Thursday, 31 October 2024

Bills

Duties Amendment (More Homes) Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (14:55): I should probably thank the Heart Foundation for the free socks I got for my heart health check during the lunchbreak. They were quite surprised. They said, ‘You used to be Treasurer, didn’t you?’ I said yes. They said, ‘We didn’t think you had a heart.’ I do have a heart, but apparently the blood pressure is a little bit high. Who would have thought, being in this place, that your blood pressure could get up? But anyway, there we go.

We are debating this ‘chickens come home to roost’ bill, as I call it, because this is the government that of course made a big song and dance about having a tiny, temporary, 12-month reduction in a new tax that it imposed itself. It smashed Victorian taxpayers for $841.2 million over the forward estimates in 2017 when it abolished the off-the-plan stamp duty concession. The government was warned. Forget what I said, but the government was warned by the Real Estate Institute of Victoria (REIV) that abolishing that concession was simply going to crush supply in the apartment market, and so it came to pass. The government increased taxes. The government took the investors out of the off-the-plan market. It meant fewer projects got up, and then that led to a housing crisis.

The government is now trying to make a song and dance about fixing problems of its own creation. A little bit of humility would not go astray. I would love to see the Treasurer come in here one day and say, ‘Look, I’m sorry. I got it wrong, and now we’re trying to fix my mistake.’ No. He comes in here and asks everyone to pretend that it is some great tax cut when it is a minor, temporary reduction in a tax that he himself imposed. There are only two ministers in this government who have been ministers for the same portfolios all the way through. One is the Treasurer and one is the Minister for Energy and Resources. When you look at those two portfolios – and we read in the paper today about Victorian gas prices going up again – you have to say they are two of the worst performing ministers across the 10 years of this Labor government. Why the Premier keeps them in those portfolios is beyond me, because from a Treasury point of view we are clearly the worst state in the country. We have had the highest unemployment every month for the last six months. We have got the highest taxes in the country. We have got the highest debt in the country. This government just has lost the plot.

We are not going to oppose a bill that delivers a tiny, temporary reprieve for 12 months of a tax that the Labor government imposed. We are not going to be bloody-minded. We actually want to see lower taxes across Victoria. But please, spare us the claims that this is some wonderful version of tax reform, because we know that it is not. Stealing $10 from the collection plate and putting $1 back does not make you a good person, but that is the effect of this bill. They have stolen $10 out of the church collection plate, they have put $1 back in and they expect to be praised for it –

David Southwick interjected.

Michael O’BRIEN: and to claim a tax deduction as well, no doubt, member for Caulfield. You had the REIV making very clear at the time this tax was first imposed that it would lead to a housing crisis. Well, the chickens have come home to roost. But unfortunately for Victorians, they are the ones who are paying the price for the appalling economic and tax policies of an inept Labor government.

Katie HALL (Footscray) (14:58): It is a delight to make a contribution to this bill, the Duties Amendment (More Homes) Bill 2024. We have spent the last week talking about more homes for Victorians. It is very confusing listening to the Liberal Party. You are not quite sure if they are for it or agin it. The member for Malvern was talking about chickens for about 5 minutes. He has just chickened out of the chamber. You would think that the Liberal Party, who opposed us debating this legislation and bringing it on to deliver this tax cut to deliver more homes, would have been more fulsome in their support, but because they are negative Nellies they cannot quite bring themselves to say, ‘That’s a good thing. Let’s get this done.’

A member interjected.

Katie HALL: Negative Nellies, yes. I have been delighted over the last week to have seen the announcements from the government and the Premier, including an announcement that was made in my electorate of Footscray. Of course we have had quite a bit of development in Footscray, including some of the development that was brought on by the member for Bulleen. The member for Bulleen has been speaking a bit this week about how he is the only one in the Liberal Party who is not a NIMBY. But one of the issues was that when he approved all the housing in my electorate in the Joseph Road precinct he approved it without developer contributions, so we ended up with these enormous towers and no community infrastructure. We did not even have roads. The council is just starting to build roads now. The reason we are now starting to retrofit infrastructure into Joseph Road in Footscray is because the previous planning minister, Minister Wynne, took the developers to court and secured retrospective developer contributions for that site in Footscray. It was just such disrespect to the people of my community to approve all of this housing with no infrastructure – no parks, no footpaths, no roads. We had an issue where a developer overbuilt on one of his sites, and the council had to deal with that issue.

It has been a total shemozzle, the amount of damage that was caused in the four years when those opposite had the great privilege of being in government. It is better for them to do nothing at all. All we have seen in our time in government is this confused opposition. They are not sure whether they support more housing or whether they do not. Certainly what we have seen from the member for Brighton in the past week is that development is fine if it is in Footscray in my community, but he certainly does not want it in Brighton. But what that shows is the stark difference between our values. I want more housing. I want quality housing for my community. I want young people who have grown up in Melbourne’s inner west to be able to afford to live near their families. I think that is a fundamental difference. But over there it is just like, ‘Oh, we’re all right. We own our own homes. Some of us own 17 of them.’ But for everyone else, now that they have got what they want and what they need, they are going to lock the gate so no-one else can come and live near the public transport or the infrastructure, which has predominantly been funded by Labor governments in the middle and inner suburbs of Melbourne, this beautiful city that the Liberal Party constantly run down. They cannot think of a positive thing to say.

But for me it is very exciting to see announcements around development along train lines and tramlines. We are building the Metro Tunnel, and Footscray is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the Metro Tunnel because we are going to have a turn-up-and-go service. For communities like Tottenham, where it will be turn up and go on the Sunbury line, with an extra 60 per cent capacity on that train line, that is going to be transformative. Of course there should be renewal of places like Tottenham – and Footscray, which as I mentioned has already accommodated a huge amount of growth. My commitment to my community and this government’s commitment is that we will work hard to make sure that the people who bought properties under Matthew Guy’s planning regime will get the infrastructure that they need. We are the ones who are following up and making sure that the developers pay their fair share, that we have the parks, the roads and the infrastructure that people deserve and that there is dignity in the housing that is provided. That is what this is all about. I am so excited that this government has demonstrated this commitment, particularly to millennials and to younger Victorians.

I represent a community that has one of the highest rates of renting in the state, and I represent one of the youngest communities. I know for those young people who are renting the dream of owning their own home is closer than before, because this government has said that it is committed to delivering the housing that they need and they deserve. I was really pleased to hear the Minister for Precincts speak about the current Footscray Hospital site before. Many people would be aware that we are building a $1.5 billion new Footscray Hospital right in the heart of Footscray. It will have 5000 ‍workers a day and provide 20,000 extra treatments a year. It is going to be an extraordinary transformative project for my community. That is opening next year. Do you know what else is opening next year? The Metro Tunnel and the West Gate Tunnel. We are also getting new trams that will take patients and workers to that hospital. Of course we should have housing around that area that supports the workers that will be going in there.

The current hospital site presents a great opportunity for the people of Footscray. We held a consultation earlier this year and we had 5000 people visit the Engage Vic website to tell us their aspirations for the current Footscray hospital site. The current Footscray hospital was built by the people of Footscray, and what happens in the future will be informed by the people of Footscray. One of the key things they asked for was affordable housing – a mix of housing, social and affordable – but also public open space. That is something I am going to fight for for the community of Footscray, because we know that when we build more homes we need to build the infrastructure around them to support those communities and support thriving communities. I think the current Footscray hospital site represents an enormous opportunity to build something really special that is centred in community input. That report was released last week, and I am thrilled to have been able to meet with the Minister for Precincts and express my community’s views around the kind of housing and public open space and facilities we need in Melbourne’s inner west.

These stamp duty concessions represent a great opportunity for young people in my electorate as well. I think that one of the hardest things when you are on an average income and when you are stuck in a renting cycle is that you feel like saving a deposit is an enormously challenging thing. I know that this will improve confidence and will offer a great opportunity for savings, particularly for young people in my electorate, but anyone buying an apartment, unit or townhouse off the plan will be able to claim this concession. This is a fantastic initiative, just one of many, and I cannot wait to see what else we have to announce, because this government is backing young people. It is backing millennials so that they can fulfil their dream of buying their own home and living close to where they want to live – perhaps even Mum and Dad. It is a really exciting reform, and I commend the bill to the house.

David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (15:08): Well, it is clearly Halloween – trick or treat. This Duties Amendment (More Homes) Bill 2024 is a big trick, and there are certainly no treats here. The only thing scary about Halloween is the Allan Labor government, because they are going to send this state broke. We see Victorians that are struggling, and this is just another bill, named the duties amendment bill – but again, this government just makes up these names, ‘more homes’ – that is not going to deliver more homes. This is a sugar hit for 12 months for off-the-plan. For those people that already have a project well and truly underway – buyers in the gun, ready to go – at that point in time would there be the stamp duty incentive for them to be able to benefit from that?

We have no problems in terms of the intention to get rid of stamp duty for off-the-plan and for first-time buyers. The idea is good; the intention is good. But let us not forget that in 2017 it was this government and this Treasurer that actually removed the off-the-plan incentives. We had a number of people say at the time that this was going to be very problematic in terms of encouraging supply in the market. It was something that people got used to, and this government effectively created less homes. They created the housing crisis which we now have, because it was this government and this Treasurer that got rid of the off-the-plan duty concessions that we now have here. The REIV said that when they removed the off-the-plan concessions they did not support that because they said it would reduce the attractiveness of property investment for Victorians, further limiting rental supply at a time when vacancy rates were already tightening. We know the idea of being able to apply these kinds of off-the-plan stamp duty concessions is about creating more new homes, creating more investment properties and creating more supply into the rental market.

