Wednesday, 13 November 2024

 Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (18:52): (1287) My adjournment debate tonight is for the Premier and concerns her government’s ‘More homes, more opportunities’ slogan, which recently saw more than a week of carefully choreographed housing announcements. Now, we all know we need more housing and we need it quickly. The plans envisage 2 million homes in the next two decades. In the time it took for the Premier to make her announcements, Victoria’s population grew by 3000, yet the number of houses completed, averaged out, was only 1000. We are the fastest growing state in raw terms, yet we are shooting ourselves in the foot on housing. Just when houses should be getting built quicker, things are slowing down.

I was particularly taken by an analysis released last week by Master Builders Australia. The title says it all: ‘It shouldn’t take this long to build a home’. The facts are simple: 15 years ago building a detached house in Victoria typically took about nine months. Today, however, that timeframe has extended to an average of 12.7 months, more than 40 per cent longer. Building apartments has slowed down even more. Fifteen years ago it took 18.5 months from approval to completion. Now it is more than 33 months, a staggering 80 per cent increase. Surely things should be getting quicker. Technological advancements, better equipment, newer processes – they should all be driving productivity and reducing construction time, yet we see the exact opposite to an extraordinary degree.

Of course I was well aware of the cost government adds to building housing. Indeed I have raised it here many times. The latest Housing Industry Association report confirms it remains as bad as ever, highlighting that 37 per cent of the cost of a house and land package in Melbourne is attributable to government. And there are new costs too – a windfall tax of up to 62.5 per cent, a land tax surcharge for Victorians with more than one home and inflated costs associated with ongoing changes to the National Construction Code.

Cultural heritage laws have created a building permit with ‘no limit on timing or cost’. As developer Max Shifman said in the Age:

… we need to be able to have honest conversations about planning regulations which aren’t working well, without being called racist.

The action I seek from the Premier is a statement recognising all of this. Unlike an announcement costing taxpayers money, this would be free. I ask her to announce a review of these processes from the ground up, to speed up and make more viable the house building we so desperately need.

The PRESIDENT: The action for that one is the review of the processes rather than a statement?

Bev McARTHUR: Yes.