member for Frankston. We are focused on delivering the Metro Tunnel and delivering the West Gate Tunnel. I think we are up to 84 level crossings removed as we march towards 110 by 2030. Knowing and understanding that we are making these decisions each and every day is an important part of delivering for Victorians, and that, of course, ties in with livability. Speaking to local members and speaking to ministers – we have the very fine Minister for Development Victoria at the table, very hardworking – knowing and understanding the importance of those major projects is something that I am particularly proud of, and this government will continue to deliver. Making sure that the legislation and the framework are in place for us to be able to do that is indeed something that we remain focused on.

This piece of legislation amends the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009, the Transport Integration Act 2010, the Suburban Rail Loop Act 2021 and the Road Management Act 2004. All of these changes go to many of those propositions that I spoke about earlier in terms of declaration of particular parcels both within the transport grid and wider to build upon what is a really important network to provide opportunities and options and build upon the housing announcements that are being made this week.

We know that the delivery of these major transport projects is of course going to be a game changer – 97 kilometres of direct connection between the Sunbury line and the Cranbourne and Pakenham lines and those amazing five new stations. We know that next year this is going to be a game changer for our state. When you remove a level crossing in a local community you not only make that community safer and less congested, you open that community up for many other options – perhaps, member for Footscray, local small businesses that now will want to come to the area because there is more open space, it is safer and it is less congested. But apparently it is not good enough; apparently we cannot have that –

Mathew Hilakari interjected.

Josh BULL: Well, not the people of Victoria, because they have voted for us three times now. Those opposite yet again feel that they are on the money – they are always on the money – to come into this place and absolutely go to town on not just our major transport projects but the thousands of people who do the wonderful work of delivering them. As parliamentary secretary, one of the most rewarding, if you like, elements of the role is meeting the workforce that delivers our major projects and any project right across the state.

We remain committed to delivery. We remain committed to certainty. We know that our population is growing, and that is why this team and every single member on this side of the house are committed to ensuring that we are delivering – in transport, in education and in health – new opportunities and new choices and making sure that as those challenges arise we are equipped, we are ready and we are passionate to take those on. We are more than happy for those opposite to pick apart all of these processes, but we are focused on delivery and we are focused on speaking to people who always need a Labor government to stand with them, to stand for them, each and every day. Those opposite can keep doing what they do, and we will focus on getting things done.

Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (11:03): From listening to the member for Sunbury make his contribution, as others have, the member for Sunbury has lost sight of why he was elected to come to this place. He was elected to come here to be the voice for his community, and what I heard the member for Sunbury saying was, ‘We don’t care about people’s voices; we don’t care about people having a say. We are just going to get on and do what we want to do.’ That is something that is coming through from those on the other side of the house all the time – that they actually want to strip away people’s rights. This particular piece of legislation should be renamed the ‘no voice, no choice’ legislation, because this is about how you strip away people’s rights. This is about how you effectively create a socialist dictatorship here in Victoria and no-one actually has a say about what goes on, because it is ‘Get out of my way. We’re going to build this no matter what your rights are. No matter what your community thinks about it, we’re going to build it.’ From a country member’s point of view, we have already lived through this with VNI West, with some of the renewable infrastructure that is going into regional Victoria. Legislation has been passed that has stripped people of any rights they have to appeal against these processes, any rights they have to actually say anything about it.

I support the reasoned amendment by the member for Caulfield, but I suppose I would emphasise that conducting community consultation actually has to be about genuine consultation. I went to a meeting in Nanneella hall in my electorate recently, as there is a proposed wind farm. The proponent of that wind farm got up and gave the local community – a packed hall – who are very concerned about the lack of information around this particular project and what it may do to their community, a lecture: ‘We need this built so Melbourne can have some power, and you guys can just suck it up.’ That was basically what he said to this community. There was an audible groan out of that community about why someone should come along and say, ‘We are going to force this on your community because it is good for the state.’ Why should they have their community wrecked for someone else’s benefit and be told, ‘There is no genuine consultation involved here, and you have no right of appeal over these things’? That is what we are dealing with here with this legislation for the communities in Melbourne that are affected by this particular piece of legislation: ‘We are going to do this to you irrespective of what you think about it and irrespective of how you want your community to look into the future. We are just going to do this to you.’ That is the whole issue with the current attitude of the Allan Labor government to the community. It is ‘Get out of our way. We are going to do this. It’s good for you, supposedly. It’s supposedly good for you.’ Then the hook in it all is ‘Once we actually do it to you, we’re going to tax you more with the uplift in the value on your properties. So we’re going to do you over, and then we’re going to tax you more and do you over again.’ This is a bizarre way to run government in this state.

I will remind the members on the other side of the house that democracy is actually hard work. It means you have to actually work with people. You actually have to talk to people. You actually have to genuinely listen to people, not lecture them and say, ‘This is good for you and somehow you’ll just have to accept it.’ That is the whole thing that has been lost by those on the other side of the house. The arrogance of being in government for so long has taken over, and I would caution those on the other side to actually listen to their communities and let them genuinely be involved in the decision-making for their community, because they are the ones that live there. To give powers, total powers, to faceless bureaucrats in a high-rise office in Melbourne somewhere who do not live the issues in those communities is not going to wash over time. I caution those on the other side to question their leadership group and to question the decision-making process within the party. It seems that every time we have legislation come into this house around projects it is about how you take away the rights of Victorians, and I think you will find that Victorians have had enough.

If you have seen the recent media reports about VNI West – that powerline that is going to destroy communities across my electorate, across the member for Mildura’s electorate, across Ripon and across some of the seat of Lowan – they have had enough. They have had enough of the fact that they are being told, ‘This is going to happen to you no matter what.’ There is a large cohort of people along that powerline who are refusing to let the planners come in and have a look and actually go onto their property, because they just do not trust government. The trust in government has been destroyed by the way this government forces things on people. The word ‘consultation’ is about listening.

Jade Benham interjected.

Peter WALSH: The member for Mildura laughs because we sat through a meeting the other day where supposedly consultation was taking place, but it was actually lecturing. It was like you were in school and you were being lectured to by a teacher rather than having a conversation about what your community and you might want – in this case on your farm – and what the impacts will be if this project goes ahead. I have great sympathy for those communities who are going to be affected by this legislation, because we – the member for Mildura, the member for Lowan and me – are living this on behalf of our communities at the moment around VNI West. If it is a renewable energy project that is towers or solar, in some cases people have the right to say no. But for VNI West the right to say no and the right to appeal have been taken away, and what this legislation does is it does that for communities here in Melbourne.

That is why I would say that we need to rename this piece of legislation the ‘no voice, no choice’ legislation, because what this does is take away the community voice. People on the other side are shaking their heads. Actually read the legislation; listen to what the member for Sunbury said: ‘We’re going to get on with this no matter what people say.’ People’s voices are being taken away. This is no voice, no choice. Their voice is being taken away to have a say, and the choice of what their community will look like in the future is being taken away as well. So where you had a community with their shopping strips, with their social cohesion, this is going to be taken away by massive, big projects that they may not actually want in their community. They have spent their working lives saving up to get a deposit to buy a house, to live in the community they want to live in, and you guys on the other side are going to come in and you are going to destroy that community into the future. So I have great sympathy for our cousins in the city as to what is being done to them, because as I said, it is being done to us in country Victoria as well. That is why in November 2026 the arrogance of this government and the way they have lost touch with the people that they purport to represent in this state will be shown up by a change of government in Victoria, because people have had enough. Everywhere you go now, not only in your electorate but wherever you go in Melbourne, you talk to people and they say, ‘What do you do for a living?’ and you apprehensively might say you are a politician, because everyone has a low opinion of politicians. When you say you are actually a politician they say, ‘When are you going to get rid of this rotten, corrupt government here in Victoria?’ The first thing they always say is –

Members interjecting.

Peter WALSH: Yes, and you are not going to have them after November 2026, because you have lost touch with the people of Victoria. I remind the members on the other side of the house that they have lost touch with Victorians. They can sit there and arrogantly talk about the number of seats that the Labor Party has in Victoria, and they will not have that many after November 2026. I would make a bold prediction that those on this side of the house will be sitting on that side of the house after the next election because of the arrogance of the government and the way people speak about how they just take away their rights and say, ‘Get out of my way. We’re going to do this to you irrespective of what you think about it in your community.’ The communities will rise up; the communities will exercise their vote in November 2026 to say, ‘We are sick of being lectured to by an arrogant, out-of-touch Labor government, and we want to see change here in Victoria.’ That is the message that is coming through loud and clear, and this legislation – no voice, no choice – is just a classic example of that.

Colin BROOKS (Bundoora – Minister for Development Victoria, Minister for Precincts, Minister for Creative Industries) (11:13): Today will be the day that the Leader of the National Party goes down in history as saying ‘Mission accomplished’. The next election is already in the bag according to the Leader of the Nationals. This side of the house would not be so arrogant as to suggest the next election is in the bag for anyone, Leader of the National Party, but if you take the Victorian people for granted I am pretty sure they will let you know how you are travelling and they will let you know how you are going in relation to the next election.