With the housing crisis which we have right now, thanks to the Allan Labor government, a big component of that is that people cannot get a rental. You have queues miles down the road of people looking to be able to get into one-bedroom apartments. It is almost like an auction to determine who gets to rent a home, and that is not sustainable. The idea about getting more stock, more investment and more homes through the off-the-plan subsidy being put but then taken away shows that this government is flipping and flopping when it comes to these things. There is no certainty, and ultimately it is taxpayers that miss out.

The government mentioned the member for Bulleen before, and when the member for Bulleen was the planning minister one of the things that I absolutely recall is we could go around and look around the city and see how many cranes were in the sky, how many buildings were being done and how many projects were underway because we had a planning minister and a government that was all about building more stock and getting stock into the market. If you fast-forward to the situation today, that is completely different. If you look at a crane count, it would be nowhere near what we used to have when we were in government. It is pretty simple: we have more taxation than we have ever had before. We had the off-the-plan stamp duty saving, which was an ongoing thing, removed by this government, and only because they failed, and we now have a housing crisis, so they want to give a temporary stay of execution. What will happen in 12 months time? It will be back again, just when you have got investors that want to get projects up and about. What will happen to the certainty of those projects? It takes more than 12 months to get a project off the ground. That is why this government has no idea about property, no idea about economics and no idea about managing anything at all. When you come up with a project you have got to look at the land, you have got to get planning, you have got to get architectural drawings, you have got to have consultation and you have got to talk to councils, talk to stakeholders and get funding and financing for the project. That can take three years, if you are lucky, on a big project, yet this government want to give a 12-month stay of execution on this.

We know at least that some projects, which have been put on ice because of the huge taxation, the uncertainty and the financial mismanagement of this government, will be able to get going. We are not sure how many, by the way, from the briefing that we had, because this has all been really rushed because the government are literally trying to play catch-up. This was only announced yesterday. This was all rushed, and we are talking about it today with very little briefing or background, and the department is still unsure in terms of how many homes ultimately this is going to provide. With 6000 ‍stakeholders, how much revenue is it going to cost? $55 million – when we knew we had the member for Malvern quite rightly saying it was $842 million prior to it being abolished. So we have gone from $842 million to $55 million now on the cost of this project, yet we have got more demand now than we had before. One would think it would cost a lot more in terms of the savings than what it is now. It probably means there are not a lot of these projects that are ready to go that they can actually benefit from because they take more than 12 months. It takes more than 12 months, so again this is very much a trick, not a treat, because ultimately people are not really going to benefit here. The Allan Labor government are so quick to cut ribbons and put out press releases without the substance and without the details behind them, and again it is Victorians that miss out. We know during all of the housing grand plans that they are putting forward, like we heard today, this government are all about no voice and no choice when it comes to home owners and when it comes to Victorians. They do not want to listen to Victorians, they do not want to provide them choice, they just want to say, ‘This is where you’ll live and these are what your options are; take it or leave it.’ I think most Victorians have had enough of that – being told by the government what to do, how to live their lives, where to live. They are absolutely sick of it, and I think this is another example of that. It is another example of why we have the housing crisis.

Even things like again the Premier is off today doing an op-ed about Brighton – she is so infatuated with the suburb of Brighton she has missed out on the whole state of Victoria. She lives miles away from the rest of Melbourne. That is creating an absolute mess of the planning and the housing situation in Melbourne and in greater Melbourne. The north and the west are going to miss out again because there is no infrastructure there. There is no infrastructure because it has not been planned. You cannot jam apartments; you cannot jam everything into Brighton, Malvern and even Caulfield and expect that that is going to work. You just cannot do it.

Steve McGhie interjected.

David SOUTHWICK: Ultimately these properties and these high-rise apartments at $1 million or $1.5 million are not going to be affordable for anybody, member for Melton. They are not going to be ready for anybody. I would think, member for Melton, you would be actually encouraging people, because I know in your electorate of Melton they are missing out on the infrastructure. They have been calling out for the infrastructure. I know, member for Melton, they want roads.

Steve McGhie interjected.

David SOUTHWICK: I am talking about transport infrastructure, member for Melton. I can tell you that they are missing out on transport. They are missing out on roads. They are missing out big time in Melton, and that is because they have been forgotten. In Melbourne’s north and Melbourne’s west they have been forgotten because we know, and the Minister for Transport Infrastructure at the table today knows, that 26 kilometres of track – the Suburban Rail Loop – is at the expense of everything else, including the member for Melton’s seat, which will not benefit from a single dollar of the Suburban Rail Loop’s $34.5 billion. I tell you what, I will come down with you, member for Melton. I will take a walk with you anytime, and we will ask people what the people of Melton think about the Suburban Rail Loop. Would you have me down, member for Melton?

Steve McGhie interjected.

David SOUTHWICK: Great. I will come down. I will take that invitation, and we will go for a walk down in Melton and we will ask the constituents in Melton what they think about the Premier putting all of her eggs into one basket, the Suburban Rail Loop, at the expense of suburbs and electorates like Melton that are missing out. I will take that every single time, because I know this is a government that does not care about Victorians, does not care really about building any homes, does not care ultimately about the rental market, getting people out of queues and into a home, and does not care about choice. No voice, no choice. That is what this government wants to do, silence Victorians and try to run roughshod over each and every one of the people who are dealing with a housing crisis, a cost-of-living crisis and a debt crisis all attributed to the Labor Allan government that cannot manage money and cannot manage major projects.

Lauren KATHAGE (Yan Yean) (15:18): ‘There were cranes in the sky,’ we heard from the member for Caulfield – cranes everywhere. He was so pleased with himself. Well, maybe in the city, but in 2012, when those opposite extended the urban growth boundary out, out, out into the farmland, out where they had never been before, do you think there were any cranes building infrastructure in the outer suburbs? No, absolutely not. They were just busy making developers rich. They made them rich, and they put nothing in place for the people who would be coming out to live there. I am going to tell you the evidence. Between 2010 and 2014 – when who was in government, those opposite – how many dollars did they invest in infrastructure in my electorate of Yan Yean? How much? Nothing. Not a cent, not a skerrick, not a crane. There were no cranes in the sky in Yan Yean. I hope he enjoyed his cranes in the city, because they are coming back. The cranes are coming back to the inner suburbs, and I hope they like the second coming of the cranes, because we are going to be busy building houses and getting on with it.

We heard more fanciful words from the member for Caulfield about this government saying, ‘This is where you live, this is what your only option is, this is what you get.’ Well, I think that is what we are actually hearing from those opposite, who in many ways – overt and subtle – are telling us, ‘We don’t want your kind here. We don’t want your humble and hardworking people to come and live in our suburbs. Haven’t you heard the apartments are very expensive?’ It is like that scene from Pretty Woman when she goes to the shop; we are being rejected from their special suburbs.

We heard more of that from the member for Sandringham as well as the lead speaker on this bill for those opposite. He said, ‘Do you know that there’s an apartment for sale for $23 million?’ Well, I did not – not in my circles, there is not. He suggested there should be a cap in this bill. He does not want expensive apartments to be included. He does not want stimulus for people to build and move into expensive apartments. It is nimbyism by stealth, because they want the apartments to not be built in their area. They want to make sure that they are far away from them. It is nimbyism by stealth, and we have got the proof there. We know that the member for Sandringham is against having people move into his area. In 2021 he opposed 1048 apartments going into Highett – 1048 homes for Victorians opposed by the member for Sandringham.

That just tells you everything about these people. You just cannot trust what they say. You cannot trust a single thing they say. I am nervous for the future, because what the member for Sandringham said when he spoke on this was that we – the Labor government – have had 10 years to demonstrate that we actually care about Victorians. What have we done to demonstrate our care for Victorians in those 10 years? Well, I am happy to inform the member for Sandringham, if he is interested, that we introduced free kinder, free TAFE and apartment standards. We made 10 times the number of new businesses available. We have introduced so much renewable energy, new hospitals and free nursing degrees. We did not cut Free Fruit Friday; in fact we have expanded the breakfast clubs. These are the ways that we have demonstrated that we care about Victorians.

What makes me scared is that the member for Sandringham said it is going to take them ‘10 years to unpick’ that, so we know that once they are in government they are going to set about unpicking all the ways that we have demonstrated and delivered our care for Victorians. All I hear from those opposite is cuts. Cuts – that is what is coming with them. That is all they will do. We know that all the ways that we have supported Victorians will be in the firing line of those opposite, because the humble and hardworking people that this government represents and supports are not worth anything to those opposite, and it is very, very sad.

Other ways that we are demonstrating our care for Victorians are through our fair go for renters and our fair go for the outer suburbs, because what we are doing is flipping the 70–30 divide. Previously we have seen way too much development in the outer suburbs and not enough in the inner and middle suburbs, so we are flipping that. We are fixing the unfair split of suburban growth.

I was really pleased to have the fantastic Minister for Planning in Wallan last week, looking at some of the issues around different developments and staging. I am so pleased that the next lot of estates that are coming to Wallan are being staged and sequenced so that before they come online, before people are moving in, we will have the new Wallan East primary school, the new Wallara Waters kindergarten, the new maternal and child health centre, the new ramps onto the Hume Freeway – thank you, Minister for Transport Infrastructure, who is at the table. All of these really important and essential infrastructure pieces will be in place before the next estates start being populated by people, because we are thinking about how to make sure that people that live in the outer suburbs have what they need to thrive and that the communities are made up of families who have access to health, education, jobs and transport. I am so proud to be part of a government that does not just sell off land to make developers rich in the outer suburbs but builds communities in the outer suburbs. How easy it was for those opposite to just sign off on an expanded urban growth boundary, and in came the Labor government to do the hard work of then going ahead and building community. The humble and hardworking people of the outer suburbs will always be better off under a Labor government.

