Wednesday, 15 May 2024

Production of documents

Infrastructure contributions

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (10:18): I move:

That this house:

notes that it was reported in the Age on 30 April 2024 that when asked if infrastructure contributions would be widened to include all of Melbourne, the Minister for Planning, the Honourable Sonya Kilkenny MP, said the government was reviewing a related report from a ministerial advisory committee appointed in 2020 and that the final report was never publicly released;

requires the Leader of the Government, in accordance with standing order 10.01, to table in the Council, within three weeks of the house agreeing to this resolution:

(a) the final report referred to in paragraph (1); and

(b) submissions from departments, industry or the community made to and/or accepted by the government, informing the ministerial advisory committee, as referred to in paragraph (1).

The state government has to explain why this in the public interest. The chamber no doubt absolutely has the power to call for documents, as we have discussed repeatedly. But noting that the government is intending to impose a levy on all property with respect to development, this will impose in effect a significant taxation burden and increase the price or the cost of housing. It is a direct impact on housing affordability. It is important I think to see that ministerial advisory committee report which the government has commissioned but has not shared with the Victorian community. It is clearly in the public interest that that document is sighted and we can see the basis on which the examination was done and the basis on which this taxation measure that the government has put in place was advanced. It is also important I think to see what input the government had, which is why point (2)(b) is part of the motion – to see what submissions from industry, departments and the community were made and informed the advisory committee.

As I said, this is a straightforward motion in its essence. I note that it is a very confined motion – it is for a single document and the documents that were used to inform the ministerial advisory committee – so it should not be difficult for the government to provide these documents in a timely manner, and that is especially important given the fact that the chamber will no doubt consider these matters of taxation across the whole state at a near point.

I also note that the government’s tendency with the growth areas infrastructure contribution – and this measure tends to replicate GAIC – has been to sit on that GAIC money, so I am particularly interested to see what the report says about (1) ensuring that the money collected through this levy is actually spent in the municipality where it is collected and (2) how it is disbursed and what timeliness is involved.

One of the issues that I hope the committee has considered is that with GAIC the government has collected the money – often hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars – and retained that money at Treasury for many years. So people are living in estates that are bereft, in some cases, of proper infrastructure, yet through the purchase of the property they have paid those levies that have been put on the developers and the levies have gone to Treasury, where they have sat in some cases for many, many years. If we are going to have a system that collects development levies of this type, I hope that the committee has looked at the importance of collecting them and dispersing them swiftly so that the infrastructure is there and also that it is tied to the need for local infrastructure in the area from which they are collected.

It is a simple motion. We think it would be good for the chamber to support it, and it would also be very helpful for the government to act swiftly to bring those documents to the chamber.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:22): I rise to speak on Mr Davis’s documents motion with respect to the report of the ministerial advisory committee – principally seeking to understand the nature of infrastructure contributions across Melbourne. I state at the outset the government is not going to be opposing the motion. As we have discussed extensively in the chamber recently, there is an appreciation, an understanding and an acceptance that the chamber has these powers to request the production of documents. The government, in consideration of those requests, goes through the normal processes that this government and previous governments have done to assess whether such documents exist and then the extent to which those documents are capable of being released, given the range of considerations and particularly privileges that may attach to any of them. Without wishing to pre-empt any of the thorough consideration that members of the executive might give to the motion, should it be passed I am sure they will go through that process quite thoroughly.

I think it is important to say that the motion and the document that is being sought do sit in a particularly important context about the government’s policy ambitions to be delivering more homes across Victoria – 800,000 homes over the next decade is the ambition in the government’s housing statement, building more homes obviously where Victorians want to live: near jobs, transport and services. A critical part of achieving this is making sure that we have the infrastructure and services in place in those communities to support those new homes being built and to ensure that the people who live there continue to access the kind of quality services that living in Victoria is all about. We need to build more homes to accommodate Victoria’s growing population, and things like the growth areas infrastructure contribution are one of the mechanisms we have in place to help us do that. Obviously Mr Davis in his contribution made some remarks about the growth areas infrastructure contribution – the GAIC funds. I thought it was probably appropriate, therefore, to make a few remarks as well.