I do not think you could have anticipated a more insipid performance from those opposite when it comes to transport and housing planning. When you have a policy vacuum like we see on the other side of the house you get that sort of mishmash – I heard the member for Caulfield talk earlier on, the lead speaker from the other side, going through a whole range of issues except dealing with the bill and dealing with transport and housing policy. He stayed completely away from the bill. And I was really interested to hear the member for Sunbury’s concise description of what this bill entails. If you look at the second-reading speech you will see the important work that this bill will do to ensure that we are able to deliver important transport infrastructure and in particular – surprise, surprise – deliver housing and transport near each other. It is an incredible thing to behold, but it seems to be a big problem for those opposite to actually comprehend the fact that the Victorian government would like to put housing and people near transport – it is an extraordinary concept. But that is exactly what this bill is about, and it is what a lot of the work that we have been doing in terms of solid policy work is all about, and when you hear those opposite talk on these sorts of pieces of legislation it is very clear that they have not got the policy work done. They are not engaging in the serious policy work – flipping through media clips and quoting so-called experts but no serious policy work actually done.

This is all about delivering transport infrastructure. It is all about delivering the housing and the planning approach that this government is setting forward. We make no apology for wanting to build more homes, more opportunity, so that people can live near transport and services and, importantly, near the people that they love and so that people are able to live in the areas that they have grown up in. Those opportunities are disappearing as our city and our state grows. It has become very clear over the last week and a half that this side of the house has got a plan to produce more housing and more opportunities for people and those on the other side of the house are going to block those opportunities and take those opportunities away from people.

The lead speaker for the opposition ran through the precincts that are either involved in the SRL project or come under my portfolio. I just thought I might touch on a few of those. I will not say that the member for Caulfield was deliberately misleading the house, but he was incorrect in a number of areas, so I just want to run through some of those. Let us start with Fishermans Bend. Fishermans Bend has a chequered history. Those on this side of the house might well remember the actions of a previous government. A current member of this house rezoned the whole of Fishermans Bend a capital city zone with one stroke of the pen without any concern for proper planning and provision of infrastructure. Schools? Do not worry about it. Footpaths and roads? Do not worry about it; the market will sort that out. Parks, open space, drainage infrastructure? No. It took the election of a Labor government to fix up Fishermans Bend.

And I should say it is interesting and worthy of note that that rezoning made the then treasurer of the Liberal Party very wealthy. That was an instant rezoning that was very attractive for the Mr Burnes who was then the treasurer of the Liberal Party, so one can only guess as to why those zoning decisions were made, because they made no policy sense at all. What we saw was the Labor government come in, take a step back and get the planning right, and of course we developed the Fishermans Bend Framework. The previous Labor government released it in 2018. The member for Albert Park is well versed in that document and the important investment in infrastructure that has taken place since then ‍– schools, bus services and the rollout of an orderly, planned approach to the Fishermans Bend precinct.

The member for Caulfield said we are not delivering housing. The Fishermans Bend precinct is on track to deliver the housing that was set out in the Fishermans Bend Framework by 2025 – 5000 ‍homes by 2025, so tick. That precinct is delivering, because of the investment and the planning of this government doing it properly, the housing that Victorians want in the Fishermans Bend precinct, predominantly around the Montague subprecinct, where there is an existing cluster of transport and services. That is a sensible way for that precinct to be developed, and it is the Labor government that is seeing that those housing opportunities are being delivered in that precinct in that way. As we move through the development of that precinct and the different subprecincts that are involved in it, we will see the rollout of more housing and more infrastructure.

The Sunshine–Albion precinct is an exciting opportunity for further development in our state. Eventually, over the long term, it should see some 20,000 homes developed in that subprecinct. We are engaging with the local community and engaging with local members of Parliament about the rollout of our plans in that particular precinct. Of course the Sunshine and Albion train stations will be on the Melbourne Metro line, so when the Melbourne Metro opens next year it will have access to that wonderful train line and that new tunnel running through Melbourne.

The Footscray precinct is an incredible precinct. The member for Footscray has been working very hard not just in terms of advocating for and seeing the delivery through of the $1.5 billion Footscray Hospital, the new hospital that is being built, an incredible new health facility in her electorate, but also talking with the local community and engaging with the local community about what happens on the old Footscray Hospital site. The local member of Parliament was very active in the engagement process that we had with the local community to understand what they wanted to see on that old site, and of course housing will be a key thing that the government wants to see there. But there have been a range of other community uses that have come through from the community consultation. We have released that for public consumption, and I just want to congratulate the member for Footscray, who has been a staunch advocate for community uses on that old hospital site, which served the community so well for so long.

Arden was mentioned by the member for Caulfield as well. Arden is a cracker of a precinct because it sits around a brand new metro train station. The Minister for Planning and I were out there the other day making an announcement. The planning minister was announcing the greenfield land supply for 10 years. We were in front of the Arden station. It is a wonderful metro train station that is just one stop from Parkville – one stop from one of the best biomedical education precincts in the world, with some of the best university facilities and great research facilities – and then just another stop on into the CBD, one of the greatest CBDs in the world. Arden is a great opportunity. We are out to market at the moment, so I will not go into great detail around Arden, but the opportunity is there that the market has seized upon. We released a shortlist of bidders who are working with us on that to deliver a range of uses around the Arden station, including of course housing.

I want to come to Docklands. It would be very easy for me in my criticism of those opposite to lump Docklands into the Kennett government’s bag of mistakes, but I have to say Docklands in my view is a precinct that is performing remarkably well, despite the criticism that some people will often level at it. I said in the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee that Victorians seem to have three things we love: our coffee, our AFL team and bagging Docklands. I do not know why, because Docklands is a great precinct. It is not just me saying that. There are lots and lots of people who want to live in Docklands, such that, bearing in mind there are about 10,000 homes in Docklands at the moment, there are about 7500 homes still to come. The planning minister is kept very busy considering planning applications in that precinct because there is strong demand in the Docklands area, which is right on the edge of the CBD and right on the edge of Southern Cross station. It is a great spot – who knew? It gets windy in winter, but it is a great precinct. We are investing in important facilities there. Importantly, we are looking at the future use of the central pier, which had to be removed because it was unsafe. We are looking at better transport connections and better facilities for local people in the Docklands area. The recent investment in Marvel Stadium has been a great attraction as well.

I want to talk quickly about East Werribee, which is another great precinct. I know the member for Point Cook is a big supporter of us working there. We have set up the consultation process there. That is an exciting precinct, with 400 hectares of developable land. The work is starting there. We are very close to kicking off first works there. There are a whole range of things that are happening across our precincts. My other agency Development Victoria is busy delivering homes in Sunshine North – 300 ‍homes in the LUMA development. At Olio in Officer there are 228 homes being delivered there. In Springvale South there will be 47 townhouses and 16 land lots. We are delivering at Riverwalk in Werribee and at Ivanhoe on the old water tank site there at the top of Upper Heidelberg Road. In Knoxfield we will see around 400 dwellings built there. This bill is about delivering transport and housing so that we can build a better city and a better state. Those opposite obviously do not have a policy response, because we have not heard it.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (11:23): I rise to speak on the Transport Infrastructure and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. We have heard from speakers throughout this debate and from the Premier over recent days that their policy announcements and responses are repeatedly about population growth. It has been the first sentence that has come out of the Premier’s mouth before every announcement, talking about the fact that she will grow Victoria and Melbourne to the size of London. That has been the first sentence that has come out of the Premier’s mouth. Currently metro London has 15 million people and Melbourne has 5 million. That would be a threefold increase to the size of this city. That is the sentence that has come out of the Premier’s mouth. What the Premier has not said but is absolutely true is that if we follow the government’s path, we will sacrifice the livability of this city for population growth – if we follow the Premier’s path. We have seen it, because this was the most livable city in the world. It is now no longer the most livable city in the world.

Do you think dealing with population by saying we are going to put half of Melbourne’s population growth into three council areas is going to fix it? Of course it will not. It is shocking policy. What this particular bill does is say, ‘If you are based around an SRL-declared location, you have effectively all rights removed.’ This bill includes things like compulsory land acquisition and removal of rights in relation to compulsory acquisition. It is a total takeover of the land up to almost 2 kilometres around the sites – not at the sites, 2 kilometres away. In Bayside it is the communities 2 kilometres away. In those sites there are 200,000 people affected. In the first 10 major activity centre announcements almost 200,000 people are affected. In the next 25 that were announced roughly half a million people are affected. These decisions have affected roughly 1 million people. So 1 million people who are living around the major activity and Suburban Rail Loop zones have no rights.

This has never been done in this country – never been done. There has never been a wholesale takeover of the rights of the community from the planning system, because every other government – Labor or Liberal – has understood the importance of community over government. Communities include the people who build those communities around them. The people who live there have built them. They run the shops and they employ the locals. At no time has a government said, ‘We on high know better than you about your future, and we will take away all rights from you in the name of population growth.’ What that will do is sacrifice the livability of our city. You can see it because it has already gone down.

What is so pernicious in the government’s decisions is they are based in politics – of course they are. You have got a minister talking about high-rise development and its importance, except in her own seat. She is against high-rise development in her own seat and a number of years ago talked about being opposed to a 10-storey development. We could not have a 10-storey development because it would affect the local amenity and neighbourhood character – but she is happy for 20 elsewhere. ‘Just not in my seat,’ says the minister. The reference I just gave was a few years ago. I will give credit. What I will then also refer to is three years ago the minister being opposed to three storeys. The minister opposed three storeys in her own seat three years ago. There are pictures on the web for everybody to see. What the government is now allowing to be built is six storeys for almost a kilometre around every major activity centre – six storeys – but not three in the minister’s seat. What a hypocrite. That is outrageous. That was three years ago, and the government comes in here and says to the three council areas that are going to cop it, ‘Bad luck.’ But three storeys in her own seat – no. That was three years ago – absolutely outrageous.