We are making sure that developers give their fair contribution as well. We know that developers need to contribute more to that important infrastructure that communities need. They need to contribute more to the stations, the roads, the schools and the like, and so that is why we are working on an updated system of developer contributions to make sure that everybody is pitching in for the best life for people in the outer suburbs.

Those opposite are obsessed with what they call livability – the livability of the inner city. They want to kick out the ladder from underneath them, and bad luck to anybody else who did not make it there in time. Basically, they want to set us up to be like the Hunger Games. That is how it feels – the district that you are in determines your fate. But we simply do not accept that on this side of the house. We believe everyone gets a go and everyone can have choice about where they want to live. Personally I would not want to live near the member for Sandringham or the member for Brighton, but if others do, that is their choice, and they should have the ability to do that.

Apartments have come a long way. This government has put in place over a number of years improvements to apartment living to ensure that designs meet the needs of the people that live there in terms of light, warmth, cooling, access and space; the ability to make that apartment your home; and all the other rights and supports that we have given to renters, including the recent announcements and supports to ensure that when you move from one rental property to another you have a fair, equitable and transparent bond return process and that you cannot be asked to leave for no reason. We do not just represent one group of people. We do not just represent people for whom life is good and life is easy; we represent all Victorians. All Victorians are represented here. Those opposite seem to be making a lot of the fact that the Premier lives in Bendigo, as though that is some sort of mark against her. Do you know what is happening in Bendigo? Housing development, because the member for Bendigo East welcomes people to Bendigo. And if the member for Sandringham wants to move there, that is fine by us as well. So there is more voice, there is more choice under this side, and we are building the houses that Victorians want and need.

Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (15:28): It is interesting to follow Katniss Everdeen in the debate on the Duties Amendment (More Homes) Bill 2024. Some of the rhetoric we are hearing from those opposite is just extraordinary. Apparently we are fascists that are taking people out of their homes and shooting them. This is –

Members interjecting.

Danny O’BRIEN: They admit it, says one of them. Seriously, after 10 years in government, that is the best you can do? We heard it in question time: ‘Ventnor’. Oh, drink. Let us go again. Let us talk about Ventnor from 10 years ago. Like yesterday, we were talking about the Kennett government. Why don’t we go back to the Bolte government? Tell us about what John Cain Sr did. You guys have been in government, as you know, for a very long time, and you are still obsessing about Jeff Kennett. You are still obsessing about what Matthew Guy did 10 years ago.

Members interjecting.

Danny O’BRIEN: I am glad you have all woken up a bit, because you have been asleep at the wheel for the last 10 years. This legislation is the best evidence of how asleep at the wheel this government has been, because when you hear the Labor government saying, ‘Hey, have we got something for you,’ have a good look at it, because as is the case in this legislation, what they have got for you is simply what they took away from you seven years ago. It is exactly what you took away seven years ago. ‘We are bringing in a stamp duty concession for off-the-plan purchases. We are bringing that in.’ You took it away seven years ago. This was your policy.

Danny Pearson interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: Do you know what, it is very pleasing to have the member for Essendon at the table, because when this legislation went through in the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2017, where the government took away the stamp duty concession that they are now bringing back, there were seven speakers on this side. There were more even numbers in those days. There were seven coalition speakers. Guess how many proudly got up and spoke about their policy on that side in 2017? Well, there were two and the minister at the table. There was the Treasurer, and to my great surprise there was the member for Ivanhoe and the minister at the table as well cheerleading. In fact he spoke for his full 10 minutes on the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill in 2017 and did not mention that they were taking away the off-the-plan stamp duty concession. It was one of the actual key parts of the legislation in that year’s budget, and the minister at the table did not even mention it.

Danny Pearson interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: You probably did; 12th-century agrarian policies of the Assyrians probably would be something that you would have spoken about. This legislation is just more of a con from this government, taking away from you one day and then giving it back to you and expecting you to be grateful. There were some extremely good comments at the time. There was a matter of public importance as well that the then Treasurer, still the Treasurer, got up and spoke on. There are a few things that are quite apposite to revisit on a day like today, because in 2017 the then Treasurer said:

This government will not stand idly by, watching the benefits of a rising property market return to increasingly fewer hands.

That was seven years ago, and now you are still trying to fix it. You are still saying the same thing. You are still trying to fix it:

The Andrews government is not content to sit on its hands while an entire generation is locked out of housing.

Now we have got the current Premier saying she is going to be the Premier that puts millennials into housing. You started doing that 10 years ago, you said, and you are still failing. They are still failing. The Treasurer said at the time:

The off-the plan stamp duty concession, as of 1 July 2017, will only be available to those who intend to live in the property.

It goes on:

The off-the-plan concession only exists in this state, and it is about time it became a lot more targeted.

Obviously ‘about time’ has moved on to a different time. Seven years later we are going back to the future. He said:

This will help tilt the scales back towards buyers who intend to occupy the property as their primary place of residence.

It was a really good idea in 2017 to remove the off-the-plan stamp duty. I think what is most important to understand in this is that the government did not just do this in isolation and think everything would be hunky-dory, because the members opposite will be surprised to learn that they were told. It is very useful that although there has been significant change in the population of this house since 2017 it was the minister at the table, the member for Ivanhoe and the Treasurer who all spoke on that legislation. I spoke on it, and the member for Malvern spoke on it. I think at the time he might have been the Shadow Treasurer. He said:

If you take investors out of the pool for off-the-plan projects, which is the intended effect of this tax increase, you will simply see fewer projects get the go-ahead.

I missed the member for Malvern’s contribution, but I very much hope that he said ‘I told you so’, because he did. The member for Malvern and I think the REIV and the property council all said the same thing. If you remove the off-the-plan purchase, you are going to get less apartment towers built. And now what have we got? We have now got the Premier saying, ‘We are bringing in a stamp duty off-the-plan concession so we can get more apartments built.’

Bridget Vallence interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: Exactly, member for Evelyn. Just admit you got it wrong. If only the government would admit they got it wrong.

Danny Pearson interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: I am sorry, but I cannot do the words ‘Essendon’ and ‘reigning premiers’ in the same sentence, and I will not do it. The minister just needs to understand. Like I said, it is a shame that the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, having spoken on the bill that removed the off-the-plan stamp duty concession in 2017, did not actually mention – maybe he knew that in 2024 – ‘This is a disaster. We’re going to have to bring it back, so I’m not going to mention it in my speech because that will be embarrassing.’

Danny Pearson interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: Fine-tuning. This is the way this government works. ‘Don’t listen to what we did in the past; don’t worry about what we might have said or what we might have done.’

Bridget Vallence interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: In fact the member for Evelyn is right. I am surprised that they are not trying to say that this off-the-plan stamp duty concession was removed by the Kennett government – because that would have been helpful, wouldn’t it – or maybe by the member for Bulleen. It was the member for Bulleen’s fault. I mean, they called him Mr Skyscraper yesterday because he actually got things done. He got housing built. He actually got things done, and now they are criticising him. They are saying, ‘You guys didn’t do as many houses as we do.’ The Assistant Treasurer is trying to say they are the reigning premiers. When it is so obvious in this circumstance that the government’s past policies have failed, it should be a wake-up call for all Victorians to look at every housing announcement that the government made last week and see how much of that is spin. To come in after 10 years and say ‘We’re going to provide housing’ is just extraordinary.

There are no benefits – there are very few benefits of you guys being in government for a long time, but that is one of them. Whatever is happening in this state is not anyone’s fault except the current government. This government has failed repeatedly on housing. They have failed on the rent issue; I cannot believe the economic incompetence of this government bringing in more rules with respect to rent and rental properties that are going to send more and more landlords or rental providers out of the market at a time when we have virtually zero vacancy rates and rising rents. You are economically illiterate on that side. I am saying that without looking at the minister, because I know he knows a bit about economics, so he must be embarrassed about some of these policies. But this government has failed dismally when it comes to housing, it has failed when it comes to rentals and it cannot manage money. And that is why Victorians are suffering under this Victorian Labor government.

Steve McGHIE (Melton) (15:38): I rise to contribute to the Duties Amendment (More Homes) Bill 2024. I do have to make a comment about the member for Gippsland South. I am pleased that he had his heart health check before that contribution. He has got his socks, and he has got good results. I am pleased that he has done that, and he can go back and relax now and settle the heart rate down.

I am pleased to contribute on this bill that has been put by the Treasurer. It is a significant step forward in the creation of more homes, and that is why in the title of this bill it directly goes to more homes: the Duties Amendment (More Homes) Bill 2024. By introducing this temporary incentive for off-the-plan land transfer duty concessions for purchases of eligible apartments and townhouses, we are helping to create the origin stories for many, many thousands of young Victorians hopefully buying into the housing market and buying off-the-plan apartments and townhouses.

The Allan Labor government knows that there is only one way out of the housing crisis, and it has been mentioned many, many times. It is that we need to build our way out, and that is what we are going to do in many ways. It is not just one aspect; there are many aspects that come together. It is not just townhouses and apartments; it is the release of government land. I know that there was some reference in one of the earlier contributions to the Premier living up in the Bendigo region. She was out at Bendigo last Friday announcing some further developments out at Bendigo. I think it was 1000 or 1300 new homes to be built. So, again, there are many, many aspects to what our government is doing in delivering more homes for Victorians and for Victorians to come into the housing market.

It just means greater opportunity. Having a home gives young families greater opportunity for their futures. That is why our government is committed to projects like, as was mentioned earlier today, the Fitzroy Gasworks redevelopment, which will transform land in Melbourne’s inner-city suburbs to deliver the homes that our people need. I think it is in excess of 600 homes in that area. That will include social and public homes. That is a fantastic outcome. It is not just about building structures, it is also about creating communities where more Victorians can live – where they rent or where they buy near the things that they need and the lifestyles that they value and the lifestyles for raising a family and having the infrastructure and the facilities close by.