Recently the Premier and the Minister for Planning announced more than $400 million for a package of initiatives funded through the growth areas infrastructure contribution – spending the fund that the contribution earlier said that the government was sitting on. We were sitting on an announcement of $400 million that is out there in the community. That $400 million is going to support 37 projects, and includes$60 million to deliver a critical road link for the Ison Road overpass in Werribee, $35 million towards a new school in Cobblebank, a $29 million land purchase for a proposed school in Wyndham Vale and more than $150 million for new bus services across Melbourne’s north-west and south-east. Mr Galea and I were talking just last night about how important those new bus services are for his constituents in the south-east. There is $10 million for an intersection upgrade at Mernda to support a future major recreation precinct and $6 million for roads and traffic upgrades in Pakenham. This $400 million complements more than $685 million worth of initiatives the Labor government has already delivered across Melbourne’s growth areas through the GAIC fund – things like ambulance stations, parks, schools and public transport.

We are investing to support infrastructure and services in our growth suburbs and in our growth communities. Those opposite might oppose us doing that. They may object to us spending this money in these areas, but their objections and their interjections are not going to stop this Labor government from investing in the services that our communities need. That is what our track record demonstrates over many years, and that is what our policy approach in the future will continue to deliver. This government is delivering more houses and more infrastructure to support the needs of the communities. We absolutely support these communities, and we absolutely believe that developer contributions are a key part of providing that infrastructure. That is what we are doing here, now and into the future.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:27): I also rise to speak today on notice of motion 390, which has been put to us by Mr Davis. It relates to, as my colleague Mr Batchelor has just outlined, infrastructure contribution funding, with particular reference made by Mr Davis to the growth areas infrastructure contribution fund. It is an important thing for us to be discussing in this place. We have a hugely strong growing economy in this state, and we have growing suburbs as a result of it. We have growing suburbs right across metropolitan and regional Victoria, but perhaps nowhere more so than in my region of the south-east, where we have places, such as Clyde North, which are absolutely booming. They are booming with the support of government investment, and they are booming with the support of the much-needed GAIC funding, especially with regard to what has just been announced in the past few weeks. Indeed, as Mr Batchelor said, over $400 million worth of funding was announced, targeted to those areas that need it the most in our growth suburbs – in Casey, in Cardinia, in the north and the west, and in places like Hume, Wyndham and Melton as well. Particular to my interests of course are Casey and Cardinia, very fast-growing parts of Melbourne.

We have seen continued government investment – whether it be in schools, roads or hospitals; all of those things are taking place – and with the GAIC funding that was announced just a few weeks ago we have had some great wins for the south-east, including a new shared-use trail along Soldiers Road in the suburb of Berwick. And yes, I have spoken to Mr Batchelor and virtually anyone that will listen in the past few weeks about the new bus services that we are getting in the south-east. It is fantastic to see this coming through. As our suburbs grow it is important that we provide the public transport options that people need as they move in. We have seen already in Clyde North, whether it has been through GAIC or similar contributions or through direct investment by this government, bus services actually being continually reformed and extended. Those routes that run east–west into Clyde North in particular have been repeatedly extended over the past few years so that as these suburbs grow there are strong and reliable bus services to connect their new residents. We saw that even indeed in last year’s state budget, when some of the routes which were initially funded by developer contributions were actually locked in and backed in for when that period ended; the state budget last year locked in those extensions permanently. That is why it is so wonderful to see continued investments such as the extension of route 798, which runs from Cranbourne through to Clyde North and will now extend further into Clyde North. That is why it is so good to see the extension of route 831.

We have a new north–south corridor road that has just been built in the Berwick South and Clyde North area. It is called Bells Road. It runs parallel to Clyde Road, of course a busy major road. We are also investing in of course the Thompsons Road intersection upgrade, which is very exciting to see as well. That will have a big impact on easing traffic movement through that section. It is also really important that we have alternatives, and that is where Bells Road as a major–minor connector road comes in. That road only opened a few months ago in its first stages, which is why the 831 extension, which will run from Berwick down Bells Road, down through the southern parts of Berwick and into Clyde North, is so timely and so appropriate. It also, as I mentioned in a previous contribution, provides for that meshing network effect, so rather than just having to go one way, if you are in the new suburbs on the south side of Berwick or in Clyde North, you can go west to Cranbourne or north to Berwick. Whether it is the trains, whether it is the hospitals, whether it is the other services or whether it is the shops, you have got all those services at your doorstop.

Of course on top of that we are also going to see extensions of the 925 and 928 buses in the Pakenham area, which is slightly outside my region. The 928 extension, though, will have a big impact on those constituents of mine who live in the Beaconsfield area, again providing additional bus services to areas as they need them.

GAIC is a very important program. It is great to see this investment coming through. As we shift towards new planning policies that do try and ease the burden on our growing suburbs, as we try and shift that balance back towards appropriate and sensible development in our middle suburbs, these are the sorts of conversations that we can be having. As I say, it is for that reason that the government will not be opposing this motion today.

Motion agreed to.