What this bill does is take away the power of community, and no government should ever think they are more important than the community. That is what this bill does at its core. And I am certain that Victorians and Melburnians will turn and see this. It has never been done before because no-one will accept it. No-one will accept having no say, and within a year all of these communities are going to start to see six storeys being proposed in their streets and they are going to say, ‘Well, it’s the Premier.’ And it is the Premier, who, by the way, is 150 kilometres away. The Premier is wrecking Melbourne and does not live here. The Premier is wrecking Melbourne from 150 kilometres away. What a disgrace. Labor talk about the fact that they stand up for their communities. Do you think I am ashamed to stand up for my own community? Are you joking? I will stand up for my community every single day, and I am going to call out what the Premier is doing from 150 kilometres away, not from Melbourne. The Premier is going to be on her pension by the time this stuff is imposed, out on her pension 150 kilometres away. That is where the Premier is going.

The Premier is stuffing half of Victoria’s population growth into three council areas. It is outrageous what the Premier is doing, but Victorians will see it. Victorians will see it once they understand that they have no rights. Just initial mapping in my own electorate shows there is unlikely to be one street where these new powers are not overlaid – in an entire electorate, not one street. How is that acceptable, to think that the entire electorate is a major activity zone? It is absolutely outrageous to take away the rights of a whole community purely because of politics, purely because of the Premier’s envy, from 150 kilometres away, for population growth and the sacrifice of livability.

But it is not just that, it is also the oversight, and we saw only yesterday the minister announce the approval of a project that went across her desk from a Labor Party donor. And that is what we are going to start to see. We are going to start to see approvals going through the minister’s desk with no probity or oversight, and there should be. Of course there should be; you cannot have an entire system taken through the minister’s desk. Where is the probity in that, a Labor Party donor getting the tick from the minister? There is no probity or integrity in that.

This bill is a disgrace. What the government is doing to the community – a million people – is an absolute disgrace. Victorians are going to see it and they will not allow their livability to be sacrificed, especially when the Premier who is announcing and approving lives 150 kilometres away from the city she is wrecking.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (11:33): Well, I know what can destroy livability, and that is not providing great public transport. It does take good planning and good housing and other matters and not only thinking of the boomers but also thinking of future generations, because if we just left it up to the opposition they would happily abandon them, based on the dearth of policy and of thinking – even thinking – about possibilities for changing our city in a way that means that millennials are actually given a chance, given a go, and that younger generations are able to get into the market. And I have actually had really positive feedback with the recent housing announcements, in particular from younger people saying, ‘Thank you; you’re giving us hope. I’ve actually got a chance to get into the market, a chance to perhaps live near where I work as well.’ So they will not necessarily, but it is about diversity. It is about having choice, because some people might want to live in the outer regions of Melbourne because there are many benefits to living in some sort of regional space et cetera, but there are also those like me who live right smack bang in Southbank in a 37-storey building. So when we talk about six storeys et cetera, I suppose it is all relative. But the point is having choice, and unless we invest in appropriate infrastructure we cannot give people choice, because they will all be relegated to cars.

I heard a lot of this feigned care for people and so-called rights, which I think are being bandied about in a way that I am not sure is necessarily constructive. Is it caring to condemn future generations to a life of gridlock? I do not think that is very caring. And I know that there was another point made about setting up major infrastructure divorced from community. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is not a day that goes by when I do not have people in the community who are more and more keen to use public transport and be less reliant on cars, because they do not necessarily like sitting in their car for 1, 2 hours a day, maybe even 3 hours a day, to and from where they work. And there are also a lot of advantages when you can live in an activity centre particularly, where you have everything you need in close proximity, which means less time travelling and more time actually with family as well.

I did want to pick up on the point about Fishermans Bend. Unfortunately, when it was rezoned under the Liberal government they forgot about things like schools – I don’t know, who needs a school? Who needs a school or sporting grounds? The SES needs somewhere to go – who knew? These are some of the pragmatic elements, and also of course transport planning, to make sure that people can actually move around where they live. So that is why our government has done the work, rigorous planning work, and engaged with community on it and sought their feedback and their input, because they are living in those areas. I should say specifically I am zoning in on Fishermans Bend but not exclusively, because this bill has a bigger and broader premise to it.

I have to say, as part of implementing improved transport infrastructure, since 2022 almost 1500 extra bus services have been delivered for Fishermans Bend, and it is really working on that turn-up-and-go premise. And, guess what, government actually liaised with the local industries in Fishermans Bend to say, ‘What are your needs? What do your workers need to be able to get in and out efficiently from Fishermans Bend?’ Some will live there, some will not. So there are the 235, the 237 and the 606. And I have to say, as an added bonus with the 606, because that actually has a different trajectory, it goes down to Elsternwick station, and a really nice benefit of that is that it gives uplift to that particular service, which I have to say used to lag. I remember sitting and waiting for that bus – it could have been 30, could have been 40 minutes – in the cold at night, which was not particularly pleasant. But it has actually been really terrific for the schoolkids, because there is now greater frequency on that particular bus service, and so I got some really lovely feedback. Who knew that community might actually be connected to their transport services and might really care about being able to have an efficient way to get around our wonderful city.

It does upset me a bit. I know the previous speaker was talking about ‘Oh, Melbourne’s been destroyed’, liveability et cetera. This is a pretty fantastic place to live, and so talking down our magnificent city and state, I take exception to that. But the integral corollary of that is making sure that we have the appropriate infrastructure to be able to support the growth of the city into the future and thinking about not just those who already are well settled and have homes but also current and future generations. And maybe more people can actually live close to their parents – assuming they get along; this is all about choice of course. But how nice it is to be able to live close to your family. I think for future generations that sounds like a pretty decent idea.

I was looking at the reasoned amendment and I was thinking, ‘Okay, I get that you can paint a picture here trying to look like you as the opposition are really out there fighting for community. But, let’s see, what have you opposed? Metro Tunnel, West Gate Tunnel and every single level crossing.’ They have form, and that is why we are sort of like, ‘Another reasoned amendment?’ I do not know the motivation here. I am really curious, because they are painting themselves as the saviours of communities, but they do not really want to invest in the transport that our communities actually need and also the housing that is going to enable more Victorians to get into homes, whether they are buying or whether they are renting. I am just going to raise that question.

If you look at the history of the opposition when it comes to major infrastructure projects and housing and even planning – planning properly – I know that in Albert Park there has had to be a lot of retrofitting because a lot of schools were closed under the Kennett government. It is actually much more expensive to have to buy the land well after the fact, but we did it. Our government did it because, I do not know, somebody did not think about the fact that if you have lots of people in a certain place they might want to send their kids to school locally. And we have wonderful local schools. If you are talking about South Melbourne Primary School, that is a vertical school – absolutely fantastic, an amazing school. I am going on a tangent, and I must not go too much on that tangent, but the phonics instruction there is next level. They are really surging ahead with that, and Noel Creece, the principal, is really proud, as he should rightly be, because he is doing the right thing by the students in the local community.

We also have South Melbourne Park Primary School. That had to be built as well because Mr Kennett forgot about the fact that communities need schools, and actually getting rid of them was not the sharpest or the most sound idea. But of course we are prepared to invest in our communities and to work with our communities to make sure that they have the services they need and the capacity to actually be able to live in a way that is suitable. And what do I mean by suitable? That you are not having to schlep long journeys in a car and that you actually have choice if you want to be able live close to where you live and work.

Another nice thing about the West Gate Tunnel Project: I met a local tradie who was working on that and learning how to be a good electrician. He actually had to go underground each day. It is quite an unusual process that perhaps someone like me would not be so used to. But what is really fantastic – the point of this – is that he is absolutely ecstatic to have this great opportunity to get his first leg in the door and get the skills he needs for the future. We know that if these major infrastructure projects were canned, thousands and thousands of Victorian jobs would simply go – they would be cut – and that would be absolutely devastating.

With the Labor Party we always look holistically at major infrastructure projects. We look at the housing opportunities and all the other infrastructure that people need in proximity to transport – whether it is hospitals or whether it is schools or so many of the things that regular, normal Victorian communities need because they are human beings. It is fundamental, isn’t it? It is fundamental. We are thinking about these things and working with the community.

Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (11:43): I rise to oppose the Transport Infrastructure and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 and support the reasoned amendment from the honourable member for Caulfield. My community is being asked to bear the brunt of this Labor government’s slackness over 10 years. Explain this to me: how is it that more homes were approved in the four years of the last Liberal–Nationals government than in 10 years under this government? This government have failed. They have absolutely failed. They have failed in the greenfields; they have failed in the brownfields. They have failed to listen. They have failed to learn. They have failed to act. Now a desperate Premier, who has not been able to do anything since she has become Premier, has thrown out her own lifeline – her political lifeline. She says, ‘I’m going to be the builder. I’m going to be the person who sticks high-rises all over Melbourne,’ as though that is going to do anything. This is the same Minister for Commonwealth Games Delivery who could not even deliver a Commonwealth Games. Let us see how many homes are actually delivered by the time of the next election, because I do not think there are going to be too many. I think all the millennials this government cynically think they are pitching to are going to look around at the next election and say, ‘Where are these homes you promised?’ The fact is, they are not going to be there.

If you want to take the example of the recent announcement that Malvern station is going to be one of the areas where there is going to be heightened development, there is already a 17-storey apartment building going up behind it – 17 storeys. Do you know what the entry level for that apartment building is? For a one-bedroom, one-bathroom apartment it is $739,000, not including stamp duty. You will get no change out of three-quarters of a million dollars for a one-bedroom apartment. Do you know too many millennials who have three-quarters of a million dollars and, if they do, want to live in a one-bedroom, one-bathroom apartment? This is not about affordable housing. It is not about housing choice. It is about looking after Labor’s big developer mates.