We are also unlocking land and taking decisive actions to meet the housing needs of a vastly growing city. I will just make reference to what is happening in my electorate in my local government area of Melton. Over the next 10 years Melton is going to grow by another 100,000 people. It is at about 208,000 people at the moment, and it will grow to in excess of 300,000 people, so we need to further develop areas around Melton. I noticed with some of the precinct structure plan announcements that Melton West PSP, Melton East PSP and the Bulmans Road PSP will be over the next 10 years developed to provide more homes in that outer-western fringe of Melbourne. That is fantastic, and that will provide houses for families moving in. As I say, it is 100,000 people over the next 10 years, and it is going to be amazing.

I need to pick up on what the member for Caulfield was raising. He made reference to the Suburban Rail Loop (SRL) and the people in Melton who would see no benefits and that we were lacking infrastructure and things like that. I am just going to remind him of some of the infrastructure that is coming into Melton. Very shortly we will be turning a sod of soil for the new Melton hospital – a $1 billion hospital – and it will be completed by 2029. This is a fantastic thing for this community, such a fast-growing community. The Minister for Transport Infrastructure is at the table, and we are currently getting underway with level crossing removals in Melton – four of them. Melton will be level crossing free by 2026 and will have a brand new Melton railway station by 2026. These are some of the –

Bridget Vallence: Acting Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

Quorum formed.

Steve McGHIE: I will come back to where I left off before we were interrupted, and that was making reference to the infrastructure in Melton and in particular our road and rail infrastructure. I did mention the level crossing removals. I did mention the new Melton railway station. We have also got a $650 million upgrade of the Melton rail line. That will be fantastic. We will only benefit from –

Bridget Vallence: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, we are speaking on the Duties Amendment (More Homes) Bill, and I do not recall seeing anything about the Melton hospital in that bill. Debate has been wideranging –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Jackson Taylor): It has been a very wideranging debate. The member for Melton to continue. There is no point of order.

Steve McGHIE: Before I went to the Melton issues I did say that I was responding to the member for Caulfield’s comments in his contribution, and that is why I will continue to talk about my electorate, because we have got many, many fantastic infrastructure projects that are going to cater for the additional 100,000 people who are moving into Melton over the next 10 years. I will come back to it – a $650 million upgrade of the Melton rail line, with nine-carriage trains. We are going to extend the length of the platforms at the stations to allow those nine-carriage trains to be able to stop at that those train stations. There is a whole heap of work going on that we will benefit from. But there is also the broader infrastructure work that will assist the western suburbs, and that is the West Gate Tunnel and the Metro Tunnel. People from the west, and in particular from Melton, will benefit from these infrastructure builds.

And of course we are introducing some new bus services in Melton to cater for areas like Eynesbury. They will have a new bus service before the end of the year. We have extended the FlexiRide service, and that was budgeted for in the May budget. So to suggest that Melton has been left behind because of the SRL is complete nonsense. In fact the government injected billions of dollars of infrastructure into the west and into Melton prior to anything to do with the SRL. I could go on about other things like TAFE colleges and new schools. I could go on about that, but I will not – I will come back to the bill itself.

I thought it was a bit rich for the member for Bulleen to bang on about flip-flopping planning changes. The Maribyrnong council are still bearing the effects of the financial disaster he inflicted on them when he inappropriately approved the Joseph Road developments. I know the member for Footscray went to that in her contribution and the disaster of those towers there along the Maribyrnong River – unmade roads, no pathways, no windows in some cases and terrible shadowing. Our government and the local council have had to do a hell of a lot in regard to trying to rectify what is probably the worst example of some sort of urban renewal under that previous planning minister from the opposition – even though he thinks is probably one of the best planning ministers. I think he has got a lot to live up to, let me tell you.

As I say, there have been examples from the past of terrible actions by the opposition planning people. We have put together a very bold and fantastic plan about building more homes, more apartments and more townhouses. This bill goes a long way to assisting purchasers to buy into the market off the plan. This will assist people that are trying to get into the market, and it is a fantastic bill. I commend the Treasurer on introducing this bill, and I commend the bill to the house.

Nicole WERNER (Warrandyte) (15:48): I rise to speak on the Duties Amendment (More Homes) Bill 2024. A big thankyou to the government for introducing this bill in the house mere hours before we started to debate it in the chamber! We thank you for that, and we thank you for forgoing parliamentary processes and common courtesy to even allow the opposition to have a look in! The government jumped from introducing the bill in the chamber shortly after midday on Tuesday to then jumping to debate the bill that same day at 6 pm. But let me tell you, it was some foreshadowing of things to come. As the member for Sandringham so eloquently said, this is policy on the run. This is the timeline of events as they happened: first the government introduced a bill shortly after midday on Tuesday, and then they provided the coalition with a bill briefing at approximately 4:30 pm that same day, only to then debate the bill in the chamber at 6 pm on that Tuesday. Typically you would give about two weeks for legislation as important as this – that would be the courteous thing to do. But here we are; this is where we have landed. So while the government gave us less than 6 hours notice to develop a position on legislation, consult with key stakeholders and all of the like, that is probably more notice than you will get as a Victorian before the government approves construction on a 20-storey apartment building next door to you or deems your neighbourhood as the next high-rise, high-density megacity.

Let me take you back to 2017, the year the then Andrews Labor government decided to scrap the off-the-plan stamp duty exemption, a critical support that made housing more accessible for Victorians. They scrapped it in 2017 despite clear warnings from industry experts that removing this exemption would reduce rental supply and make homes harder to afford. They pushed ahead, claiming it was about fairness. Fast-forward to today and here they are backflipping on their decision and bringing back this exemption, would you believe? No-one backflips better than the current Premier, Jacinta Allan. She has backflipped on her government’s position on raising the age of criminality, she has backflipped on pill testing, and she has even backflipped on the fact that young people actually want to be able to afford to buy their own homes.

Was it not your former Premier Andrews that said just last year – he is on public record saying this – that he had spoken to a grand total of a focus group of his kids and his friends’ kids, and he pretty much summarised it as ‘No, you know what, young people don’t actually care about buying their own home.’ You have heard so many times this week the government talking about millennials and gen Z and how they want to get into their own homes, yet here is another backflip from the Allan Labor government. I mean, give me a break. Just last year your former Premier said that he had been talking to his kids and his friends’ kids, and home ownership was not a thing for them. Can I tell you now, as an actual millennial, not just one that is masquerading to have their best interests at heart, we indeed do want our own homes; we do believe in home ownership. These are conversations I am having with people in my peer group every single week, and I am so glad that the Allan Labor government has finally woken up to this fact. We celebrate that; that is fantastic. That is why we on this side of the house are the party of home ownership, because we actually have believed in it. We have not toed-and-froed on it, we have not backflipped and flipped and flopped on it, but we have believed in it from the very beginning, and we believe in home ownership as the coalition.

In fact it was my migrant parents that moved to this country for a better future for their future family. They did not have kids yet; they had come from Malaysia and they decided they wanted to move to Australia, the Lucky Country, and part of that reasoning was because they wanted to be able to live the Australian dream to buy their first home. So I am so glad that the Allan Labor government, in contrast to the Andrews Labor government, has finally woken up to this reality 10 years later. A decade in, finally here we are. You would think that the Premier would be keen to showcase her backflipping in her gymnastics skills at the Commonwealth Games in 2026, but alas, thanks to her she has got to board a plane to Glasgow to be able to do that.

It is absolutely rich of the Allan Labor government to tout their lofty and ambitious housing target to build 800,000 new homes in the next decade; it is. On average, if you look at that lofty and ambitious claim – and that is not just me saying that, that is councils saying that all across Victoria – you would need to build on average about 80,000 homes, not hard maths, year on year to achieve this goal in the next decade. Never mind that councils have trashed this lofty target. Never mind that the government is imposing their will upon local governments, these councils, as to where the homes should be built as they protest this, without any community consultation. But get a load of this: while they are talking about wanting to build homes for Victorians, the cold fact is that home approvals in Victoria are at their lowest level in a decade. Can I say that again: while the government are talking all about how they want to build homes for Victorians, home approvals in Victoria are at their lowest level in a decade. As reported by the Age early this year, Victoria is down 17.6 per cent from the previous year, with only 51,068 flats and townhouses given the green light across the state, well short of the average needed to deliver the government’s average target of 80,000 homes a year. That is the truth of it – unbelievable.

Instead of a full apology or acknowledgement of their mistake, the government have brought forward a limited temporary measure, reintroducing a partial exemption for only 12 months. While I will accept we welcome this change, because it is something that you would actually change yourself to begin with, it is a tragedy that this government got rid of the exemption in the first place. It is one of the key reasons we are in the housing crisis that we are in today. It is not like we did not warn them. The member for Malvern back in 2017, who was speaking against the abolition of the off-the-plan stamp duty concession, said the following:

We have also seen the abolition of the off-the-plan stamp duty concession for everyone except for owner-occupiers. Again another increase in tax, another stupidly thought out, poorly thought out, ill-designed new tax from a Labor government which will have the opposite effect to that which is intended.

…

… what happens when you reduce housing supply in a market where there is demand? Prices go up. It is not economics 101 – it is even easier than that – but Labor does not get it. Labor, by introducing this new tax, will put higher pressure on housing prices, will reduce supply to the market and will have the opposite effect, not just for investors, but for first home buyers too. This is a dumb move, a dumb move by a government that does not understand the market and has just got dollar signs in its eyes regardless of the consequences.

That from the member for Malvern back in 2017 when you abolished this very stamp duty exemption. The member for Malvern is a gentleman. I trust that he will restrain himself from an ‘I told you so’. But jeez, with that level of insight and clairvoyance, surely, member for Malvern, we need your tips for the Melbourne Cup. That is quite remarkable.

Do not just take our word for it. Let us hear what the experts have to say. Melinda Jennison at the Real Estate Buyers Agents Association of Australia has said that over the last 10 years Labor could not be trusted on property taxes and taxes generally. She has pointed out that the 29 new or increased property taxes from this government have actually made property more expensive, have made housing more unaffordable, have made home ownership more out of reach and have made Victoria a place where investors are fleeing from.

Simon Pressley, head of research at Propertyology, has called this change a trap for buyers, emphasising that off-the-plan property purchases have significantly more associated risk than established properties, and warned that the government’s proposal to lure people into such a trap by scrapping stamp duty on new dwellings is reckless policy.

Then there is Richard Temlett, national research executive at Charter Keck Cramer, who noted that while the government’s reform could potentially result in 32,000 additional sales, the actual numbers might fall short because there are fewer than 7000 off-the-plan options currently being marketed. He also cautioned the government not to assume more development will come on line as the market will not turn on overnight. Temlett’s concerns make it clear that lofty projections will not substitute for real available inventory in the market.

In the words of these industry leaders, we see a common thread: this government’s temporary solutions and rushed decisions are a far cry from the well-considered, impactful policies Victorians need. The warnings are there. Let us hope that the government is listening. That is it for the time that I have left. I have too many pages.

Nick Staikos interjected.

Nicole WERNER: I could go on and on for another 20 minutes if only you would let me, member for Bentleigh.

Chris COUZENS (Geelong) (15:58): I am absolutely delighted to rise to speak on the Duties Amendment (More Homes) Bill 2024. Can I start by congratulating the Minister for Planning and the Premier for the enormous amount of work that they have done. This is incredible work. I know my community have welcomed it, very much so. We know that there are real challenges around housing, and that is no different in my electorate of Geelong. We know that more housing provides accommodation for people, but it also includes the opportunity to revitalise our city in Geelong, which has been on the cards for a while.

When I have listened to those opposite in this debate, basically they have no plan. They have no plan for Victoria’s housing future. That is clear in what they are saying. All they have done is to bag it, not given us any other options to go with. I think what we are debating today is extraordinary work, and for all the harping on by those opposite, they have got nothing to offer us.

I think ideas like slashing stamp duty, for example, for off-the-plan apartments and townhouses are fantastic. That is going to bring more developments into my electorate of Geelong, particularly in our inner-city area, and as I mentioned, we are working hard to ensure that we bring that vibrancy back to the inner Geelong area. We have set a target. We set a target some time ago for up to 16,000 people living in the CBD. Obviously, you bring people in, and they use the infrastructure, the resources, the shops and those sorts of things because they are living there. At the moment it is quite slow because we do not have those people living in the CBD. All the consultation that has been held over the last couple of years has highlighted the fact that we do need to have people living in the city and we do need to have that target of 16,000, and this is a great opportunity for that to happen.

I think better design is another great aspect. We are not going to have shoddy apartments built, we are going to have good-quality designed apartments and townhouses and those sorts of accommodations, which anyone would want to live in – as we should. On some of the comments from those opposite, why are we not supporting people to live not only where they want to live but where they need to live and to live around their workplace or their networks and their family members? We should be doing everything we can to ensure we are providing that good-quality, secure housing and that we are doing it where people need it to be and where people want to live in our communities. This plan is all about that. It is all about ensuring that people get to live in good, safe, quality housing – and are not subjected to some of those bad landlords that we hear about often – in the part of the community they need to live in. This plan enables that to happen. It is really important for a community like mine. We have also talked about making it fairer for renters and Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria. I have many constituents coming into my office and talking about their landlords and the unfair treatment that they experience from their landlords. This is another benefit for constituents in my electorate who have been subjected to some of those unfair treatments by their landlords.

I think also fast-tracking the pathways for building homes that meet the test of build quality, good design and sustainability are all factors that had to be in this document. I think it is really important that our homes are far more sustainable than they have ever been before. We know that climate change is a big challenge. We know that the many programs that we have been running, whether they be solar panels or solar heat pumps, all those things, are really important to our communities, but also any future development should be required to be sustainable. These are really important matters as well.

It also ensures that developers can build better homes without delays and additional costs, which again is really important, because we know the longer something takes to build, the more it costs. I have seen that in my community. I am sure many others have seen it in their communities. To enable these things to happen quickly is really important. I think one of the ones that is really resonating with my community is dividing blocks so that it is easier and faster and cheaper to build new homes. Many people in my community have either done it or are considering doing it, because they can start to house other family members. It is another house on a block that was sitting there vacant on unused land in lots of cases. That has been a really great opportunity for people in my electorate. But I think overall people need to be able to live where they have their networks, where their family is, where their school or their TAFE or their university is but also close to public transport and amenities. I mentioned our Geelong CBD earlier. It is around the railway station, and it is around all the amenities that people need. It is a great opportunity. We have already started to see some development there, but we know that this plan will offer much more to developers but also much more to young people, to people wanting to live in an apartment block or in a townhouse. Those opportunities are very clearly there with this plan.

We want to make sure that housing is affordable and secure and that there are housing options close to services. I think for low-income people, for people relying on social housing and public housing, these are the things that are really important, because it actually reduces their living costs if they are living close to their workplace, for example, or they are living close to the public transport they need to utilise to get to work every day or to get to uni or whatever it might be. So these are great opportunities for people to live close to those services but in particular our rail services. There has been some development around South Geelong station. There are apartment blocks that have been built there, and people are scrambling to buy those. There are great opportunities for those communities, for people that are living in those apartments. They can now just walk across the road to the railway station or to the bus stop, so these are fantastic opportunities.

My community is delighted with this plan. We have more work to do to let people know what their opportunities are, but I think by having the Geelong Authority in Geelong, by having the Geelong central project in Geelong, who are working on making sure we meet that target of having 16,000 ‍people living in the CBD, we can revitalise Geelong at the same time as having those new apartments and townhouses and so on built in our city. By having that housing, by having those people, it equals a vibrant community. We will see that grow over time. Once these apartments and townhouses are built in my community, I know that it is going to make a huge difference to the city of Geelong and the people that live there. The traders, the entertainment venues and the restaurants will all benefit from having so many people living in the CBD and enjoying our beautiful waterfront and all that it has to offer, having bay views from those apartments. That has been the plan for Geelong for some time. This is now going to drive that and make sure that it does happen and it happens in a timely way, because we cannot just rely on people doing it on their own. We need to have a plan like this to ensure that people are being housed where they want to be housed. I commend the bill.

Gabrielle DE VIETRI (Richmond) (16:08): I rise in support of the Duties Amendment (More Homes) Bill 2024. Reforming stamp duty has been the Greens’ policy for a very long time. We know that stamp duty is a barrier to first home buyers, it is a barrier to people wanting to downsize and it disproportionately impacts young people and single women. The Greens have long called for stamp duty to be abolished for this reason and replaced with a broad-based land tax, a fairer tax. Because moving away from stamp duty and towards a fairer tax would help ease the housing crisis, as would reform of negative gearing and capital gains tax at a federal level. We have been saying it for years, and we have not been alone. Here in Victoria we have already had an inquiry into land transfer duty fees, with a damning report tabled last year calling for reform of this inefficient and volatile tax. Back in 2022 there was a federal inquiry into housing affordability across Australia, with a report recommending that states replace stamp duty with a land tax. The experts agreed – academics, economists, stakeholders across the political spectrum – and they have all called for a move to a more equitable tax. How housing is taxed impacts the affordability of the housing, and stamp duty artificially inflates the cost of homes by charging people every time they move. So after years of pressure and advice and advocacy, although it is only a short-term intervention as opposed to a permanent rescission, it is encouraging to see Labor finally moving on this.

They will have our support on this bill, as they have had our support on the empty homes tax, which was increased, expanded and reinforced through negotiations with the Greens; as they have had our support on the short-stay levy, which was coupled, thanks to the Greens’ support, with more powers for owners corporations and councils to turn properties that have been hotels back into homes; and as they have had our support for reforms to homes in residential parks. In fact the Greens have supported many of the government’s housing bills this term.

As we support this, we note the great lengths that the Premier has gone to this week to try and lay blame on the Greens for their inability to resolve the housing crisis as she deliberately shifts the blame and tries to shirk responsibility for Labor’s hand in this housing crisis. We know that decades of Labor and Liberal policies of giving tax breaks to wealthy developers, to property investors and to speculators, their refusal to build any more public housing – and not only that, the demolition of what scarce public housing we do have; we are the lowest state when it comes to the provision of public and community housing, with just 2.6 per cent compared to the national average of 4.1 per cent – and their refusal to control greedy landlords and end unlimited rent rises are the settings that have fuelled the housing crisis and left people struggling, unable to afford the rent, unable to save money for a deposit and unable to compete with investors just to get a roof over their head.

It is not a broken housing system. The system is working just as Labor has intended. They have prioritised the commodification of housing and the rights of those seeking profit over those in need of shelter. For too long they have reinforced the view that housing is an asset to collect rather than a basic human right, which is why although the Greens will not be opposing this bill – we will be supporting it – we will be moving amendments in the other place. Our amendments will ensure that the benefits of this bill flow primarily to first home buyers and owner-occupiers, and they are linked with the requirement for the home to actually be lived in. It sounds absurd, but this is a requirement that will ensure that these homes do not sit empty, that they are not just holiday homes or Airbnbs. It is not too much to ask, and we hope to have the government’s support on this, because until we replace stamp duty with a broad-based land tax and make this change permanent, the benefits of this concession should not flow to companies or trusts or wealthy investors.