I am delighted that the Minister for Planning is at the table, because she has just approved and rubberstamped a development proposal for 173 Burke Road in Glen Iris in my community – a development that was rejected by Stonnington council, a development that was rejected by VCAT. This minister has gone and rubberstamped it and given it approval despite the opposition from the local community and Stonnington council. Who is the developer? A donor to the Labor Party. What a surprise! Tens of thousands of dollars in donations from this donor to the Australian Labor Party and they get to bypass the normal processes, and this minister signs off on it. Where is the probity on that, Minister? That is disgraceful. It is absolutely disgraceful. Do not just ask me; here is what Stonnington council has said about it:

The State Government on Friday announced it had fast-tracked approval of development at 173 Burke Road, Glen Iris, that received a record number of community objections.

The City of Stonnington received 198 objections to the development when it was first considered through a 2021 planning application.

It goes on:

“The Council is concerned with what it considers is a poorly thought-out planning decision”, City of Stonnington CEO Dale Dickson said.

“The Council is of the view it is an overdevelopment that will place an unacceptable burden on local roads and infrastructure, impacting the amenity of residents now and into the future, including occupiers of the proposed new apartment complex.”

If you want an example of what this minister and this government are going to do to communities right across Melbourne, it is this. Ignore the fact that Stonnington council has knocked it back, ignore the fact that VCAT has knocked it back, and rubberstamp an approval through the back door over the minister’s desk from a big Labor Party donor. That is the way this government wants to do planning in this state.

Members interjecting.

Michael O’BRIEN: Minister, you can carry on about it all you like, but I am calling it out, because it is affecting my community. I am not copping it, and my community is not copping it. Donations for permits – clearly that is the way it works. This minister is the biggest hypocrite in the world, because when it came to objecting –

Lauren Kathage: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I believe the member is impugning the minister in relation to accusations of corruption.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): I do not think there was a point of order.

Michael O’BRIEN: This is the same minister who, in writing, objected – oh, my goodness – to a three-storey development in her own electorate. Five storeys is fine for Glen Iris, but three storeys is too much for Patterson Lakes. What an outrageous hypocrite this minister is. You cannot complain about three storeys in your own electorate while you are rubberstamping five storeys in someone else’s electorate that has been knocked back by VCAT after a 12-day hearing and knocked back by local council.

James Newbury interjected.

Michael O’BRIEN: But they did not donate. If the record number of objectors in Stonnington had donated, maybe they would have got a better hearing from this minister. Maybe they should have just signed up to the Labor Party and donated money to the Labor Party. That seems to be the way you get your development facilitation program permits through this government. What an absolute disgrace it is. The worst thing is if this minister and this government had the slightest interest in actually improving housing availability, do you know what, in my community they could have worked with the local council. We have a draft housing strategy already under development, which would actually lead to a really significant improvement and increase in property in my electorate. No-one is saying we cannot build. No-one is saying we do not need more homes – but work with the community. Stonnington council has already got a strategy to increase the number of homes without 20-storey towers looking into everyone’s backyard. This is a government –

Members interjecting.

Michael O’BRIEN: Oh, no 20-storey towers? We have got 17 storeys in Malvern. What makes you think we are not going to get 20 storeys? We have got 17 storeys in Malvern. Who says we are not going to get 20 storeys? We are going to have massive high-rise towers right throughout my electorate. Here are the areas that have been nominated by the government: Armadale, Darling, Gardiner, Glen Iris, Hawksburn, Malvern, Toorak, Toorak Village, Tooronga and Chadstone. Ten of the 35 are in my electorate, and this government says, ‘Oh, but look at all the investment we’re doing.’ They have nominated Tooronga train station as being one of the development location sites. Is the level crossing still there? Yes. Is Labor going to remove it? No. Look at Glen Iris station – another one that has been nominated by this government: up to 20 storeys. Is the level crossing still there? Yes. Is Labor going to remove it? No. So this is a government that continually wants to impose pain on communities without any investment.

When was the last time this government invested in one of my schools? I was at the Lloyd Street Primary School fair on Saturday, and I had a great chat with the principal, who is an excellent principal. They need a million dollars in maintenance funding just to be able to keep the place going. They get nothing from this government. This is a government that only takes and takes and takes from my community. They take taxes, they take everything. They give nothing, and now they want to impose the consequences of 10 years of doing nothing on housing strategy. They want to impose the pain of that on my community without any investment.

Is this government going to stand up and say, ‘Oh, look, we’ll remove the level crossing at Tooronga Road. We’ll remove the level crossing at Glen Iris station. That would be fair, wouldn’t it? If we’re going to impose a whole lot of high-rise, high-density overdevelopment housing in these areas, at least we’re going to get rid of the level crossings.’ No, they do not do that. They do not do that at all. This is a government that just takes and takes and takes and gives nothing back. This is the last roll of the dice for a Premier who has not been able to find herself for 12 months. She has now put all her eggs in the one basket. This is what she does. Whether it is Suburban Rail Loop or whether it is this housing strategy, it is a roll of the dice.

But my community has already seen the consequences of when a bad Labor government makes bad planning decisions that benefit Labor Party donors. We have seen that with this minister’s decision over 173 Burke Road, Glen Iris – not supported by the community, not supported by Stonnington council. The minister had a chance to actually say, ‘You know what, we’ve got this new DFP. We’re going to listen. We’re going to act properly,’ and they have not done that. They have chosen to do the bidding of their donors instead of listening to the council and listening to the community, and if the government thinks this is a vote winner for them, I say good luck to them. Because we are builders, and we demonstrated that when we were last in government. This is a government that is very good at ripping up contracts for things like the east–west link, but I tell you what, my community are not going to be the patsies that have to pay the price for this government being absolutely hopeless when it comes to planning and housing policy.

Bronwyn HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (11:53): What a selfish bunch they are in the opposition on the other side of this chamber. The gathering of people in Brighton really said it all: the visions of that, the selfishness, the greed. We have been listening to the member for Malvern talking about all the terrible things that Labor is doing across Melbourne – but it is not across Melbourne. What he is saying basically is, ‘Leave places like Malvern and Brighton alone that have all the infrastructure, all the good things that people need. Don’t share them with anybody else. Send everybody that needs a house out to the outer suburbs,’ which I represent in the electorate of Thomastown, where the infrastructure is not there and in fact even if it was funded today, it would take years and years and years to build in order to provide the necessary services for people coming in. But young people, Victorians, need the choice. They need to be able to live, whether it is in Brighton, in Malvern, in Thomastown. They should have that choice, and they should be able to enjoy and share in the infrastructure that is already there and the infrastructure that all Melburnians should be able to have a piece of. It is just appalling, the scaremongering and the frightening and the peddling of this sort of rubbish that is being conducted by the opposition, when we are trying to address the shortage of housing and ensure that young people can get a house, can buy their own home and can have the security of their own home.

In the Thomastown electorate I see the number of people coming into my office that cannot afford their rent anymore and are facing eviction or are living in their cars, and then we hear what the opposition talks about. We do not hear anything about homelessness from them. We do not hear anything about how the fundamental human right to have a roof over your head should be something that all Victorians, all Australians, should be able to expect and demand of their government. There is peddling of mistruths and rubbish from the opposition. The amendments that are contained in this bill are all about facilitating the delivery of infrastructure building. Yes, it may change some timeframes in terms of when notices are given and work is going to start, but in the main this legislation is administrative in the sense that it is about trying to make sure that work is done on time and on budget.

I would like to give a few examples of the problems that we have had in the past with the way infrastructure has been delivered in Thomastown on some great projects – for example, the O’Herns Road interchange, which was an election commitment that the opposition did not support at the time. That was in the election I think of 2018. There have been lots of removals of roundabouts and at least six brand new schools built in the outer suburbs. All of these infrastructure projects, once done, have been fantastic, but because of administrative problems in the past these projects have had problems. For example, we had generators running the lights at the Dalton Road–Childs Road intersection after removing the roundabout there, because the utility companies did not schedule in connecting the lights to power and there was nothing that could be done about it from government. We had to pass legislation to ensure that utilities and essential services were all part of the scope of a project to ensure that those sort of things did not happen again. This is what is going on with this piece of legislation as well.

We have done so much infrastructure building and learned so much from it, whether it is the level crossing removals, the schools or the huge projects. We have got the New Epping project in Epping, which provides affordable housing for many, many people in the area. From our experiences there are things that are delaying projects or making them cost more. We want to make sure there is legislation to stop those problems or blockages happening in the future. This is what this legislation does.

It also talks about ensuring that the Premier can declare a number of projects in one project rather than having to deal with each project separately. For example, we have got the Keon Park level crossing removal. That has already happened, but it was on the Mernda line. There are other level crossing removals such as the Bell Street one, Oakover Road and Murray Road. In the future those sorts of projects can be done as one big development that is of course much more efficient and takes up less organisational time. You would hope because of the economies of scale that you could do the work in a more efficient and less costly way.

I would also like to talk about the Epping Road duplication that is underway at the moment. That is again a huge project that is going to mean so much for residents once it is finished. I just have to give a shout-out to residents and thank them for their patience, because it has taken quite some time. Who knows, if this legislation had already passed, maybe it would not be taking as long as it is now. At the moment there are road closures and there are very low kilometre-per-hour restrictions, but people are getting through that because we know that that road, once done, is really going to free up some of the congestion in that area. But again, as an example, over time as the population has changed and moved, and since COVID, there has been a problem further up on Epping Road at Bridge Inn Road. This development we are doing goes to Craigieburn Road East, and there is probably another kilometre before Epping Road joins Bridge Inn Road. I see the member for Yan Yean is here. That section of road is not part of the scope of the Epping Road duplication, and because of the way the processes are structured and the fact that the project had already been scoped out, it was not possible to include that extra bit of road into the duplication program for Epping Road. Maybe, with legislation such as this, if it was already in force, that could have happened and therefore it would have addressed a change in population movement, the way people move around the area, and that may have been able to be included in the Epping Road duplication. Unfortunately it could not have been because it was not part of the original scope, and therefore that is something that we need to advocate for along with community members into the future.

This legislation, despite all the carrying on from the opposition, does not make huge changes; it does not take away the massive rights of people. There are still the environmental investigations that are required. There are still the same planning processes that we have to go through. This is all about making sure that our projects can be delivered even more efficiently than they are now. I know in the Thomastown electorate we continue to see building and building and more building, whether it is, as I said, the schools, the removal of the Keon Park level crossing, the duplication of Epping Road, the removal of roundabouts or community centres being updated and refurbished. For all of this work, what lies behind it is a lot of planning, a lot of technical work, but also there are a lot of legislative supports under those sorts of projects that have to be followed.

This legislation, in the main, is all about really how different government departments deal with each other. If the opposition were really serious about cutting red tape and ensuring that bureaucracies are more efficient, they would be actually supporting this bill and making sure that it passes this house as quickly as possible so that we can get on with the job of supporting Victorians, making sure that there are more homes for Victorians, there are more roads and there is more rail. Here we have got an opposition where all they do is whinge and complain about nothing being done, but every time we try to do something they are whinging and complaining about that as well. So really they are irrelevant to the progress of Victoria, irrelevant to Victorians, and we just are going to continue to get on with the work that we are doing: better housing, more housing, more infrastructure to support our communities, a better Education State with the building of all those fantastic schools such as Lalor Secondary, which I spoke about yesterday, and the great work they are doing and how the new school has actually transformed the way that the students at that school work and feel about themselves, which is great news.

Kim O’KEEFFE (Shepparton) (12:03): I rise to make a contribution on the Transport Infrastructure and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, a bill for an act to amend the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009, the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the Road Management Act 2004, the Suburban Rail Loop Act 2021 and the Transport Integration Act 2010 and for other purposes. The reforms in this bill will amend the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to enable the Premier to declare a development, a proposed development program or proposed works program to be a precinct project and to describe the area and land that will be used for that project. This highlights the total disregard for communities and local government, giving the Premier the right to pick and choose locations without community consultation. This takes the rights away, as I said, from local communities and local governments, who would normally know their communities so well and could actually contribute so much input to these consultations that will not be happening.

This is a poorly thought-out bill that does not give any consideration for local voices. I note the Minister for Transport Infrastructure in his second-reading speech states:

It is in the public interest to develop the infrastructure and places that are needed to provide Victorians with better housing, transport, employment opportunities and access to services and amenities.

The minister also states:

We need to create a better way to deliver the housing and infrastructure Victorians need where they need it.

I could not agree more, and that is what should be happening for all Victorians. This is not happening in my electorate, and this bill highlights the city-centric and metropolitan focus in spending and the total disregard for the regions. Selfishness was raised in the chamber today, and some of the statistics and facts that I will point out today will talk about selfishness when it comes to the fair share of the budget and the fair share for regional communities.

I have raised many times in this place the housing crisis that my electorate is experiencing and the high numbers of homelessness. The previous member on her feet did say that no-one has mentioned the issue in relation to homelessness in the chamber today. The level of homelessness and rental stress in my electorate is one of the highest across the state, and when it comes to housing there is such a shortage that every single day we are hearing stories. Just yesterday – and I am very happy to provide this to Hansard – I received an email from a gentleman. He and his wife are on over $250,000 in income a year but cannot get a rental property in the region. They relocated to Shepparton 12 months ago and are currently living in a caravan on someone else’s property. This just highlights a significant issue that we have with housing. We should not be focusing on city-centric projects, we should be allowing opportunities for all of Victoria to have appropriate housing. In the six months to December 2023 both social and public housing stock declined, by 54 and 466 homes respectively, while the number of available bedrooms has reduced by 2733 since Labor announced the Big Housing Build in 2020. More than a year since the government’s housing statement, the number of homes actually built across the 12 months to June 2024 fell by 2700 on the preceding year. The government committed to build 80,000 new homes a year for the next decade. With only 55,563 homes built, that is well below their promise.

Having public transport is critical to ensure people do have access to the transport that they need, and I do not dispute that. The current transport services in my electorate are not providing anywhere near the level of transport required – again a testament to regional Victoria not being acknowledged. This bill states the benefits and need for having housing and transport near to each other, yet I cannot even get extended bus services in my electorate, bus services that would also provide transport to the rail station. I have been calling for a bus review since I have been in this place, which has been ignored. We now currently have an active Parliament petition asking for the same thing. Dysons are frustrated and bewildered that their hands are tied and they cannot provide the bus transport services and extended services the community need. It has been 15 years since we have had a bus review. In the past 15 years the region has grown significantly, with increased population and housing estates stretching across the region. Dysons bus company cannot increase these much-needed services to reach those communities without a review – a bus review, not billions of dollars on a tunnel. This just highlights the total disregard for the transport needs of regional communities.

When it comes to our train services the federal government committed $320 million toward the $400 million Shepparton line upgrade. The project started in 2021 and was meant to be delivered late last year, and we are still waiting for a response from the Minister for Transport Infrastructure in this place from a question on notice I asked back in May on the expected completion date. This is the type of disregard we are experiencing in the regions. I have also raised the issue of overcrowding, where we have had passengers having to stand for 2-hour trips from Shepparton to Melbourne. We need more carriages to meet the increasing demand. These are the types of poor services and issues that are being ignored in regional Victoria, yet in the minister’s second-reading speech he said:

We are … delivering important … projects that will slash travel times and help to keep Victorians moving.

Well, that clearly is not happening in my region. The Labor government do not consider the transport needs of regional Victoria. They are turning their backs on the progress and growth of the regions and their transport needs.

The much-needed Shepparton bypass is a critical infrastructure project that will provide a transport route that will remove the convoy of trucks through the CBD of Shepparton and Mooroopna and provide a more efficient route for thousands of trucks and vehicles that travel through the towns every single day. Currently we have only one river crossing between Shepparton and Mooroopna, and an average of 30,000 vehicles use that causeway daily. When we talk about transport, connectivity and population growth, regional Victoria is growing at an extraordinary rate, and we need the infrastructure to support that growth. My electorate is a major transport hub, with over 25 per cent of the state’s trucks registered in the Goulburn Valley. While this government spend big on city-centric projects, they are turning their backs on industries that they depend on and that depend on an efficient and safe road network. Whilst this government are spruiking their Suburban Rail Loop, my region is trying to navigate a primitive road network. The crumbling and appalling roads are costing truck companies thousands of dollars in repairs every month, because this government is neglecting our roads and failing to provide the much-needed infrastructure for one of Australia’s largest manufacturing and agricultural regions. Yet we are being ignored because of this government’s city-centric focus and financial mismanagement of the Suburban Rail Loop, a project with no credible business case costing billions of dollars and billions in cost blowouts. It is astounding to think this government have prioritised billions on this project at the sacrifice of health, housing, road maintenance and addressing the cost of living. It shows how out of touch this government really is. GV Health have had stage 1 of their hospital redevelopment funded and completed, yet stage 2 has not been funded, so we have a partially completed hospital redevelopment.

This government have their priorities all wrong. Their financial mismanagement and project cost blowouts are making life harder for Victorians. The state debt, as we know, is set to reach $188 billion in 2027, the largest debt of any state or territory in our country. This includes over $40 billion in cost blowouts, waste and financial mismanagement. Whether it be the Suburban Rail Loop, the North East Link, the Metro Tunnel or the West Gate Tunnel, they have all blown out in cost and time, costing all of regional Victoria really important infrastructure. Interest on that debt alone we know will reach $26 million a day, and there is so much that we could be doing with that money.

Times are really tough, and we are in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. Victorians, as we know, have been hit with increased taxes since 2014, making Victoria the highest taxed state in the country. The Premier’s taxes on housing, jobs, rents, schools and holidays are making the cost-of-living crisis worse. By forcing Victorians to pay the highest taxes in the nation, Labor have left Victorians with less money to spend, and the financial pressures and financial distress that people are experiencing continue to rise. Every Victorian will pay for Labor’s financial mismanagement for many generations to come.

This bill is a slap in the face for regional Victorians and only strengthens the poor decision-making and financial mismanagement of this government. The bill ignores the disastrous financial consequences by putting all of the government’s eggs in the one basket and ignores the failings of this government by ignoring the critical issues and financial distress that are facing so many people in the state of Victoria. With their blinkers on, the Labor government proceed full steam ahead with their projects that this state cannot afford, ignoring the impact that their financial mismanagement is having on the state, and Victorians have had enough. The bill takes away power, and it takes away the voices of communities.

Meng Heang TAK (Clarinda) (12:12): I am delighted to rise in support of and to make a contribution on the Transport Infrastructure and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. This is another important bill that will enhance the government’s ability to develop and deliver state-led or state-facilitated precincts and reduce time, cost and risk. As we have heard, this bill will support the effective and efficient delivery of priority precincts and the Suburban Rail Loop and all other major transport projects through the improvement of delivery and other related powers.

These are state-shaping projects and projects that are very important to my community, particularly the Suburban Rail Loop. They are projects that will change the shape of our state, change the way that we move around our state, transforming our public transport network by better connecting Victorians to employment, hospitals, universities and of course each other. That is particularly true in our community, with the Monash employment cluster, Monash Medical Centre and Monash University. We are talking about a better and more direct connection to vital health and medical facilities at Monash Medical Centre and others. We are talking about more jobs closer to where people live. Employment in Clayton will almost triple to around 57,000 jobs as a result of the SRL. That is a really important result for our community.

The SRL East, between Cheltenham and Box Hill, will deliver a huge benefit to our community, to the south-east and to regional Victoria, with faster and more reliable public transport and greater access to jobs, health and education; slashing travel time; creating new jobs and housing; delivering more direct journeys; and enhancing walking, cycling and green space. These are all really important outcomes, and this bill will help to support the effective, efficient delivery of projects such as the Suburban Rail Loop and all other major projects.

I am also really excited about Clayton as a transport superhub. This station has come a long way in my short time here in this place, from the notorious Clayton Road level crossing to the new, elevated Clayton station. It is unprecedented, and that transformation will continue with the development of the superhub, connecting more people to our vibrant town centre and providing faster and more convenient transport to destinations across Melbourne and to regional Victoria. It will also make it easier for metropolitan passengers and regional passengers from Gippsland to access those leading medical research facilities and hospitals and our retail, entertainment and employment area nearby, as well as to travel to Melbourne’s other middle suburbs.

The transport superhub will connect into both the SRL East and the existing Clayton station, catering to more than 90,000 transfers a day by 2056, making it one of Melbourne busiest metropolitan stations, which is a great outcome for our community, driving growth and activity. These are exciting times for our community and great opportunities for implementing planning reform, easing the housing pressure, delivering infrastructure and stimulating economic investment and benefit for our community locally and for our state.

This bill helps to support the effective and efficient delivery of those priorities and objectives through several amendments. Firstly, I would like to touch on how it is amending the Planning and Environment Act 1987, known as the PE act, to reduce the time, cost and risk associated with developing state-led or state-facilitated precincts as defined under the priority precincts prioritisation framework. This is achieved by enabling the Premier to declare a precinct project to be of state or regional significance and by providing the minister and public authorities specified as being responsible for the development of a declared precinct project access to project delivery powers specified in the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009.

There are several amendments to that act, which is also known as the MTPF act, namely to support the delivery of precincts around major transport projects by expanding the definition of ‘non-transport infrastructure’ in the act to facilitate the delivery of major transport projects that have associated precincts as a component. Further to this, there are amendments to expand the definition of ‘transport project’ in the MTPF act to enable a declared project to include a program of work or projects. Finally, there are amendments to improve the MTPF act project delivery powers and other related provisions to provide timesavings, reduce costs and mitigate legal risks that presently exist, which is obviously an important priority. These are broad positive changes across these two acts aimed at effective and efficient delivery of projects, and they are changes that I am happy to support here today.

I should also just note that the bill also makes minor amendments to the Road Management Act 2004, the Transport Integration Act 2010 and the Suburban Rail Loop Act 2021 to support and ensure consistency with the above amendments. Again, Acting Speaker Farnham, these are broad changes that I am happy to support here today in my contribution. The changes in the bill will help to deliver important projects such as the Suburban Rail Loop and all the other major projects here. We are seeing some exciting progress in Clayton already. You have been to Clayton before or at least driven past. I am excited to work together with all the other stakeholders that continue to work on Clayton today and our surrounding suburbs, which will grow into the future.

Allow me to say a little bit more. Although Clayton, or part of Clayton, is no longer part of my electorate due to the distributions two years ago, before that I used to do a lot of doorknocking and talking with many of the shop owners in Clayton. Clayton is becoming vibrant. It is not only the food and the different food stores that you can have, from Indian to Chinese cuisines, but more importantly, it is an employment hub now. During my doorknocking I spoke with many of those who live very close to Monash University and also the medical hubs and medical precincts like the Heart Hospital. It is a place for nurses, doctors and specialists who have decided to call this place home or at least a temporary home – let alone talking about Monash University, which is not far away from there. We welcome many of the overseas students who later will call this place home.

We are moving forward with these conversations and delivering the vision across Clayton and Heatherton, and there will be further refinements through ongoing engagement with our community. There are some really exciting proposed changes that will help bring a greater mix of low-, medium- ‍and high-density homes into the area around the new SRL East station at Clayton, allowing more Victorians to live closer to where they work with world-class public transport, world-class health services and an employment hub. The change builds on Monash council’s work in recent years to increase density, helping to bring more affordable homes and residents to Clayton right next to world-class public transport. Not long ago my good friend the member for Mordialloc and other MPs had the benefit of meeting with the City of Kingston. We are very excited about the vision for Clayton and Clayton South and about the projects that will bring more people to live closer to where they work, to their community and to where they study. Again, this is an exciting time and a transformational project that will help Clayton and surroundings to realise its full potential as a global health and research precinct with more homes and housing choices for workers and residents, capitalising on the great qualities of our community and the easy access to education and medical facilities along with it. I commend the bill to the house.

Matthew GUY (Bulleen) (12:23): Well, despite the name of the bill, Transport Infrastructure and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, this bill predominantly deals with population. It is around population growth and population management. I have said in this chamber on a number of occasions, when we are growing at record rates – we have come back post COVID, and we are now growing again at record rates – the government’s response to date has been very, very haphazard. While state governments do not set our population growth rates, we should not be passengers as well. It appears almost to me that the government’s response to date to the population challenge that we face has been to be passengers, to say, ‘We have no input in this matter, and we just can’t do anything about it.’ Well, they can. They can and they should. Good governments, sensible governments, have sensible, reasonable and respectful conversations with councils to manage that level of growth.

I note the other side – and I hear it from presentation after presentation – are saying this ridiculous line that ‘You’re blockers’ on my side of the chamber. There are members like me who have major activities areas like Doncaster where we have tried for the best part of 10 years to have what the council wants, which is for the Labor government to remove the mandatory height limits in central Doncaster so we can accommodate population in central Doncaster to take pressure off suburbs around it to preserve that neighbourhood character, and the government has done nothing for 10 years. Why would the government look at areas in the member for Malvern’s electorate, which do not and cannot cope with major levels of high-rise development on the on-the-ground infrastructure, when here have members like me saying there are parts – parts – of my seat that can? I have directly requested two former planning ministers to assist, and their response has been to do nothing. This is part of the challenge this state has, and that is ad hoc accommodation of population.

What kind of government says they are going to put the majority of the population growth in one state into three local government areas in the inner-city area of Melbourne for the sake of politics but has no plan for decentralisation? It does not look at the City of Greater Geelong, which has got 300,000 ‍people, which within 20 years will be as big as Canberra. Geelong as a metropolitan area and Ballarat as a metropolitan area, with over 110,000 now – we have areas with reasonable upgrades to infrastructure on the ground – can accommodate population growth, and we should be seeking to decentralise. This side of the house had the state’s first decentralisation minister in Digby Crozier. His daughter is the Liberal leader in the upper house. We had a decentralisation minister for a reason. You cannot accommodate population by just having an ad hoc approach – by going, ‘Let’s pick here. Let’s pick here. Let’s pick here,’ for the sake of politics. It will never work, and you will end up with a much worse outcome.

I note the Premier, who is the member for Bendigo East, has not talked about Bendigo as a population accommodation area, which it should be. It is a big city. It is a reasonable city. It is a nice place. It has got a good climate. We should be looking at places outside of Melbourne for accommodating population growth. Needless to say, many of the committees, such as those for Bendigo, Ballarat and the Latrobe Valley, have been asking for the previous coalition government’s regional growth plans to assist with population accommodation and investment attraction to their areas, which has fallen on deaf ears, predominantly those of Richard Wynne, who did nothing on this front for seven to eight years and who did not renew regional growth plans, and that is just a fact.

We have an opportunity to grow all of the state in a sensible way to manage population growth. Simply saying we will have a one-size-fits-all approach across the growth areas and outer suburbs or indeed the mid-range suburbs of Melbourne is just stupid. The activities areas across the eastern suburbs of Melbourne are so different. What makes our city one of the most livable in the world is that those activities areas have had planning schemes that have respected their personalities, if you like, for the last 30, 40, 50 years – under the Bracks government and under the Cain government. Why is that different now? Because it is all about politics. It is not really about solving the problem, which is a sensible way to accommodate population growth.

Supply in a market does not help developers. I have said this so many times. It is never listened to by left-wing journos down at the Age – a couple in particular who were on the take from elements of the union movement. What you do when you put a lot of supply into a market is that you will either stabilise or lower prices. That was evidenced when the coalition was in government by putting a large number of extra lots – in fact 206,000 – in the growth area market over four years. In Melbourne’s growth area market the price fell by $15,000 from the time we were elected to the time we left office four years later. Population growth was stronger and our economy was stronger, but the market demand, as it was stronger, was still offering a reduced price because we were putting more supply into the market.

For the Labor government to say they are going to put in 180,000 lots over 10 years – well, I say to them: double it. Why isn’t the Minister for Planning going back to the Victorian Planning Authority and saying, ‘Look, you have a conclusion on every precinct structure plan in the growth areas of Melbourne, and I want that conclusion. You come back to work with me on that date, and let’s get them through so we’ve got a pipeline of supply in our growth areas to adequately manage supply in our growth area market, predominantly focused around existing activities areas and existing PSPs or in areas where we know we have got under-the-ground infrastructure either already in place or close to.’ Instead the government says, ‘We’ve have got a plan for a plan that might come about in 10 years.’ That is not a plan, and that is silly. There are better ways to do it, and I might throw decentralisation into that as well.

As I have said before, when in government we approved 206,000 lots in four years. That was homes for nearly 580,000 extra Victorians. There were blockers at the time. There were a lot of blockers for this, and those blockers were the people who are now throwing those kinds of insults at me. You have got to be joking. I was monikered Mr Skyscraper, and now I am being told I am a blocker. I am offering up an activities area in my electorate. This side is being told, ‘You’re a blocker.’ I do not think so. We have a sensible view of development. A sensible view means it is not one size fits all. That is dumb. That is why we are opposing this bill, because it is dumb to say one size fits all. It is smart to say, ‘Use councils’ existing planning growth forecasts with them to get the density where it is required and do it properly.’ It is what we did in government with Plan Melbourne, which was a coalition government initiative, and with regional growth plans, which were a coalition government initiative, and that accommodated population growth and allowed people to get into the housing market. There were tens of thousands of apartments we approved downtown, and I was monikered Mr Skyscraper – not an insult. I have got news for you: I am only five foot seven, but I will tell you it was not an insult, because they were homes for Victorians, and they remain so. But they were put in the right locations – sensible locations, locations in the CBD.

When we tried to put a capital city zone through areas such as central Ballarat, central Geelong and central Bendigo, guess who were blockers? The Labor and left-wing councillors on all those three councils. Oh, no, it was going to signify the end of the world. The sky was going to fall. Hens would not lay eggs. It would be all kinds of disaster. But we offered a sensible solution for the downtown areas of those cities – not the suburbs, not like what this bill is putting forward today, putting it in areas which do not have the ability to cope, but in sensible areas that can accommodate growth.

We have a government that put height limits in Fitzroy and Carnegie – which I said was an activities area. Labor, under Richard Wynne, put all height limits in at two storeys and now comes back and says, ‘Oh well, maybe we can accommodate 20.’ The current minister put height limits in Preston Market when it is flat – I lived in Preston for 12 years – and cut three or four storeys off the Shangri-La down the road for no reason, just because they wanted to. These are all homes. When you run around and say, ‘Now we’ve got a population challenge, and now we’re going to build more apartments,’ after 10 years of opposing, you kind of lose your credibility, and the credibility is already lost in the industry. And politics – people can have all the debates in this room. Outside of it, in the industry, Acting Speaker Farnham, as you would know as a former builder and as I would know as the former planning minister, the industry has walked, because the industry knows from ten years – after 10 years of being told ‘You’re a demon; you’re a demon’, most of them have gone to Queensland. Coming in with a tax incentive 12 months after the event and saying, ‘Now we’re all for you; please build,’ – it is a bit late.

To come out with arbitrary requirements in activities areas that no-one has thought of before because there is no infrastructure is a bit silly. You need a whole-of-state approach to manage population growth. That is what Plan Melbourne was. That is what the coalition government did. When you are a Labor government that comes in after 10 years of blocking and then says, ‘Now we’re building,’ because you have got to rebrand a Premier at 30 per cent in the polls, most of us see through that and say, ‘Actually, this is a plan for you to hang onto your job so that the member for Niddrie doesn’t take it,’ as opposed to actually seriously trying to seek a solution to Victoria’s population problems. We on this side of the house know that managing population is a difficult task. We have done it before, but it involves a whole-of-state approach, a genuine, sensible, serious whole-of-state approach. When you come to the Parliament with bills that really are just about politics, then you get a reply that it is politics and not common sense.

Luba GRIGOROVITCH (Kororoit) (12:33): As a former secretary of the Rail, Tram and Bus Union and obviously a very proud supporter of it, it gives me enormous pleasure to rise and speak to the Transport Infrastructure and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. I am always excited to speak about public transport and accessibility for more Victorians when we need it most.

This legislation reflects and enhances the Allan Labor government’s commitment to developing thriving priority precincts across all of our state. It is a key part of our target to build 800,000 homes in Victoria over the next decade. And the heartbeat of our precincts, I would say, is our stations and the wonderful people who staff them and who run the public transport system. They always deserve respect, both on and off the job, and to be recognised as a thriving part of the lovely precincts and communities they service. Public transport workers do keep Victoria moving, and they are salt of the earth people. I am proud to be associated with them.

This bill is something that our Labor government is really excited about. We are taking a step on the road to a better and more livable Victoria. This bill aligns with the government’s priorities and objectives in relation to implementing planning reform, easing housing pressure, delivering infrastructure and stimulating economic investment for the benefit of the state, and this all ties in with the 2023 Victorian housing statement and of course the 2024 precincts prioritisation framework, which ultimately, all together, will see more roofs over the heads of Victorians.

This legislation is designed to further extend and modernise the delivery powers under the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009, the MTPFA for short, so that it provides better facilities for the delivery of all major transport projects and reduces time, cost and risks. It means that the 2009 act will now also extend to precincts, which will expand the project delivery tools available to expedite the delivery of housing construction as well as other priority uses such as education and of course health.

The Allan Labor government’s $100 billion-plus investment in Victoria’s transport infrastructure has produced significant economic, environmental and social benefits for our state. With our state’s population expected to reach 10 million by the 2050s, the delivery of rail and road projects will not only keep Victorians moving but will aid the development of a more green and livable state. This bill delivers the Allan Labor government’s priorities and objectives to ease housing pressure, deliver infrastructure and stimulate economic investment for the benefit of Victoria. It represents our government’s continued commitment to developing the right infrastructure and amenities in the right places to support thriving communities across Victoria.

Victorians know that the Allan Labor government will continue to deliver, as we always have. That is why existing major transport project delivery powers allow for timely and efficient development of major transport projects. This is evidenced by the government’s monumental track record of transport infrastructure delivery over its past decade in office: the Level Crossing Removal Project, which everyone in this house has been the beneficiary of, the suburban roads upgrades, the regional rail revival, the Metro Tunnel project and of course the West Gate Tunnel Project, which I know us westies are very excited about. These investments have not only cut travel time and improved safety, but they have created thousands of jobs in this state when we need them the most. I am proud of the level crossing removals that are happening in Kororoit, and I have currently got one happening on Hopkins Road, which we all cannot wait to see come to fruition. These are projects that get Victorians home sooner and safer.

The intention of this bill is to extend and modernise delivery powers under the MTPFA 2009 to ensure that we can continue to facilitate the development and delivery of this Labor government’s iconic major new transport and precincts projects. It does this by focusing on delivering priority precincts in a way that streamlines delivery outcomes and reduces the red tape to projects and the broader community. The government’s experience over a decade in office in delivering transformative infrastructure projects means that it understands where opportunities are to streamline existing delivery processes while ensuring appropriate safeguards for individuals and communities.

Currently, when utility infrastructure needs to be relocated for a project, a project authority must compulsorily acquire an interest in the land based on the anticipated location of the utility infrastructure prior to the construction starting. This bill, however, will enable a project authority to cut out work such as relocation of utilities on any land inside the design project area, provided that they later acquire the interest in the land. We want to continue to get it right, and that is why this key change will prevent project authorities from acquiring more land than might ultimately be required, which can happen between construction drawings and the as-built conditions of the utilities.

Local councils are generally the appropriate organisation to operate and maintain community assets like park benches, basketball courts and lighting, which are often constructed as part of our major and iconic transport projects. That is why this bill will enable a legal mechanism to transfer community assets constructed on Crown land to councils. This means a project authority can enter into an agreement with council to own, maintain and of course govern the use of the community assets on Crown land. This is a Labor government that delivers, and that is why we are prioritising the modernisation of the delivery powers that are aimed at reducing red tape.

Recognising the significance to the state of facilitating priority precincts, the Premier will be able to declare such precincts under the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Once declared, precincts will benefit from access to comprehensive delivery powers under the MTPFA 2009 to help to minimise the existing challenges associated with precinct development. With more delivery tools, this will facilitate a higher volume of homes – and jobs – for Victorians that are connected to the necessary transport infrastructure and amenities that are required to support our thriving communities. The delivery powers being made available already exist and therefore do not provide any new precedents, but this will enable existing powers to be used more efficiently and more effectively for the community’s benefit.

Many precincts across our state will benefit from these changes. For example, a renewal like at Fishermans Bend will be able to benefit from better land assembly and infrastructure coordination, increased integration and development, and it will generate even more value for the community. Providing these precincts with access to the delivery powers under the 2009 MTPFA will enable a more streamlined approach for its future infrastructure needs. We want to ensure that our precincts, which are critical for creating the housing and services which Victorians need, are futureproofed. That is why this bill gives precincts greater access to an expansive set of delivery powers that will make our precincts more livable, more thriving and of course more connected than ever before.

By contrast, those opposite have no plan for the future, no plan for infrastructure and, as we have heard, no plan for housing. Labor has a clear and decisive vision for Victoria’s future, while those opposite failed to plan for Victoria’s future needs when they were last in government. They failed to deliver on a single major project. They can sneer all they want, but it seems that John Pesutto’s only plan is to sack workers, cancel the long-planned rail line to Monash Uni – which of course is Australia’s largest university – delay the project, have more cars on the roads and make sure that Victorians are stuck in gridlock. Do not believe me? Every major project Labor is delivering those opposite have opposed. As we have heard before, the Libs have voted against the Metro Tunnel, the West Gate Tunnel, every single level crossing removal since 2014 – which is gobsmacking – the Suburban Rail Loop and the North East Link. Those opposite have sought to cut, close and cancel, but projects like level crossing removals are changing the way that millions of Victorians live and play and get around safer.

On this side of the house the Labor government stands on a record of delivering for the people, and we are very proud of that. We are proud of the Big Build program. We are proud of the way that it is going to shape our future – an investment in social infrastructure that Victorians have now endorsed, despite those opposite, on multiple occasions. On this side of the house we are committed to creating thousands of jobs for Victorians, ranging from construction over to engineering. As of today there are over 17,000 Victorians directly employed on Victoria’s Big Build. For every 100 jobs on the Big Build about 200 more are supported through the supply chain. At peak construction, the Big Build is estimated to support 38,000 indirect jobs, and that is what matters to Victorians – jobs. Including indirect and direct, that is over 50,000 jobs across the Victorian economy. Labor is focused on delivering the projects that Victoria needs, and we are not taking a step backwards. Our government’s record and the need to deliver planning and other related reforms to unlock benefits for Victorians for years to come – that is why I am proud to commend this legislation to the house.

Brad BATTIN (Berwick) (12:42): I have just been asked to keep my voice nice and calm from the other side, so I will try and keep it calm. And when I say calm, I would actually turn around and go, ‘I’m still amazed that we’ve got Labor members of Parliament who are coming in here and reading their speeches verbatim from the notes they’ve obviously been given from their bosses to make sure they stay on message.’ When are the backbenchers of the Labor Party going to learn to stand up and do a speech with some notes, maybe their own ideas, and have a discussion? Then we might get some real ideas and some real concepts of how it is impacting us out in our communities.

I heard from the previous speaker then, from the notes that she read verbatim – which she could have tabled – when she spoke about the issues from the Liberal government and what the Liberals did to not do anything with infrastructure and how we did not build things. Do they forget they have been in government since, effectively, 1999? In that time, out in those growth corridors, some of our wonderful areas which I have the pleasure of representing, there was commitment for the Clyde rail. Clyde rail was promised in the 1999 election. The member for Mordialloc would remember that, because I think I just saw a photo from when he was actually at school, back in 1999, down Berwick way. 2002 – the member for Mordialloc would remember that one too because he was still at Berwick College.

A member interjected.

Brad BATTIN: I am just referring to the member for Mordialloc. He would have remembered that; he was down at Berwick College. In 2006, the year the member for Mordialloc graduated, it was promised again by the Labor government to put in the Clyde rail. 2010, 2014, and then all of a sudden it has fallen off; they have turned around and said, ‘No, we don’t need rail down in Clyde.’ But we approved all the plans to change the green wedge zone in about 2002 to ensure that we can have thousands and thousands of families move into that area down there, so we have now got a population through Clyde, Clyde North, Berwick, Berwick South, all of those areas down there, where we have had thousands of families move in, and we just simply do not have the infrastructure.

The one thing I will give Labor some credit for is that we have had transport plans in the past; I just do not give them credit for delivering those transport plans out in the growth corridors. If you drive down Clyde Road at the moment, you may as well be on a rollercoaster with the amount of potholes. The only areas of Clyde Road developed from Centre Road, effectively, all the way down to the freeway and to the Gippsland highway are areas that developers have done, so it goes in and out and causes a bottleneck of traffic. Or you could go down to Thompsons Road. Thompsons Road is an absolute nightmare. We are hearing from parents who are going to the schools down there who are travelling 30 and 40 minutes just to get to a local school around the corner from them. This means if you travel 30 or 40 minutes each way – let us just assume it is an hour – it is two hours a day to drop your kids off and pick them up from school. It is simply not good enough to say we are going to put all the planning in place to allow people to live down there but we are not putting the funding in there to connect roads. Bells Road does not connect through, and Thompsons Road should be going through to the employment zone.

I note again that the previous speaker said one of the most important things for people in Victoria is jobs. Well, if you opened up the employment land all the way from Clyde North to Clyde and out through to Officer and you connected Thompsons Road, you would create thousands of jobs. At the moment, in Casey alone, more than 70 per cent of people in Casey have to travel outside of Casey to go to work. With a population of over 300,000, you would hope that we could have created employment land to allow those people to work locally. If they could work locally, they would be home on time. They would get to see more of their family and probably would not have to worry as much about some of that travel to and from the schools. We continue to see this government talk up their big population growth and the things that they are doing, but the growth corridors continue to miss out. As this government wants to pour all its money into the Suburban Rail Loop, what they are forgetting is all of that money that goes in there is taking away further funding from development in electorates like mine and electorates like those of the members for Pakenham, Narre Warren North, Narre Warren South and Cranbourne. All of those electorates are the ones that miss out. They just do not get the infrastructure that they need to ensure that they can travel around.

You go down Pattersons Road now. Pattersons Road is the divider between me and the member for Bass. Again, we are seeing development go through that area that is out of this world. The member for Bass and I will be on a unity ticket here – the communities down there are amazing. They are absolutely amazing. What they are doing is they are developing and building really strong, united communities where they are working together. In some of these areas the crime is not as high because they have got communities that are out and about celebrating local events, making sure that they are engaged with their local community and supporting local businesses, but they are struggling to get out of the area to go anywhere. Pattersons Road leads straight down to a roundabout and effectively to a one-way road at the other end of it, which is causing issues and traffic mayhem. By the time a train station gets down there – considering it was promised in 1999 – people will have bought three or four cars, and to change people’s habits is going to be really difficult through that community. They will already have the options to drive, and we need to make sure that rail down there is an option.

The other section down there is buses. I heard the member for Shepparton was talking about the bus review. Again, we have had the bus review down our way, and that bus review from Casey council said we are so short on buses, it is unbelievable.

Michaela Settle interjected.

Brad BATTIN: You are probably reading your interjection while you are doing it as well, so that is fantastic. Thank you very much. A quick little note, signed and authorised by the Premier, was it? If you are going to sit across there and throw jibes at me, then you should maybe consider that one of the things down in the growth corridors is that growth corridors are really struggling when it comes to buses. We are having an issue down through the growth corridor with buses. We cannot get the bus –

Michaela Settle interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Member for Eureka, you will cease interjecting. Member for Berwick, you will go through the Chair.

Brad BATTIN: Through the Chair, maybe the member for Eureka would like to come down and look at the bus review for the areas of Clyde, Clyde North and all of Casey, where people cannot get a bus. You cannot get public transport around. The government brags that they like to put buses within 400 metres of every home to ensure people can travel about without using their vehicles and stay off the road, yet you cannot get a bus through most of these new estates down there. And when I say ‘new estates’, they end up talking 10 years before they put the buses in some of these communities, and if they continue to wait for some of these buses to come on, again, people do not have faith that the system is there to transport them around.

The other thing that has been found in the bus reviews down there is the buses go through the estates and effectively go through five, six or seven estates to go from point A to point B. An example would be from Pakenham through to Fountain Gate. People are not going to get a bus that is going through nine different estates if it is going to take them an hour and a half to travel what should be a 20-minute trip. We need to have that review looking at what Casey and Cardinia have done and the work they have put forward with this – and the bus associations – and have transport channels so we can go straight through so people know that if they get on the bus at 9 in the morning they could be at Fountain Gate at 20 past 9 in the morning, not at 20 past 10. If they are going to be wasting an hour or an hour and 20 minutes on a bus when they could be doing those trips in 20 minutes, they are just not going to do it.

So as the government comes in here and talks about any transport plans and transport things they have delivered, they have got to start to look at the growth corridors. It is the growth corridors that continuously get neglected by Labor. They continuously do not get the funding that they need. Every council through our area continues to call for the funding that we need for the roads and the infrastructure. They are doing the work the government should do when it comes to the bus reviews. They have got it on a platter ready for the government to go. They just need to look at it.

Acting Speaker Farnham, I know even down in your area when we go down through Warragul we are starting to see that growth now. What an opportunity for the government to actually go to Drouin where they are seeing the growth and Warragul where they are seeing the growth and start the planning, not just planning transport hubs to come back into the city or make a train that goes faster. Why aren’t we looking at how we are creating jobs out through Warragul and Drouin? Then people in Pakenham and Casey can have a different direction to go for future employment. That eases pressure on the public transport system and on the roads. We get to see opportunities for families to actually go for local jobs – hopefully some well-paid jobs down through those communities – and they can come back and travel home easier. More importantly it will also take people from Warragul and Drouin off the road, who are travelling through those areas in growth corridors, reducing the amount of transport we need through there.

We have seen too often this government come in here and pat themselves on the back and try and say that everything is the Liberal government’s fault from our four years in government. It is about time that someone on the other side had a little footnote at the end of the notes given to them by the minister that says, ‘It’s about time we, the Victorian Labor Party, take responsibility for the failures that we have in relation to public transport, to transport infrastructure, to the roads, to the maintenance of the roads across this state and why people in growth corridors continuously get neglected.’ Why does it take them so long to travel from their house to the Monash Freeway and then half the time effectively from there into the city? The roads around those growth corridors are a disgrace, and it is about time this government took responsibility.

Ros SPENCE (Kalkallo – Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Community Sport, Minister for Carers and Volunteers) (12:52): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.