This bill should also have a reporting requirement. We need to know the impact that this change will have, and it should be publicly available so we know the total number of concessions granted, the monetary value for each of those concessions and the impact that it has on housing affordability.

Because the Greens support the densification of our suburbs and because we have long called for the abolition of stamp duty, we will support this bill, but we ask the government to do so much more, because building private homes alone will not fix the housing crisis. You do not have to be an economist or a housing expert to recognise that if the government continues to fail to build any new public housing, if they continue to fail to provide any genuinely affordable homes, it will guarantee that this housing crisis will actually get worse, and that if the government does not control unlimited rent increases, rents will continue to skyrocket and renters will continue to lose their homes.

Developers have in fact already come out and said that this new concession means that they can increase their prices because it will give buyers the ability to pay more. But housing is essential, just like education and health care, and governments should not just leave it up to the private sector to provide more of it. Why would developers, whose business model is driven by profit and scarcity, ever make housing abundant and affordable? That is why we need to get the government back into the business of actually directly building genuinely affordable, good-quality homes. That is why on top of seeking to amend this bill the Greens released our plan this week for a public builder to build tens of thousands of new, genuinely affordable homes to buy or rent – because this government could be and should be directly building homes that people can actually afford to live in. They can be rented or sold to first home buyers and renters at below-market prices. That is why we will keep calling on the government to make renting fair and affordable and limit how much a landlord can put up the rent.

This bill is encouraging. After years and years of pressure from the Greens, Labor is finally coming to the table to try to address the housing crisis, but if they continue to pander to private developers who benefit from the crisis, things will only get worse. Homes should be for living in, not for profit.

Bronwyn HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (16:16): I am also rising in very strong support of the Duties Amendment (More Homes) Bill 2024. Before going into my discussion on the bill, I just want to say that it is so easy for anyone in here that is never going to be forming government and does not have to deliver on what they say to say anything that is populist, that sounds fantastic, or that anyone can say ‘Yeah, we all agree’ to. The dishonesty in this is there is no detail about how it all gets done. To be able to just go around saying whatever you feel like that you think might sound popular without any background as to what it actually means to deliver it or how you can deliver it is really quite dishonest in my view, and that is what is going on here with the Greens.

The Labor government has now been working for quite some time on trying to address the housing shortage in Victoria. But the other thing in all this blame about it being the government’s fault and this and that is that the housing shortage is a phenomenon that I think is global. It is not just in Victoria; it is in the rest of Australia and it is also in many places in Europe. We are hearing about the protests in places like Spain where people cannot live in an affordable house, or in Belgium wherever it is. In Venice people are trying to fight against more tourists for the very reason that there is not enough housing for the people that permanently live in that area. So it is not just here; it is across the globe.

As far as I can see, the Victorian government really is standing firm and working really hard at the forefront of trying to address these problems. A lot of this is because of course we see firsthand in the electorates that we represent the terrible consequences of the lack of affordable housing. People come into my office, many in the situation where they are looking at eviction because the rent has gone up. People are complaining about others that are living in a supermarket area because they do not have anywhere to live.

So we are starting with this proposal and the many other things that we are looking at, which are affordable housing, social housing and trying to turbocharge the industry to build more housing of all sorts to make sure that that housing is in places that have the infrastructure already. Somebody said to me, and someone might correct me, that if you build more dwellings or more homes in the areas that already have infrastructure, like the inner and middle suburbs, it takes something like $1 extra in contribution for infrastructure, but if you do it in the outer suburbs like Wollert in the electorate of Thomastown it is something like $4 that has to be spent there. So really we need to share the resources that we already have. Yes, we still need to do more in terms of infrastructure, but we need to make sure that things are shared and that there are homes all throughout the state where people want to live so that they have the choice to live where they grew up, where their families and other connections are, or they have the choice to live further out if that is what they would like.

In terms of the Liberals, it seems like they would just want to see everybody moving further and further out. I see, for example, right now the Thomastown electorate is about 30 kilometres from the city and is probably getting close to the outer suburbs, but where are we going next? We are going to Donnybrook, Wallan, Kilmore – how far do we go? Many people that may be buying a house and land package there might rather, if they had the choice, be looking at living in perhaps Reservoir, where their family lives. I think there is only one apartment block in Reservoir. There is just the first multistorey development being built in Thomastown at the moment. There have been no complaints about that construction. It really is happening very fast now, and people see this as a good thing because there is more opportunity for particularly young homebuyers to get into the housing market.

I better get on to the actual bill that we are talking about here today, which will waive stamp duty for a 12-month period. Because we know the urgency of these things, this bill was introduced very quickly. At the moment there are certain circumstances where first home buyers or owner-occupiers, residents of Victoria, can buy a house and get a concession on the stamp duty, which can be $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, $60,000, $70,000, $80,000. They can get a concession on that. Now this is going to apply, this 12 months, to anybody that is purchasing an off-the-plan home, an apartment or a townhouse, to try to really encourage people to start making their decisions now rather than waiting for the future.

We know that there have been a whole lot of other things that the Allan Labor government has done to improve the situation for accommodation, whether it is the recently announced further improvement of rights for renters around not having to pay two bonds if you move from one property to another or having a dispute resolution system that is much quicker and easier to access. We know that it is not just a one size fits all. You cannot just do one thing in order to increase the number of homes. You need to do lots of different things for people that rent as well as those that want to buy.

I look at my children. My oldest son is 29. He is renting a house, in a share house. He is worried that the rent is going to go up soon. The people that he lives with do not like to even complain about any of the poor conditions of the house because they are worried that if the landlord is forced to improve the property, then that will mean that their rent will go up or, even worse, they will be evicted. I was talking to him only a few days ago and said, ‘Why don’t you look for something else? There’s all these problems with it.’ I probably should not say too much. What he told me was, ‘Well, have you seen the state of the rental market in this area?’ On Fairy Floss and all these social media apps there is all sorts of talk: ‘A hundred people turned up for the viewing’, ‘There were 900 applications’, ‘Help, can somebody give a room for the next six months?’ So we need to do something. We are doing something.

I know the Minister for Planning is looking at all the new planning regimes in order to also fast-track properties, but also there was a lot of reputational damage around the Liberal years when we had apartments being built that did not even have a window. They were all crammed in. The height of the ceiling is about 30 centimetres from the top of your head. This is what people think townhouses and apartments are.

A member interjected.

Bronwyn HALFPENNY: I do not know if I have got time to respond to the member over there, because I have seen lots of apartments without any windows or with just one window at the front and nothing else. They are just absolutely terrible. There are some not that far from where I am.

Getting back to this bill, the stamp duty concession is for all, and it is also about, with the work that has been done in planning, making better designs. We have other things that have been announced around a greater design booklet to look at how apartments could be better designed, what guidance to give and how to go about building better-designed apartments and townhouses so that they are actually nice places to live, they do not feel cramped and they are well designed both on the outside for the neighbours that may live around them and also for the people that are actually living inside those apartments.

I know that, for example, the residents of Thomastown want to see their children have a home. When you look at the area of the north, often people’s parents lived in maybe Preston or Reservoir or Northcote. Then they cannot afford to live in that area, so they go down the train track – they go to Reservoir, they go to Thomastown, or those that lived in Thomastown are going up to South Morang or Mernda or Donnybrook. While these areas are lovely places to live, with all the red gums and the trees and that sort of stuff out that way, you also need to be near your family and your community, particularly if you are a young family, in order to have all the support that you need. This legislation is something that I believe the residents and constituents of the Thomastown electorate will be very pleased to see once they see the outcome of the program that we have for housing.

Brad BATTIN (Berwick) (16:26): Good news: only 55 days till Christmas. It is only 55 days until Santa comes back into Victoria and will go around and hopefully deliver more in relation to housing than what this government has done in 10 years. We have had 10 years of a Labor government with their red suit on, walking around pretending now that all issues in the state are not caused by them. Now they have brought in a bill, the Duties Amendment (More Homes) Bill 2024 – and we love it; we love a good Labor title when they put the names of the bills in, their ‘more homes’ bill, which they have brought in as a matter of urgency here in Victoria. They have brought it in because they need to get it through asap. It is a piece of legislation that in 2017 this government voted to get rid of to support the duties in relation to buying off the plan all those years ago.

I just want to clear up one myth, and this is specifically for the Greens. When the Greens were up here before, they were specifically talking around this absolute hate for private ownership of investment properties. They have this absolute distrust of any person who buys a property and puts it on the market for rent. It is like every person that does it is doing it solely for profit. A lot of them are trying to set themselves up for later on in life. But with that myth, trying to paint them all as these rich developers lying in their money, swimming in their big pools, it is like they have got this absolute fantasy land. I just want to put it on record. Here are some of the biggest investors in Victoria that put houses on the market, and if people want to question this group of people as people that do not want to give back to the community, I will leave that to the Greens to question it, because even Labor would back these people. Teachers are one of the largest owners of investment properties here in Victoria. Registered nurses –

Iwan Walters interjected.

Brad BATTIN: I am actually trying to defend your side here at the moment; I probably would not quite go there. Registered nurses are one of the biggest investors in properties here in Victoria. These are people that give back to the community every single day. During COVID they put themselves on the line to protect us, but the Greens want to paint them as horrible developers here in the community. Office administrators, IT managers, sparkies, sales assistants, police and firefighters are some of the biggest investors in the private market here in Victoria. Call centre operators – we are not going into the rich list here with call centre operators – and aged and disability carers, people who are giving back every day of their work, with the little bit of extra money they have to try and make sure they do not become a burden on the tax system later, also provide a house in the private market. Sales reps – the list goes on.

These are people that genuinely give back and support our community. They buy a property to set themselves up, yes, for a little bit later on, but these are not people who fit the descriptions that are given of these horrible private investors that increase the rent dramatically or will not let people complain because they provide them with a premises that is just disgusting. The reality is a very small percentage of investors are bad investors here in our state, and there should be legislation and rules to catch them out and get rid of them. That is just a simple reality. If any developer or investor wants to provide a property that is not up to standard, that will not provide things like heat, hot water, air conditioning, comfort, safety – all of these things that you should be having in your home – then we need to put rules in place and ways to police them to catch them out. But can we stop this absolute rhetoric where that list of people – our teachers, our nurses, our coppers, our firefighters, all of these people that want to give back – are horrible, nasty investors, because quite simply they are not.

Out our way in the growth corridor we have got many developers that have been trying to get properties on the market. They have gone to the Minister for Planning, and the planning minister has refused to sign off on precinct structure plans through Clyde, Clyde North, Officer and Pakenham. We have got developers wanting to get properties onto the market, and people say, ‘Oh, the delay’s for them. They can make more money, they can get the profits out of them.’ The reality is they wanted them on the market a long time ago. All of that precinct past Thompsons Road in Officer has been ready and waiting for development. All it is waiting for is two things: investment from the state government into Thompsons Road to connect it and, two, sign-off on the PSP so there is employment land and land for people to build their first residence on or an investment property so people can rent in that area. So the only thing holding that up is the Victorian Labor government. That is the only thing holding that up. Everybody else is ready to go.

In Clyde we have got developments down there ready to go with thousands of blocks of land. What is holding it up? Investments in Thompsons Road and Clyde Road. And yet the government are going out to developers and saying to them, ‘Unless you build specific roads, you can’t do your development,’ and Bells Road out in Clyde North is one of those roads. Then the government say, ‘To put that road in, you have to go across either a gas pipe or the desalination plant.’ It used to be that you had to insure that to make sure it was protected; obviously for government assets you would protect it for two years, have an insurance policy on it for X amount of dollars, and there would be a negotiation in that. Now they want unlimited insurance in perpetuity. I do not know about you, Acting Speaker, but I reckon I would struggle to find any insurance company in the world that would insure a road for unlimited liability in perpetuity, so it is just not going to happen. So the minister needs to get involved, go in, tell the department that it is just not a reasonable offer or outcome, because what is it stopping? It is stopping more houses going on the market, stopping getting the land supply and stopping the massive increase because of the shortage in land we have through those areas. It is also stopping the development of a new school for students who are struggling in the education system and who are entering the justice system. We could build the Cire school down there and get it up and going. They are ready to go. They have got the land ready to go, they just need the government to sign off on that development down there.

But when it comes to this bill, the Duties Amendment (More Homes) Bill, I think it is most important that we put on the record here today that this is a tax that this government introduced in 2017, and at the time, as my good friend the member for Gippsland South has stated, it was said by Mr Pallas:

The Andrews government is not content to sit on its hands while an entire generation is locked out of housing.

So from 2017 to 2024 what have we seen? We have seen prices of properties go up dramatically, delays in developments and people no longer being able to afford many of their properties because of the taxes, and we have had 55 new taxes in this state, of which most are based on property, so therefore people are refusing to invest in it. The government has since that date introduced so many new taxes that investors are departing Victoria and moving into other states and relocating their money. The beneficiaries of this are places like Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales, where these smaller investors, like those I have mentioned before, will be going out and building properties to put into the market in those areas in Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales. And the reason? Because they can trust those governments. There are Labor and Liberal governments in there, and they can trust those governments, which want those developments to come in there and they want those investments in there because they know that the greatest way to solve the housing crisis that affects so many states at the moment is less tax, more private investment and more opportunities to get houses on the market, whether it is in the rental market or for people to purchase their first home.

We know there is a place for social housing. I am very proud to see some of the social housing projects we have had out through Pakenham, through Berwick and Officer. We have even had some social housing projects that have been built by private enterprise and through entrepreneurship where they have put everything into ensuring women coming out of domestic violence situations have got a place to go and effectively call their own, to give them the security that they need. If you go and speak to the Clyde North information service or any service like that where they can put them into a home and it gives them the confidence that they do not go back to that domestic violence, that is a win. So we know there is a place for that. But we also know that it is not just a place for government; there is a place for the private sector in it.

So if I get anything out of today, we are going to support this going through. We are not going to oppose this, because we actually think it is great to see that we are going to reduce a tax. It is the first time it has happened from this government. We are going to see a reduced tax. But we have to get into the refrains of, particularly, the Greens, so I am only going to really target the Greens on this. We have to get it out of their rhetoric that all investors are bad, because we should be welcoming investors here in Victoria with open arms to assist with the housing crisis, to get more houses on the market, to ensure that we can keep the rental costs down and to make sure that people can genuinely have a place to go where they are safe and where they feel like they are welcomed. The only way to do that is to invite these private investors in, and this will assist partly.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (16:36): The Duties Amendment (More Homes) Bill 2024 – what is it about? It is introducing a 12-month, expanded off-the-plan stamp duty concession, which the government announced on Monday 21 October. The bill does not make any other changes. Now, the only reason I am saying that is to be really specific about what the bill is delivering. At the end of the day more homes means more opportunity, and that is why we are slashing the stamp duty on off-the-plan apartments, units and townhouses to cut up-front costs, speed up building and make it more affordable for everyone to buy off the plan.

This is one of a number of levers that our Allan Labor government is implementing in order to really turbocharge the building of the full spectrum of housing in Victoria but focusing on quality, focusing on where people actually want to live and making sure that we do not restrict the ability of millennials and beyond to get into the housing market – and, I should say, the reverse: actually giving them hope. Something I was saying earlier today is that when the most recent housing announcements – there have been a lot of housing announcements, not just recently – came through, we were actually getting some really positive feedback from younger Victorians as well. It was really lovely to see, because I think for a while a lot of them – and I have some younger people in my office as well – have felt ‘Hey, when is somebody going to think about us?’ There are people who have got their homes and they have got their lifestyles set up, but how are they ever going to get into the housing market? So I am really excited about this and the spectrum of levers that are being implemented to really take housing builds across the state, and the great diversity of housing builds, forward. We know it is an absolute imperative.

I will put in the caveat that it is not an exclusive challenge to Victoria or Australia. I know, for instance, even in the UK they also have a challenge with getting enough housing for their population and getting enough builders as well. It appears there are global challenges which are confronting so many people for a whole variety of reasons. In any case, I will come back to Victoria, because we are focused on Victoria. But I just wanted to give a little bit of perspective, because sometimes I have heard some arguments in the chamber saying, about Victoria and the Allan and Andrews Labor governments, ‘It’s all your fault, blah, blah, blah, blah,’ when in fact we know, if we can be really honest about this, that the challenge with having enough housing is not exclusive to Victoria, not by a long shot.

A fairer go for renters – we know that only Labor has been implementing a whole series of reforms to improve livability but also fairness for renters in our state. The Minister for Consumer Affairs actually announced some really terrific mechanisms of late to expedite the resolution of disputes, because we know that getting stuck at VCAT can be expensive, although VCAT compared to a court is meant to mitigate the costs of protracted litigation. Nevertheless, if you are having to have representation, there is the elevation of costs and time and stress, and we do not want people having to go through that simply to be able to have fair and reasonable circumstances for being able to rent. If renters have a simple dispute with their landlord, such as about repairs, maintenance, damage, bond claims or rental increases, it is not fair if it has to be dragged out in a formal hearing when it does not need to be. There must be alternatives, we recognise this, and that is why our Labor government will help renters resolve simple disputes through a free public dispute resolution service, which seems infinitely sensible, but also a huge relief.

I do not rent now but I did rent for many, many years – I think nearly 20 years, 25 years, somewhere in that vicinity – and I had the vicissitude of landlords. Some were terrific and some were a little less generous. These reforms are not about necessarily casting aspersions on anyone in particular. It is more about creating a fairer system for the rental space, so to speak, and also it is in their interests, I would have thought, for landlords to have expeditious resolution of disputes. I do not think they would want to be involved in protracted disputes either. It is not good on either side. Fairness actually extends to both situations: (1) the landowner or the property owner and (2) the actual renter as well.

I did have the pleasure of joining the Minister for Planning at a terrific six-storey apartment building in South Melbourne. Wow. I mean, it was absolutely amazing, and you should have seen the level of detail and thoughtfulness in every aspect of that build. It is a six-storey build right on the light rail and a stone’s throw from South Melbourne Market. I timed it at probably a 3-minute walk to the market, which they do very regularly. It is really sensitive, sustainable design, making sure that people had enough space around the bed to be able to make the bed in the morning. It included a laundry tub, and I know as somebody who rented for many years that the luxury of a laundry tub is absolutely fantastic. It is hygienic but it is also just much more comfortable when you are having to do your handwashing as well. Even the cupboards featured different mechanisms to ensure that you are maximising the free space but not in any way detracting from good storage.

What we are talking about here is moving away from an era when apartments were poky. I think it was the member for Thomastown who said something about some really horrific design of another era, where it was just turbocharging the wrong way. I think to some extent that may have coloured some perceptions about what an apartment is, by perhaps only having a window at the front and no window through a property. That is not what we are about, and I think it is important to be really clear about the clear direction that we are heading, and also rewarding those designers and architects that really think through well-designed buildings and put an effort into planning them.

There is more detail. I just love these apartments; they were so good. The architects made sure that there is constant airflow in the apartment and a sophisticated sort of mechanism for heating and cooling. It is well insulated, and when you shut the door you cannot hear the outside world. You would not know that you are right in South Melbourne, and this is exactly what we are talking about.

We are aiming to reward affordable, well-designed buildings and the developers who put the effort into building them by granting them a fast-track through the planning system. That seems infinitely sensible. On the one hand, you are getting more homes built and more opportunities, but on the other hand, you really are incentivising good-quality builds that Victorians deserve. At its heart it is also about sustainability of course, lower emissions, but lower energy costs as well. So in the long run you are also saving money when you have got double glazing and other aspects in the bill. But I should say that the apartment block that we did visit is also aesthetically pleasing. It is not an eyesore when you are driving past. I had seen it many times before, and I was so excited to be able to get the opportunity to go in there and really experience what it is like.

There are so many exciting things happening in our state – prioritising a diversity of home choices, more opportunities, more homes for Victorians. I am certainly excited also by giving the younger generations hope, but hope with a practical outcome and a reality that can be delivered, and I think that it is incumbent upon us to do that. You cannot just say, ‘Don’t touch Malvern, don’t touch Brighton,’ and then thrash about when stamp duty is cut or is not cut. It is sort of a contradiction. You cannot have it both ways. There are some tricky little arguments over there, but all the same I am glad that there is support for the bill. We will take it – that is a good thing – and see more homes for Victorians.

Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (16:46): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Duties Amendment (More Homes) Bill 2024. As you have heard previous speakers say, we do not oppose this bill. In fact we believe this probably does not go far enough, to be honest. For 12 months we are going to have this reduction in stamp duty, and I do not know how many homes that will really benefit at the end of the day. But the fact of the matter is that this government took away the stamp duty concession in 2017, and I wonder why today, seven years later, we actually have a housing crisis. This is part of the problem. The government should not be coming here trying to be the big white knight saying they are going to fix it when they stuffed it in the first place back in 2017. It is really that simple.

The reason why there were off-the-plan exemptions for stamp duty is because it is common sense. If you buy a block of land and then build a house, you only pay stamp duty on the block of land, you do not pay stamp duty on the construction of the house, and that is why this tax exemption was always brought in on off-the-plan construction. The other point to this is the exemption – the stamp duty exemption for off-the-plan – encouraged people to purchase. It stimulated the economy. This is why in 2017, when the government canned it, development started to drop off – and it is really that simple ‍– because no-one wanted to purchase any more. There is always a risk in off-the-plan purchases, there really is, hence why that stamp duty exemption was encouraging people to purchase. There is a risk, because sometimes you hope and pray you are going to get what you paid for. It is really that simple. It is not like walking into a spec home that is completed and you can see the finished product. They may have a display suite that is probably 40 square metres or 60 square metres, but you are purchasing in good faith that you are going to get a good product. But people were prepared to take the risk because they had the stamp duty exemption.

What I am really, really curious to know today is: as of today, how many developers are out in the market ready to go? I think that is a very interesting point, because I do not believe there are that many developers out there ready to go to sale off the plan right at this point in time, because developers have had no faith in this government for the last decade. They are not jumping through hoops at the moment to try and develop. Even in the development industry the other week, when the government was talking about their policies, the developers were saying, ‘We need another 15 per cent to make this viable.’ Now, people beat up on developers all the time – they are greedy, they are this, they are that. At the end of the day they have to make a dollar. If you do not make a dollar, you go broke. If they go broke, they are not going to develop. It is really that simple.

I am not sure how many people are really going to get benefit from this from 21 October this year to 21 October next year. I really do not know how many people are going to benefit. Is it going to be 3000 people? Is it going to be 10,000 people? I am guessing it will be on the lower end. I really am. I would love to see the figures on developers that are ready to go today, because if they are not ready to go today, they are going to be years away, and this stamp duty concession will finish on 21 October 2025. If I own a block of land today and I have got to try and get the plans done, I have got to get the renders done, I have got to get the engineering done, I have got to go through the planning scheme, which is broken, and then I have got to get to market, how long do you think that will take? It will not take 12 months; I will guarantee you that. It will take a lot longer than 12 months, and this is the problem. The only problem with this bill is that it stops on 21 October 2025. That is the problem. Extend it. If you want to make a difference to housing supply and you want to make a difference to people purchasing off the plan, extend this bill. Twelve months is not long enough. Not enough people will benefit from this.

It was in place for good reason. It was in place to encourage people to purchase. When people purchase it stimulates the economy. It was in place so investors could build up for their retirement. Those investors were creating the rental market. Where are those investors now? They are moving out of this state. They are moving out of this state because of the amount of taxes that have been introduced by this government. Fifty-five taxes this government has introduced, and more than 50 per cent of those taxes are related to building or land. That is why people are leaving. The land tax alone is driving people out of this state, and they are going to South Australia, they are going to New South Wales and they are going to Queensland. Those states are getting the benefit of this government’s mismanagement. Those states are getting the benefit of this government not being able to manage money and raising taxes that much that it is driving investment out of the state.

To be honest, I support the bill. It is great, but the whole housing policy from the government at the moment is a real big Hail Mary. It really is. They hope it is going to work. ‘We’re going to fix the planning schemes; communities will not have a say.’ This is a real Hail Mary from this government, and I still do not think they have it right. I really do not, because the housing industry at the moment is in such a state of disrepair.

I said this on my first day in Parliament in my inaugural speech: the problem with Melbourne’s big infrastructure build is it is driving labour and materials out of the domestic market, and that is driving up price. That is one of the reasons why housing now is unaffordable. It has been major project after major project after major project all at once, so it comes back to the old analogy of demand and supply. If there is very high demand for labour and for materials, prices will go up. This actually will not come back until the Big Build gets under control and the government actually finishes a project – I do not know when. But that labour force, we need that back in the domestic market, and we need materials back in the domestic market.

The problem we have as well is we are now becoming an importer of materials. There is another cost escalation. We got rid of native timber that was bringing billions into this economy, and now we import that timber. We have not planned for plantation pine. We have not planned for that. We are 25 years behind on pine supply. Where does the pine come from now? Overseas. It costs more. Pine is up to nearly $6 a metre for a bit of 90 by 35 MGP10. I know no-one over that side knows what I am talking about at the moment, and that is okay. You have got to take my word that when pine is at $6 a metre for 90 by 35 MGP10 – it is more for 90 by 45 MGP12 – you know that housing costs are going to be unaffordable for the average person trying to get into their first home. That is part of the problem.

Yes, we support this bill, but the timeframe on this does not go far enough to stimulate housing growth and to simulate our economy. Housing was one of the biggest pushers of our economy in this state, and now we wonder why the state is in so much debt. We wonder why our interest bill is at $17.8 million a day, as the Shadow Minister for Finance pointed out today – the Premier could not point it out, but the shadow finance minister pointed it out. When we get housing back up and going again and when we get a good government in this state that knows what they are doing, our economy will recover. But it is not going to recover in a timeframe of 12 months. That is not long enough. As I said, I would love to see the figures on this in 12 months time. I would love to see the figures of how many Victorians got the opportunity to buy off the plan, because I doubt it will be any more than 3000 ‍people. That is not enough to solve this housing crisis, that is not enough to stimulate this economy. And it is not good enough from this government, who scrapped this in 2017, did nothing for seven years and now come in thinking they are the white knight that is going to save Victoria. They are not. They stuffed the state, and this is not going to go far enough. We support the bill, but it does not go for long enough.

Paul HAMER (Box Hill) (16:56): I would also like to make a short contribution on the Duties Amendment (More Homes) Bill 2024. It is a very important bill, one of a number of statements that the Premier and the Minister for Planning, who is at the table, made last week, which will contribute to more homes across the state. I will just reflect a little bit on some of the contributions that have been made throughout today both on this bill and on the previous bill, which related to homes. I was particularly interested in the member for Malvern’s contribution where he talked about the concentration of homes and how they are all suddenly going to be in Stonnington. I know the member for Brighton is here – he was talking about all the homes that are to be in Bayside. I was just looking at the increase in dwellings in the City of Whitehorse; the Box Hill electorate is entirely within the City of Whitehorse. Actually, more than double the number of dwellings were provided in the City of Whitehorse than were provided in the City of Bayside over that five-year period. Just 2000 additional dwellings were provided in the five years between 2016 and 2021 across the whole of the City of Bayside, compared with almost 6000 in the City of Whitehorse.

Mary-Anne Thomas interjected.

Paul HAMER: ‘That is fantastic,’ says the Minister for Health. That is because there is development occurring in Box Hill. If the member for Caulfield wants to see cranes in the city, he should come out to Box Hill. There is a build-to-rent proposal – well, it is not really a proposal, it is coming out of the ground. There are 450 dwellings in a build-to-rent complex, the largest build-to-rent complex in Victoria, I believe. It is a sign of confidence in the market that a developer has started work on this site, right in central Box Hill. It is walking distance to the existing station, and it will be walking distance to the new Suburban Rail Loop station as well, as that is what people want. As long as I have been a member, there have always been multiple cranes in Box Hill, because there is an opportunity for more residents to go in there.

I know that we have Liberal opponents in the upper house – in the lower house as well – who are actively campaigning against the Suburban Rail Loop, against the level crossing removals and against these towers. The largest tower which has been approved in Box Hill is a 51-storey tower, approved by a Liberal-backed council. Yet here we have the Liberal Party again wanting to block houses. They like the cranes, but they do not want more homes. That is the problem: they do not want more homes in the middle suburbs and they do not want more homes in the inner suburbs. Maybe they want homes in the outer suburbs, but they do not want the infrastructure in the outer suburbs. We need more homes, and we need any activity and any changes to the Duties Act 2000 that can facilitate that process. I commend the bill to the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time set down for consideration of the remaining items on the government business program has arrived, and I am required to interrupt business.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested.