Wednesday, 2 April 2025

Committees

Select committee

Establishment

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (14:26): I move:

That:

(1) a select committee of nine members be appointed to inquire into, consider and report, by 13 May 2025, whether the amendments to the Victoria planning provisions made through VC257, VC274 and VC267 give proper effect to the objectives of planning in Victoria, and the objectives of the planning framework, as set out in section 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987;

(2) the committee will consist of three members from the government nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Council, three members from the opposition nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Council and three members from among the remaining members in the Council;

(3) the members will be appointed by lodgement of the names with the President within five calendar days of the Council agreeing to this resolution;

(4) the chair of the committee will be a non-government member;

(5) a member of the committee may appoint a substitute to act in their place (for nominated meetings or for a defined period of time) by that member, or the leader of that member’s party, writing to the chair advising of the member who will act as their substitute;

(6) a member who has been substituted off the committee must not participate in any proceedings of the committee for the nominated meetings or defined period of time that they have been substituted off for;

(7) substitute members will have all the rights of a member of the committee and shall be taken to be a member of the committee for the purpose of forming a quorum;

(8) the first meeting of the committee will be held within one week of members’ names being lodged with the President;

(9) the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy;

(10) the committee will hold public hearings; and

(11) the committee may obtain technical and specialist assistance to aid its inquiry.

Notice of motion 908 is a motion to establish a select committee of nine members. They are to be appointed to inquire into, consider and report by 13 May 2025 on whether the amendments to the Victorian planning provisions (VPP) made through VC275, VC274 and VC267 give proper effect to the objectives of planning in Victoria and the objectives of the planning framework as set out in section 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

The motion sets out a number of key points. It indicates that there will be three members from the government, three members from the opposition and three members from the crossbench. There is a process that is laid out there. The chair will be a non-government member. There will be a substitution ability, and the committee may proceed to dispatch of business even where not fully appointed. It asks that the committee holds public hearings.

The committee is an important committee because of the government’s recent planning announcements. These are planning announcements that have been made broadly, without proper consultation and without proper engagement with communities and proper engagement with councils. They are extraordinary new powers that will change our city forever. I want to begin by saying at the outset that the opposition strongly supports more housing. We support options for more housing, but we do not support those occurring where there is not proper process and where there is not proper engagement with local communities and councils.

There are plenty of opportunities for councils to look for land, to find opportunities and for government to do likewise. There are large areas of government land that have not been utilised for housing. There are large areas of council land that have not been utilised for housing and opportunities. That is important. It is also very important to understand that a large number of planning permits have been issued – planning permits that have not been actioned. That is an important substrate for people to understand. The huge population increases we have seen in recent years have put additional pressure on housing.

All of us want to see young people with the maximum options and the arrangements in place that mean they can live the kind of lives that we would all want them to live with the options and choices that they would otherwise have. But what is important here to understand is that the government has gone about this the wrong way in a very heavy-handed approach, an approach that is not driven by the facts and not driven by outcomes that we all want to see. I was listening on the radio the other day and a developer came on, and he made the point that many of the proposals for high-density development in and around our major eastern, southern and northern areas would see massive development, but the development would struggle to sell to the very audience that people want because the costs of building are so high and the costs of taxes and charges are very much a part of what is going on here.

Specifically, this talks about three planning amendments, and they are three of the more important ones in the cascade of announcements and amendments that have been made: VC257, VC274 and VC267. I think it is important for me to lay out what they mean. The community understand that the government has said, ‘We’re going to build tall towers, high-rise, high-density development, and we’re going to force it into local areas.’ That is what they are intending to do, and many in the community struggle with that, because they say, ‘Look, actually this is going to get suboptimal outcomes.’ You are going to be building in suburbs like those in Southern Metro, my electorate and Ms Crozier’s electorate, where property prices are relatively high to begin with, and you are going to be building properties –

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

David DAVIS: I am going to talk about a lot of electorates, actually. I am picking an example here. Fifty zones have been chosen, some near transport hubs and others not, and another 10 large zones have been chosen by the government, so that is 60 in total. Some are in the Southern Metropolitan Region, some are not. Some are out into the east and some are into the north and into the west. Each of them has their own peculiarities and particularities of course. I do not pretend to be an expert on each and every one of those, but I do know a number of them in my electorate and in some of the other areas particularly well. So forgive me if I do talk about my electorate of Southern Metropolitan, but it is actually much broader than that: the 50 plus the 10, 60. If you look, for example, at Niddrie and North Essendon, that is not my area but the community is very unhappy with what has been proposed there. I went to a large public meeting, probably 400 to 500 people at a bowling club, and it was very clear there that this had been entirely foisted on the community. The community had not been asked about the catchment zones that are proposed for those two large zones.

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

David DAVIS: No, no. They were not when the catchment zone was announced, and I can tell you what, the catchment zones that are being put in place now are not being supported by the community. I have them ring my office, I have them email me and I attend a number of these meetings. I can go down the long list of meetings if you wish – some in my area and some outside my area. I am actually interested in all of these, and I am deeply interested to hear people’s views.

But three of the important planning amendments, which give a very strong clear indication of where the government is going and will have a major and inadequately examined effect, are the VC257, the VC274 and the VC267. I am just going to step through these in some detail. All of these three that are in this motion are Victorian planning provisions, so they apply right across the board. 257 has introduced:

… the new version of the previously released draft ‘Walkable Catchment Zone’ the Housing Choice & Transport Zone (HCTZ) –

I mean, these are Orwellian words –

and Built Form Overlay (BFO) into the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP).

I am quoting here from a Hansen article, and I am going to draw on that, because I think it provides a very nice summary of some of these points. You could go for a long time discussing these, but I am trying to look for a summarised form of them which will be helpful for the house. So 257 also has the built form overlay in the Victorian planning provisions. It continues:

The HCTZ sits within the residential suite of zones, at Clause 32.10. The BFO sits within the Heritage and Built Form Overlays, at Clause 43.06.

The Housing Choice and Transport Zone will be applied initially to residential zoned land within the –

so-called –

“catchment” of identified activity centres, or approximately 10 minutes walk – of the activity centre “core” …

so this 800-metre approach that the government has adopted.

It will provide a transition between intense and low scale built form …

Maximum building heights are set out in a matrix …

On some of the large sites, 1000 square metres or more, a significant six-storey height is what has been mandated or put out as something that can be achieved. On smaller sites, there is a smaller zone.

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

David DAVIS: It is a fair summary, I think you will find.

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

David DAVIS: Some of them are six still on the large properties, yes.

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

David DAVIS: Many of them are. As with the residential zone, the maximum building height can be exceeded in certain circumstances. There is no exemption from notice and review for non-VicSmart applications, and the BFO will apply to the core of an activity centre and is focused on facilitating higher density development. These are the actual amendments that have been gazetted and tabled in the house.

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

David DAVIS: It is VC257. That was gazetted and tabled in this house, I think, from memory, on 4 March, but I could be wrong on the date. A schedule must include a development framework. There is a master plan requirement and other points, and it will have a very significant impact. There is a new medium-density housing standard. There was also the townhouse and low-rise code to be applied to changes at clause 55 and a separate set of four-storey apartment standards – these are the cookie cutters that people talk about. The new townhouse and low-rise code will see clause 55 operate as a deemed-to-comply provision, with no right of appeal for compliant applications, and they only have a small number of standards. If they meet those, bang, they have got their permit. We understand that the new controls under clauses 55 and 57 will be introduced when VC267 is gazetted on Thursday this week, they say. Then they go to the precinct zone. The amendment VC274 was gazetted and introduced as the precinct zone to the VPP, again across a large number that will sit within a suite of special-purpose zones. The precinct zone is expected to be applied to some Suburban Rail Loop precincts, but it is much more broad than that. It has a use and development framework plan and associated master plan requirements, but what you notice here is that there is again a distinct lack of community and council input here.

I think it is important to understand what this is all likely to mean. It is likely to mean massive changes to our planning arrangements, and it is likely to mean a serious change to the quality of our suburbs, the livability of our suburbs, and we need to focus on that. What we need to get is a development way forward that is actually a fair way forward that enables reasonable options but at the same time does not see councils and communities overwhelmed in such a way that they are unable to have proper input and actually means that there are a proper set of outcomes for the community that will see a result which is fair for the overall situation.

I do want to talk about heritage, because there are many areas of significant heritage and these overlays do not properly take account of heritage. There will obviously be legal tests of these if these planning amendments stand, but it does appear that they may well overwhelm any protections that are there in many cases. If that is the outcome, I think that is very concerning, and I think many people will be very worried indeed.

VC267, the townhouse and low-rise code, VC257, the housing choice and transport zone and the built form overlay, and VC274, the new precinct zone – all of these will have a very significant effect. They are in the context, I might add, of other changes that the government have announced and put forward, and they do not seem to have properly connected all of these up. They do not seem to have understood that there is a lot of individuality in our suburbs. They do not seem to have understood that actually the engagement with councils and communities will improve the outcomes that can be achieved with any of these planning changes. High-rise and high-density developments are appropriate in some areas, and I would support them in some locations, but I do not support them being foisted on communities –

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: But you know, I held a forum at Hawksburn, again, in our respective electorate – and Hawksburn station and 800 metres around it has been designated as one of the zones, with the state government allowing high-density and high-rise –

Georgie Crozier interjected.

David DAVIS: It is also just bizarre. Somebody asked me at the forum, ‘Where will people park?’ And I said, ‘Well, look, the government has a view, I think’ – I am perhaps paraphrasing too much – ‘that we can do with less vehicles.’ That may be partially true, but it is hard to see that they can deal with none, and it is very hard to see where those vehicles would park when you are in around Hawksburn station and you think about the density of spots like that.

If you think of other areas, like the proposed so-called Moorabbin centre, which really is a large sweep that goes through a big part of Kingston into Bayside and sweeps down through Glen Eira as well, it is very hard to see how that is appropriate in the way it has been promulgated. It is very hard to see that that is what people want in that area, and certainly when you talk to local communities they want more say. They feel in their communities that they actually want greater control and more say, not less say and being overridden. So I think there is a democratic aspect to this too. But there is also the detailed information about these planning amendments and how they will impact.

My view is that this committee has the opportunity to look at this closely. It has the opportunity to examine the impact of the suite of changes, including the other changes that have been made in and around these particular three amendments – but these three particular amendments are the most significant of the amendments that have been made – and to look at how it is going to impact on local communities. I think we can get a better outcome if we do the work here. People understand that I have a relatively strong view, as many in the opposition do, which is around protecting our local area and seeing that the quality of life is actually preserved. I freely admit that there is a significant balance to be struck.

Part of the slowness with planning is actually in the city. Part of it is the minister. Very often the planning scheme amendments that actually slow things up are sitting on the minister’s desk for a long period. Developers say to me, ‘Look, I’ve put the planning scheme amendment in and it’s gone through the proper processes, and it’s sitting on the minister’s desk.’ And sometimes that is for years.

Georgie Crozier interjected.

David DAVIS: And they are being taxed, and the tax is actually significant too. But even on this process aspect in the city, there is the process aspect for the minister to actually move on some of these things when there has been proper work done at a local level. There are lots of examples I think now where people are increasingly concerned about the process that is involved. There was a demonstration on Sunday at Elsternwick, and it is instructive to look at this. In the Elsternwick case there was a considerable tussle with the community. A developer was wanting to build a large, tall tower with a Woolworths underneath. In the end the council opposed it. It went to VCAT, and VCAT struck an outcome and a permit was given, and the community kind of went along with that because there was a proper process. But then what we find is the government coming around the corner with a fast-tracked planning process after the VCAT case. So we are actually jumping the legal system here. We are actually taking a different tack, a different track, through the legal system and actually going around VCAT and overruling VCAT by a set of decisions by a fast-track panel. Even though the community had been run to the ground and exhausted in its attempt to have its say and finally the legal outcome happened at VCAT, then the developer sat on it for two years. It has come back through this fast-track panel to try to get extra height and extra development. Some may think that is a good idea, but I do not think this is the sort of process we want to see.

I think we want to see a sensible process, and this committee is an opportunity to look at a number of these aspects – to look at the decision-making, to look at what is fair, to look at some sensible ways through it and to look in particular at these three amendments and to see the effect that they will have across the state in the 10 areas, in the 50 areas and indeed beyond. Mr Limbrick talked to me about Frankston earlier in the day. Frankston–Seaford is one of the large areas, and these amendments will have significant effects in that area. I think it is important to understand these to see how that is actually going to impact, and I do not think the work has been done to date to look at these things. We can benefit from council and community telling us more.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (14:46): The Greens will be supporting this motion before us today. Let me say at the outset that the Greens support more housing. Increasing density in areas that people want to live in and that already have infrastructure and have access to services like transport just makes sense. It prevents further sprawl and loss of green space and destruction of native habitat. But it also has to be density done well. Crucially, it has to include a substantial amount of genuinely affordable housing and public housing, and there must be adequate infrastructure available to meet the needs of residents. It has to ensure that these places remain places people want to live and are not just hot, sterile concrete jungles of poorly built developments designed to make a quick buck.

We have heard many concerns about the impact of the planning scheme amendments referred to in this motion and believe they warrant further scrutiny. We agree with the government: changes need to be made to get housing out faster. But the planning scheme amendments as gazetted are very blunt instruments, and we are concerned about the potential for poor planning outcomes. They are also not the panacea for our housing crisis.

Firstly, these amendments cut communities and councils out of decision-making. This is concerning, especially given that many local councils have already done a huge amount of work to develop place-based plans to achieve the government’s housing goals. These are plans that have done the hard yards in terms of community consultation and that are respectful of the community needs and the character of the local area.

We are also concerned about the misleading narrative that the government continues to push that community objection and delayed planning approvals by councils are somehow a huge driver of the housing crisis. It is simply not supported by the evidence. For example, in Camberwell Junction since 2011, 2670 home developments have been approved but only 1926 have been built. The fact is many tens of thousands of developments are approved by councils but never lead to a sod being turned because developers do not proceed. According to SGS Economics & Planning, 90 per cent of multidwelling applications are approved in Victoria but 25 per cent or a quarter of these are never built. That might be because of difficulty sourcing labour and materials, or it might be because developers do not think they can make a big enough profit for it to be worthwhile. There are all sorts of reasons why this might occur, but it is not councils or communities that are holding that up. But lumping the blame at the feet of councils and communities diminishes the importance of the consultation process in ensuring good development outcomes for the community.

Further, and absolutely critically, affordable community and public housing provisions have not explicitly been built into the scheme. This is a real missed opportunity. The government has the opportunity here to introduce inclusionary zoning which would require a percentage of these new developments to be set aside for public and affordable housing. If there was just one thing that this government could do to address the housing crisis, building tens of thousands of public homes – government owned and operated housing intervening in the market – would be the most effective intervention. There is no one solution, but that is about as close as you are going to get. And yet there is nothing in these planning changes to ensure this outcome. We are left wondering who is going to be able to afford these homes. The current market suggests that developers expect a certain level of return; that means that these will be out of reach for many people, if not most. The market and its failure is the reason we have the housing crisis, so it is not going to be the solution. We also wonder whether these fast-tracked developments that simply have to satisfy a list of tick-a-box criteria will be built in a way that attracts people to these centres; for example, the replacement of current landscaping standards with new tree canopy standards is inconsistent with the canopy coverage targets required in urban areas to keep them livable, particularly in a heating climate.

I want to be clear: the Greens are not against more housing, we are not against density, but it has to be done well, and it has to use the opportunity of increasing density to deliver real solutions to the housing crisis by getting more public and genuinely affordable housing built. These planning scheme amendments are a significant change, and what we believe is that they warrant further interrogation. That is the simple reason we will be supporting this select committee inquiry motion before us today.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (14:51): I am pleased to rise on Mr Davis’s motion to establish a select committee into these three planning scheme amendments. It is a little strange, I have got to say that despite protestations of Mr Davis and the Liberal Party, even through that contribution of the Greens that they are supportive of additional housing being built, it seems that all the action that we see is to the contrary – that instead of seeking to facilitate, seeking to support and seeking to work with the government and go through the extensive consultation processes that have been underway and continue to be underway relating to housing as opposed to building under the planning scheme amendments that will be inquired into by this select committee, that is not actually what the intended outcome is. I might leave that broader policy question there for just a moment, and I will come back to it in a moment.

Mr Davis’s contribution was concerned about things being rushed; he is concerned about the process of developing these planning scheme amendments being rushed, he said there was not enough time and he was concerned about some of the democratic aspects of it. I think it is then curious that he has proposed a select committee to report by 13 May – so an incredibly short process, an incredibly rushed process, a process that probably will deny the opportunity to many in the community to have their say to this proposed select committee inquiry – and has not explained why. He has chosen a timeframe that is so short, that is so truncated and that is not in keeping with the timetables that we have taken with other either select committee or standing committee inquiries that this Parliament has undertaken.

It is also not clear why a select committee on a truncated timeframe was required when this chamber, under law, has a standing committee to deal with environment and planning matters. We have got a committee, an Environment and Planning Committee, of this house that is empowered to examine these issues, and no-one in the course of the debate who is supporting this motion has been able to articulate or has thought to articulate why it is inappropriate to ask that standing committee of the Parliament to examine these issues other than it being not actually a genuine attempt to get to the bottom of the issue or other than it being a political exercise to seek to block the government’s attempts to build more homes for more Victorians. That is the conclusion we can draw from the way this has been set up, the timeframes that have been proposed, the scope of what is going to be looked at and where it is being sent.

The only conclusion we can draw in the absence of any explanatory information that is being presented as to why such a short timeframe, why so many Victorians are going to be denied the opportunity to participate because of that short timeframe, why the scope is just on these three planning scheme amendments and not the rest of the proposed housing planning and development agenda that is being pursued by this government to give more homes to more Victorians and why we would be circumventing the regular processes of the house and sending it to a standing committee instead of establishing a different committee is that Mr Davis will have the opportunity to select the chair to pursue his political agenda. That is the conclusion we can draw based on the lack of clarity that has been provided in the debate so far today. It would be useful if anyone else in the course of this debate who appears to be supporting this motion would like to answer some of those questions, and we will sit and listen to them.

The substantive question, though – getting to this point – is whether we as a government and whether we as a community should be facilitating the opportunity for more Victorians to buy homes in the places where they want to live, close to their families, close to schools, close to jobs and close to transport, because that is the core of the housing agenda that is being enabled by the planning scheme amendments that are being considered in the committee referral here today. The planning scheme amendments are not an end in and of themselves; they are a means to get to the end, which is more housing.

Mr Davis in his contribution has lamented the lack of consultation, particularly around the first tranche of 10 major activity centres. It strikes me that he must not have been paying attention to what has been going on in communities for the last close to 18 months since the 10 pilot activity centres were first announced in September and October 2023. It is now April 2025, so more than 18 months ago the government announced its intention to proceed with planning changes in these activity centres. We went out and consulted with the community. We set up community reference groups. We engaged with local councils. We had open community information sessions. There were submissions through the Engage Victoria website. There has been a broader Plan for Victoria process. I think around 10,000-odd submissions have come through those processes. Many of us have had direct representations from members of our community. We have gone and engaged with them.

For Mr Davis to stand up and say there has been no consultation and that there is some kind of problem with the democratic aspect of the proposals that are being put forward through these planning scheme amendments beggars belief and just shows the untruths, the scare and the fear that are at the core of what those who are opposed to building more homes are really on about. What we have seen in many of the community forums, in engagements with many of the communities, in the contributions in this chamber and in the dross that has been peddled around social media by members of the Liberal Party is that they are intent on whipping up fear and confusion in the community and spreading misinformation about these housing changes, not because they are interested in making sure people have somewhere to live but because they can sense political opportunity. I think that speaks to the worst instincts that we can possibly bring to a debate that is as important as this in our community. If we are willing to peddle misinformation and untruths out in the community through the depictions that we are putting on their social media about the scale and form of proposed changes and about what is coming to a suburb near you which are just not borne out by the facts, I think it goes to the heart of the scare campaign and the lies that are being told by the Liberal Party in our communities.

What we have seen from the government is a policy direction, a consultation process, engagement with local communities and working with local councils. In fact in one of the areas that Mr Davis mentioned, which we jointly represent, the Camberwell Junction area, the proposal for the draft activity centre at its core was just a lift-up of work that had been done by the City of Boroondara for years – years of work had gone into something that has been decried by Liberal Pary, who have said this is being done without community consultation and engagement. They are just peddling untruths in our community. I hope that through this very short inquiry we might be able to get to the bottom of some of those untruths and expose them for what they really are, because that is what we need to be doing here. Once we get through that – once we get through the misinformation, once we get through the lies, once we get through the obfuscation, once we get through the blocking – Labor is going to get on with the job of building more homes for more Victorians in the places that they want to live.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (15:01): I rise to speak to Mr Davis’s motion, an excellent motion that he has brought to the house today to establish a select committee to inquire into, consider and report on whether the amendments to the Victorian planning provisions made through VC257, VC274 and VC267 give proper effect to the objectives of planning in Victoria and the objectives of the planning framework as set out in section 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Mr Davis has gone through in detail the concerns around those particular planning provisions and, as he said, some of the utopian terminology and phrases that are used for various aspects of it. But nevertheless, it goes to the concerns around the community. Just listening to Mr Batchelor in his contribution, quite frankly, it was a very disingenuous contribution around the community concerns.

Michael Galea: Coming from you.

Georgie CROZIER: No, no, these are community concerns, Mr Galea.

Michael Galea interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: Mr Galea, this is about the community concerns in my electorate and Mr Batchelor’s electorate. I think Mr Galea is quite disgraceful in ignoring the concerns of the community in Southern Metropolitan Region, where a large number of these activity centres will be. The Labor government never took this policy to the Victorian electorate – never did. All of a sudden we have this given to us as described in terms of these planning provisions, and quite rightly, community members are concerned, whether it is in Essendon, whether it is in Frankston, whether it is in Camberwell or whether it is in Moorabbin. Let me tell you, I do not know where Mr Batchelor is, but when I go and speak to the local councils, they too are very concerned around –

A member interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: Well, he has returned. But I am just saying I do not know where Mr Batchelor has been in terms of speaking to local councillors and councils, because they too are concerned about the lack of consultation. In relation to the community reference groups that Engage Victoria is –

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: Well, at least you live in the electorate, not like the other representative, who does not, who has got no clue about this. I take up Mr Batchelor’s interjections about him flitting around the electorate – that is good to see.

I want to return to the issues around Engage Victoria and the community reference groups, because there are real concerns for members of those community reference groups who have put their feedback in, and they have put forward their concerns. They do not feel that they are getting a fair hearing from government and indeed some selective processes around those community reference groups and who has actually been spoken to and their concerns that have actually been assessed more thoroughly. This is an important inquiry to be undertaken. We saw only yesterday the tabling of the Commonwealth Games inquiry report, which was a select committee, and very well chaired by Mr Limbrick, I might add. But look at that report and look at the findings from that inquiry of that select committee. Look at the details and the findings and what actually occurred through the process that that select committee undertook. These select committees are a proper avenue to look at these issues.

The government is desperate for this not to occur; that is quite evident. They do not want the community to come out and express their concerns – and I know the Greens have raised concerns around public housing. When Dr Mansfield was speaking it reminded me of Barak Beacon and looking at those concerns from those communities down there. They have been very concerned. They came out and they were speaking to council and to local members of Parliament, and their concerns were falling on deaf ears with the local member and indeed the government.

We all do acknowledge that more housing needs to be established. Nobody is in disagreement with that – nobody.

Michael Galea interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: What are you talking about? Forest Hill is right in my backyard, Mr Galea. Go and have a look at the high-rise there. You have got no idea what you are talking about. In my electorate there are appropriate levels of high-density development. We are talking about appropriate levels of development –

Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, Acting President, I note that Ms Crozier is directing her comments to Mr Galea directly, and I ask that she direct her comments through the Chair.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): I uphold the point of order. I remind all members to direct their comments through the Chair.

Georgie CROZIER: I would say again in terms of what Mr Galea has said, he has got no clue what he is talking about in terms of the high-density. In fact the Premier had no idea what she was talking about. There are areas in my electorate where she was saying, ‘More medium-density.’ It is already there; it is already established. What we are talking about here is activity centres where community has had no say. They have just been plonked in their areas, and they have had no ability to have their say on this. That is why it is incredibly important for those people to come forward and for this committee to have a look at some of these and others and talk to the experts in this area.

There have been planning experts who have spoken out about the folly of the government initiative, because they know it is going to fail. The developers are saying these cannot be built cheaply, these high-rises. I have raised concerns and put FOIs in, and I wish the government would respond to them, because then we would have a better understanding of, ‘Well, what are the needs? What analysis have you done in relation to medical and health infrastructure?’ And there is other infrastructure – childhood education centres, schools, other modes of transport, sewerage and drainage, all of these things that have got to be thought through.

It is no wonder that councils are concerned and it is no wonder the public is concerned, and I think it is just a cheap shot for the government to brush this away and to say, ‘You don’t want this.’ It is not about that. It is actually about proper planning. It is a proper planning process that needs to be undertaken, and this inquiry will look at these planning provisions. This is the work that needs to be done – it should be done – and I would urge the house to take this very seriously so that this committee can undertake that important work, so that we can have a look at it, because there are too many concerns. This needs to be up and established as soon as it can be to get to the bottom of the government’s lack of planning, the lack of process, and to understand these planning provisions, which Mr Davis has highlighted very eloquently the concerns around. I urge the house to support this motion so we can get on with it.

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (15:09): I rise to make a contribution on Mr Davis’s motion calling for a select committee to look into Victoria’s planning provisions, which Legalise Cannabis Victoria will be supporting. I want to be very, very clear at the outset: housing matters. Housing should be available, should be affordable and should enjoy appropriate infrastructure to ensure a decent quality of life for all Victorians. We need appropriate, affordable and accessible housing in Victoria, and that does not exist now in adequate quantity. Everyone I think in this chamber would agree with this simple proposition. The question dividing this chamber is how to best achieve that goal.

This motion before the chamber is not about whether you agree or disagree with the government’s proposals on where new homes should be built or how quickly. I really implore my colleagues from the government side not to simply caricature this as nimbyism – it is not. In terms of this proposition, it is not about whether you agree with the government’s proposals on where and how to build, because I would say at the outset that the overarching settlement strategy in Plan for Victoria is pretty sound. It is a pretty good document. This is about whether the new planning controls that the government has been introducing one at a time by regulation are appropriate and give effect to the objective of planning and the planning framework as described in the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Are these regulations consistent with the act under which they are auspiced as subordinate legislation? How can you argue against that proposition? Do they comply with the act or not? Are they consistent with the principles there? I think we would all want to be confident that the government is fulfilling the requirements of that act rather than frustrating it when it comes to new subordinate legislation.

Other speakers have talked about the three different planning provisions, so I will not go into that other than to note that if we actually start to delve into a few of those, we come to some interesting issues – some problematic issues that we would suggest warrant consideration. If we just breeze through some of this, the first thing that caught my eye is that via VC257 there will be a new housing choice and transport zone around activity centres and a new precinct zone for Suburban Rail Loop precincts, which are also activity centres, but that the existing activity centre zones will not be used for any of the new activity centres. I just need to percolate that one for a little while. So now there are three zones for activity centres instead of one, and there are a few other special-purpose zones that have been applied to activity centres in the past still kicking around in the system as well. We hear a lot from the government about reducing complexity in the planning system, yet at the same time having three to five different types of activity centre seems to be a pretty funny way to go about it.

The second point of interest perhaps is all of the exemptions that are contained in the new deemed-to-comply provisions for two or more dwellings on a lot in the residential zone known as the townhouse and low-rise code, which is part of VC267. I understand the government’s objective in removing those barriers in the planning system that prevent the speedy approval of new homes – it is an important objective. But I am not sure that that objective has been appropriately balanced with other objectives like protecting life and responding to local environmental risks.

Let us take a look at a few examples of that deemed-to-comply provision. The new provision literally switches off local policies and applies a 10 per cent tree canopy cover standard – Dr Mansfield referred to this before. This standard is lower than many councils are encouraging through their local policy. So will that help or hinder the government’s Plan for Victoria target for 30 per cent cover across the state? It would be good to see some modelling, but are we talking about 10 per cent? Are we talking about 30 per cent? Clearly the two are not the same and they are not readily reconcilable. This is exactly the sort of thing that an inquiry can and should be looking at.

The same provisions also switch off environmentally sustainable design policies for energy, waste and water. Again, think about that. They apply some standards, but where those standards are lower than those found in local policies, will that not reduce the quality of homes? Won’t lower standards of energy efficiency make homes more expensive to run and to own? They also switch off the EPA environment reference standards. So does this mean that planners will be prevented from helping developers to improve their proposals and reduce air, sound and water conflicts? Well, yes – the answer is yes, it will have that effect. And that is a terrible result.

They also switch off requirements to consider planning scheme amendments that have been adopted by council but not yet approved by the minister. This is very troubling. Let us say a council has adopted an amendment that changes the flood overlays requiring a higher ground floor level for a new building but the minister has not approved it yet. What then? Mr Batchelor and I sat on the Environment and Planning Committee talking about exactly this issue of how we respond in a timely manner with flood plains. We have talked about that. If we take this logic that is built into the code, does that mean that the applicant will fail to get a building permit and have to go to all the expense and effort of reapplying for one, because that is expensive and inefficient? Alternatively, will they get a building permit and go ahead and build something that the government’s own flood modelling says is a risk to human inhabitants? Make up your mind. Given the need for timely advice to families who may be in the process of building their homes in an area potentially subject to inundation, it is utterly staggering that planners would be precluded – legislatively precluded – from the requirements to implement commonsense resilience measures. And some might say, ‘What’s the gap? It’s not going to be much.’ Well, talking about personal experience, in my community we spent almost two years negotiating with council and developers on a structure plan, and that structure plan when approved by council sat on the Minister for Planning’s desk for three years before it actually got permission to advertise – three years. So we are not talking about fantasies here. By all means let us talk about real shit, and this is what is happening out there.

The example I have just cited about flood and floor levels could easily be the sort of time gap we are talking about, and I believe it is something this inquiry should be talking about as well.

Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, Acting President, I think Mr Ettershank just used some unparliamentary language, and I ask that he withdraw that unparliamentary language and honour the –

David Ettershank interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Do you want me to repeat it?

David ETTERSHANK: No, I am perfectly happy. I withdraw the comment.

It is these incongruities that need to be teased out and explored by a select committee. I am reliably informed that the consultation on the three amendments we are discussing today was overwhelmingly poor, notwithstanding some very high level discussions about the principles, but the actual detail, especially all the exemptions from normal planning considerations that the townhouse and low-rise code makes, was not even known until the amendment was gazetted. So the consequences of all these new provisions have not been tested – not with councils, not with planners, not with developers and not with the public. We should not be sitting here being lectured to about nimbyism and extended consultation processes when the government has not done that, and it has used regulations specifically to obviate its obligations in that regard.

To pick up Mr Batchelor’s comment about the Environment and Planning Committee, yes, we could do this review in 12 months or 14 months time, when there is going to be a gap. Well, some of us do not want to wait until the dying days of this government to run into it. In terms of precluding community consultation, let us get real. This is the pot calling the kettle chartreuse. Let us get to the truth of these issues. This is a technical exercise; it is not a polemical exercise. Let us do a technical exercise on whether these planning scheme amendments are consistent with the act. Seriously, argue against that, please. This is just common sense. I know people will come with their own agendas – they always have, they always will – but it does not mean this should be opposed, because we are trying to get to the truth and the appropriateness of this matter. Accordingly, we are happy to support the motion.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:19): I rise to speak on a motion today, a motion which is a slap in the face to generation Z and millennial Victorians who are trying to get their foot on the property ladder, who are trying to get ahead in a system that increasingly, over several generations nationwide, has been stacked against them. We recognise that there is a problem. This government recognise that there is a problem, and we are taking action to address it. Mr Ettershank asks what is wrong with the current system. I say, ask a young Victorian. Ask a young Victorian who is trying to save up enough to purchase their first home whilst they are renting and seeing increasing rent costs, while they are trying to juggle other commitments, while they are seeing property prices get further and further and further out of reach. The system is not working for young Victorians. Truth be told, it has not worked for young Victorians for some time, as it has not worked for young people in other states.

Sarah Mansfield interjected.

Michael GALEA: I will take up Dr Mansfield’s interjection. It has not been working for some time under successive governments. But this government has been prepared to say, ‘Enough is enough. We cannot allow this to continue.’ Despite the constant stream of NIMBY motions and petitions that are put into this place by members opposite, this government is continuing to invest in and to work thoroughly on creating more housing opportunities for more Victorians in the inner city, in the middle suburbs, in the outer suburbs and across regional Victoria. I have spoken about that many, many times. We are doing that work, and we are doing that consultation work too, with one of the largest community engagement processes in this state’s history with more than 10,000 people already engaged.

Bev McArthur interjected.

Michael GALEA: Yes, Mrs McArthur, 10,000 people who have already been engaged in these processes in local reference groups across metropolitan Melbourne in different activity centres, and as a result of those processes, in many cases those plans and those structure plans have changed – in many cases. We saw that with the announcements of just a few weeks ago. We have listened, and we are taking those considerations and that feedback into account. We have a severe housing challenge in this state, and for too long there has been a generational divide, and it has been young people who have been screwed over by the systems that are in place. We need to be different. We need to act. We need to act now.

Ms Crozier was specifically interested in the whereabouts of Mr Batchelor and who he has been speaking to. I note from his remarks that he has been speaking to quite a lot of people in fact.

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

Michael GALEA: And he also spoke to the City of Glen Eira in the last two weeks as well.

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Michael GALEA: Yes, we are out there. My colleagues in places like Southern Metro – Mr Batchelor, Mr Berger – are out there listening and talking to communities.

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Michael GALEA: Not flitting around, as Ms Crozier would say, but actually out there and listening. But I also say to Ms Crozier: come out with me to the south-east. Let me take you to Clyde North. I can of course show you all the investments that we are making – the new schools, the new roads – all the investments that we are putting into Clyde North. I am sure members in this place get sick of me talking about it, because I do mention it a lot. There are a lot of things that we are doing, but it is not enough, because that suburb is growing so fast. And it is a symptom of a good thing. It is a symptom of a strong economy, of strong population growth in Victoria. I will give one quick example. A primary school that opened just four years ago with 400 students in that suburb last year hit 1300 students, double-storey portables, and the school principal said to me, ‘If we do not have something happen soon, we will be putting portables on the only oval that we have for the kids.’ Fortunately, one of the new three new schools that we opened in Clyde North this year is alleviating the pressure on this school. We are making those investments, and we must continue to do so, but we cannot sustainably go at this rate.

I say to Ms Crozier and others on the Liberal benches: come out with me to Clyde North. Let me introduce you to people there, and you can tell them how you think we should not be putting more sensible density in inner- and in middle-ring suburbs, and that instead people like them should be taking more of the brunt of the population growth.

Bev McArthur interjected.

Michael GALEA: I have just answered exactly your point, Mrs McArthur, as to why we actually are doing all of those things, and I encourage you to listen to further contributions I will make probably in this place today about all these things that we are doing. We are all doing all of those things. But come out and talk to the people in Clyde North. I note that Mr Mulholland is not in the chamber, and I am sure there is a very good reason for that. If you talk to the people in his electorate too in the outskirts –

David Davis interjected.

Michael GALEA: If it is too much for you having some late sittings, Mr Davis – I know that this place can get a bit long in the hours sometimes. I know that it can get a bit much for some over there.

We are having some growing pains in our outer suburbs. I simply ask those supporting this motion to come out and talk to people in the growth suburbs. Ask them: do you want another five suburbs behind you, or do you want us to change the system? Do you want us to actually rethink things? Let us think more holistically and more sensibly about how we can continue to grow in our outer suburbs and provide those options for young families that want to have a nice quiet suburb, have a good school to send their kids to and some local job opportunities nearby – or it could be if you want to live in the inner city or in the inner-ring suburbs or in Forest Hill or in South Yarra, like Ms Crozier talks about. Those options, or of course regional Victoria, should be available to young people.

There was a time where the Liberal Party stood for the aspiration of Australians. The aspiration to be able to choose where you live is foundational. You do not have that if you do not have choice of housing, if you cannot afford to live anywhere within a 30- or 40-k radius of where you work, where your family is and where your social networks are. That is not a choice, but that is what the Liberal Party is saying to young Victorians today: you do not deserve that choice because we want to keep things as they are in the suburbs that we live in.

It is a sad thing indeed to mark the death of Liberal yimbyism with this motion today. Mr Mulholland in his maiden speech spoke very, very passionately about green triangle placards stopping progress. With this motion today and with his support of this motion, Mr Mulholland is effectively holding up that green triangle placard and saying, ‘I am with them. Stop progress, stop development and stop giving opportunities to young Victorians.’ That is the effect of this motion today. I say to any decent Liberals out there who still have some sort of sense –

Tom McIntosh interjected.

Michael GALEA: They are in England, Mr McIntosh, yes. They have gone to England. Maybe there are some still here – I do not know. Maybe they will speak up and make their voices heard, but certainly it will not be coming from the benches opposite. I am sure that many in the party who do still hold onto those values of aspiration and a better outcome for young Victorians will have something to say about you lot. I can tell you that the young Victorians who you are seeking to disenfranchise through this motion are watching. They are watching you today. They are watching the attempts to stifle opportunity, to stifle the chance to own their own home and to stifle something that has been afforded to countless generations of Australians and Victorians. Let them be the judge of you for that.

This is a frankly ludicrous committee proposal that we have before us today – a foregone conclusion as proven by the motion that was read in this morning. We know what the outcome is that Mr Davis is seeking. He read it in as a motion. His proposed committee has not even come to a vote yet, his six-week short committee. Complaining about lack of consultation and then attempting to undertake an entire select committee inquiry in six weeks over Easter is not genuine consultation. You know why you are doing it for six weeks. We know why you are doing it for six weeks. It is a foregone conclusion, and that is the motion that you put through this morning. That motion, if it comes into effect, would be devastating for young Victorians. It is something that they would not forgive you for.

As we have said in interjections and possibly in Mr Batchelor’s contribution as well, this belongs in the Environment and Planning Committee. The hint is in the name: ‘Planning’. If it was a genuine motion, if it was a genuine attempt to look at this, that would be the referral. Even if it is not, even if you insist that it should be a select committee, it does not need to be 18 months, Mr Ettershank. Let us be reasonable. But it should not be six weeks, because that is outrageous. If it is a select committee, it does not need to be six weeks. We know why the Liberals want it to be six weeks. They have already decided what is going to happen. They do not care about listening to young Victorians, and we will see that in this inquiry should it get up. On this side of the chamber we will always listen to them and champion their right to housing.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:29): I will start this by saying the Libertarians believe in property rights – it is one of our fundamental things. Planning restrictions are effectively people who do not own property exerting rights on people who do have property, so planning systems in general are problematic. If we needed a select committee because the Environment and Planning Committee is backed up and we would not be able to get it through, then I would support a select committee that looks widely into planning systems in Victoria and what the government is doing. I actually would not mind that. But what concerns me a lot about this is the fact that we are looking at three very specific planning schemes in a short timeframe.

I think I agree with Mr Galea here. The reason that we are looking at this and wanting to do it in such a short timeframe is because the opposition, the Greens and Legalise Cannabis want to put through a disallowance motion that will effectively abolish these and cause huge disruption to property rights. People have already purchased the land. They are putting permits in, and they will have to go through all that again, causing all sorts of delays. It costs money. Potentially people will have financing costs and all sorts of things that could cause them to go bankrupt. I just think this is a really bad idea. If we are going to do a review, I would like to do it over a longer timeframe and do this properly, not over six weeks over Easter. You cannot do an inquiry that is going to look at something so complex and detailed – huge numbers of stakeholders will want to participate in this. I just do not think that you can do something sensible in that timeframe. The only reason that we are trying to do it in this timeframe is so that it will meet the window for disallowance. It seems obvious to me.

On top of this, I have spoken to people as well in the south-east. Mr Galea was talking about Clyde North; I have spoken to people in Frankston. I am sure Mr Galea would have spoken to people in Frankston as well. I have been talking to a group there for some time who have been pushing for higher density housing. They were quite happy with what the government were doing because they did allow it. There is an area along the Nepean Highway where there are lots of empty lots and shuttered-up businesses. There is one business there which has still got Christmas decorations from when they went bankrupt during the pandemic. It is sad when you see it. This group of people are older people; you could probably call them empty nesters. They live in Frankston already. They want to stay in Frankston. They love Frankston. They like Frankston. Frankston is a good place to live. What they want to do is buy a luxury apartment near the beach in Frankston and move out of their home, because they have got a big family home that they do not need anymore because the kids have grown up and gone off to do whatever they do as adults. They want to live in a luxury apartment where they can walk to the supermarket, they can walk to the beach, they can walk to the train station and they can still drive into the city or do whatever they want. That is what they wanted to do. They were happy that the government approved this and that they were allowed to build this. The Greens and others have been saying, ‘Well, this new housing, it’s going to be very expensive.’ And these luxury apartments probably will be quite expensive. I saw some plan designs for them; they looked really nice actually. But when they move into those apartments, they are going to be selling their house, which is a family house. A young family would buy their old house in Frankston.

To say, ‘Well, we’re going to just set up this inquiry with an objective that will effectively be the opposition and the Greens trying to move this disallowance motion to throw all that into chaos’ – I just cannot support that in good conscience. It just seems totally wrong. I hear all the time from the Greens that they support housing, but they are constantly attacking developers. They are the people that build houses, for goodness sake. I just think we need to make it as easy as possible. I do not think the government has gone far enough in lots of this, but it is good that they have made it easier to get permits issued and things like this, which have lowered the barriers and the timeframes. That is a good thing.

David Davis interjected.

David LIMBRICK: There may be problems with it, but the intent is there to lower the barriers to get planning permits issued quicker. I support planning permits being issued quicker because it is very expensive to hold property on finance, and the quicker that you can get these things done, the cheaper it is for people.

I have got lots of criticisms of the government about the expenses that they put on property, like land taxes and stamp duty and all these other things that cause property to be expensive, but one of the other things that causes property to be expensive is having to wait while you are holding it and finance it and doing nothing with it rather than building a house for someone to live in. If we can make that faster, then great. I look forward to going and seeing these luxury apartments that get built in Frankston. I might go out and have a look at what is happening in Clyde North. I look forward to that.

I have heard these scare campaigns that the government was talking about. I do not see that in Frankston at all. The area that they want to build these apartments in has empty lots and shuttered businesses. It is sad. There is a local cafe and some really nice restaurants there, but there is hardly any foot traffic because no-one walks past. I think it would be great for the local businesses. I want to see that shop that went bankrupt during the pandemic open up again and see it turned into a nice restaurant or whatever the market decides. There will be a bunch of people that have just moved into their new apartments near the beach, and they will be able to go to these nice cafes and all that sort of stuff. It has the potential, the vision. These people that were pushing for this have a vision. They want Frankston to be better. They think that it can be a better place, and they see the shuttered-up shops and they think the same thing as me. They think, ‘This is sad.’ They want it to be developed. They want people to support those businesses and to go into those businesses. They want people to live in the area, and they want to move out of the house that is inappropriate for their needs now because they do not have children living with them anymore. I cannot support this in good conscience.

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:37): I rise to make a contribution on this motion in Mr Davis’s name which calls on the house to agree to a standing up of a select committee to inquire into, consider and report by 13 May whether amendments to the Victorian planning provisions made through VC257, VC274 and VC267 give proper effect to the objectives of planning in Victoria et cetera, et cetera. The motion goes into a whole bunch of things about how the committee will operate, who it will consist of and who will be the chair et cetera, et cetera.

I have been sitting in the chamber for most of the debate, and I have had the benefit of hearing contributions by various people. I have to say it is a strange thing, but I agree with much of what Mr Limbrick has had to say in regard to this matter, not necessarily on the taxation stuff but certainly on the housing stuff. I also agree with what Mr Galea had to say about young people who want to be able to enter the property market. I was the former chair of the Environment and Planning Committee, and before many of you were in this place in the last term of Parliament, we actually undertook an inquiry into the planning scheme. One of the recommendations, in fact the only recommendation of that committee and report, was that the next term of Parliament undertake a full –

David Davis: You have copped out.

Sonja TERPSTRA: I will take up Mr Davis’s interjection through you, Acting President. That recommendation was that the next Parliament undertake a full inquiry, but the chamber decided not to do that. What is different about what Mr Davis is proposing and what that motion said is that Mr Davis wants it to be a non-government chair, a very short turnaround of six weeks over a period where there will not be a lot of people around and the capacity to actually get experts in to give evidence to this will be severely compromised. It will be all those things. What we know about those opposite and members of the crossbench is that these committees are often used to do policy development work.

I continue to ask those opposite about the planning scheme amendments, what they see happening and how they are going to facilitate young people entering into the property market, and I hear none of that from those opposite. All I hear is ‘Not in my backyard.’ It is about nimbyism. I can tell you, particularly from my own experience – and I heard Mr Limbrick talk about his experience in Frankston – from when I moved into where I live in Heidelberg I have seen a lot of changes happening in Heidelberg. We have had big multistorey units put up in activity centres because there is a train station there and people want to live close to train stations. Young people actually do not really want to have a car anymore; they would much prefer to access public transport. In fact there is a rise in cars – you see them everywhere – called GoGet. You can see a car parked on the street, get access to it and off you go. You drive it and then leave it where you want to leave it and someone else picks it up. So there are rapidly changing and evolving technologies that give alternatives to people actually owning cars and the like.

Young people want to have affordable housing in areas where they grew up. They do not want to move out and perhaps have to go to the outer suburbs. They want to stay in the inner-ring or middle-ring suburbs where they grew up, and what I am seeing is a great diversity of different housing choices. The old quarter-acre block family home with four bedrooms and a big backyard is not what families want anymore. In fact if you look at some of the newly built houses, some of them are built on almost 80 per cent of the block. There is no backyard anymore. People do not necessarily want that style of housing. It goes to the other point about medium- and high-density housing, for example: people do like to live in medium to high density housing these days, and that was something I never saw growing up. When I grew up I was on a quarter-acre block.

It goes back to the point about what we see in suburbs. It is disappointing to me to hear people saying, ‘Not in my backyard. It’s going to change the neighbourhood character.’ I am sorry, but when you buy your house you do not get to own the entire neighbourhood and you do not necessarily get to say, ‘I don’t want people moving in who want a different choice of house.’ That is not acceptable, because we have to accept, if we want young people to be able to enter the housing market, that they should have a choice and a range of options that facilitate the lifestyle that they have and the family budget that they have.

We all know it was easier for our parents to get into the housing market because they also had secure jobs and secure income. Today what we have to acknowledge is that, unfortunately, our younger generations do not have access to secure work. We have had wage stagnation in this country for over 10 years, and through cost of living and the crisis we are facing household budgets are stretched. So how do we help them get into the housing market? We do stuff like this. We do stuff like planning frameworks and housing reform. We look at activity centres, and we look at how government can maximise and leverage making affordable housing around activity centres, where we know young people want to live.

We know families want to live close to public transport, schools, parks and all those things. That is not a bad thing, but what is a bad thing is exactly what Mr Limbrick said. This is about doing a rushed committee to get in front of a disallowance motion that would put a halt to all of the planning amendments where people have gone to council and sought building permits or are looking to buy homes et cetera. All of that would be thrown into question, and that would be disastrous, all because those opposite and some members of the crossbench want to put nimbyism ahead of people getting into the housing market. I condemn those opposite and members of the crossbench for supporting this motion, because that is what this really is. And I question: why does Mr Davis want this to have a non-government chair? Well, I know why. It is because either he –

A member interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: A predetermined outcome, absolutely. This is all about politics. They are speaking to themselves yet again to make sure that young people and people of diverse backgrounds cannot live in neighbourhoods that are affluent. I would like to see more people live in very wealthy suburbs like Hawthorn, Camberwell and those sorts of places, because those places are spoiled for choice when it comes to public transport services; they have tram, bus and train. That makes it more affordable for people to get to work, particularly when they cannot afford a car or do not want to have a car.

This motion is what it is. It is a really transparent and obvious attempt at undermining the government’s work to help young people into the housing market. It is a transparent attempt to have a predetermined outcome and to attack and undermine the planning scheme. We saw this a couple of weeks ago now in this Parliament when Mr Davis sought to change our sessional orders – he stuffed it up. If this actually went through and we had an outcome and then a disallowance motion came that undermined these planning scheme amendments, what would the response be from Mr Davis and the Liberal Party and those on the crossbench to all those people who had invested their hard-earned savings in permits and getting lawyers to look at contracts for new housing? What would their response be to all of that? Nothing. Crickets from over there. What we know is that when you are in government you have to be responsible and sometimes you have to make hard decisions. I could talk about the extensive consultation that this government has undertaken around these planning and activity centres because in fact we listen. When we got feedback from communities about the activity centres we in fact changed the density because we listened.

If this motion gets up, I look forward to people who sit on this committee actually declaring whether they have got conflicts of interest or not and what interests they have in any of these activity centres. I think it would be a very good exercise in transparency. We get lectured from those opposite about transparency. Every committee member, whoever they are, should declare whether they have a conflict of interest in any of these activity centres or planning scheme amendments. That is transparency. It is all very well for those opposite and on the crossbench to lecture this government about that. I want to see what happens with select committee members in that regard.

This is nothing more than a sham. We know that what those opposite and the crossbench as well do is use these committees to do their policy development work. The problem is that there is a problem with timing. We know that experts are not going to be able to get in to give evidence. It is a too short, truncated timeframe. No-one will be around. Members will not turn up despite them wanting it to be done. No-one will turn up; it will not be done. There will be a predetermined outcome. It is transparently political. So again we waste this chamber’s time and finite resources on another committee that we know will have a predetermined outcome that will hurt young Victorians and prevent them from getting into housing.

This government does not do business like that. We want to make sure everyone has the right to access housing for families and a diversity of housing for the housing choices that they need to make and what is appropriate to their needs. I will conclude my remarks there. As stated earlier, the government will be opposing this motion.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (15:47): I rise to contribute to the motion of Mr Davis opposite. This is another one of those motions that come around every now and then and then we have the same debate. We get our 10 minutes and they get theirs as well. But here we go. This motion is to establish a select committee of nine members to inquire into, consider and report on, by 13 May 2025, the recent planning changes to create high-rise, high-density development in 10 large activity centres and the additional 50 activity centres announced by the Allan Labor government, including but not limited to those centres. It will look at, under 1(a), 10 large activity centres and 50 additional activity centres and how they were chosen and established; under 1(b), whether these decisions were made appropriately by the Minister for Planning, what documents and assessments were behind the decisions and whether there was a sufficient accountability and transparency in the decision-making. On this, the word is consultation. It is something I always go back to in my second-reading speeches when I talk about this. You can see this in Hansard. The Allan Labor government is always committed to listening to the people.

I go back to the motion. Under 1(d), the committee will look at whether these changes make adequate or reasonable provisions for social or affordable housing, and then under 1(e), whether proper planning for infrastructure, including schools, health services, open space and sewerage services have been undertaken to support the planned intense developments. The motion talks about protecting heritage buildings and streetscapes at 1(g) and protecting vegetation and canopy at 1(h). The motion then asks whether the powers will be transferred from councils and communities to ministers for planning and whether this is appropriate and democratic.

Those opposite are yearning for the last two Liberal terms of government of Jeff Kennett. Victorians do not want that, and they do not want the cuts. We want to build, and as the Premier made it clear, we are all in this together. That means that we have very clear targets. By ‘we’, I mean the democratically elected government of all Victorians. But let us be very clear: we have not shied away from any of this.

A media release of 24 February this year could not be any clearer. Times have changed. Our kids are being priced out of the communities that they know and love. If we do not act now, it will be too late. The Premier said it clearly:

It’s simple – work with us to unlock space for more homes or we’ll do it for you.

So regarding the parts of that motion that discuss transferring powers from councils to communities to the Minister for Planning and so forth, we have made it very clear when this will happen. If the councils do not share the burden in a team Victoria approach, we will intervene and unlock more spaces.

The motion also talks about the logistics of the committee: that is three members of the government nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Council; three members from the opposition nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Council, so what that means is jobs for the mates of Mr Davis, it seems; and then three members from among the remaining members of the Council. It goes on to the logistics of lodgement of the names with the President within five calendar days of the Council agreeing to this resolution and states that the chair and deputy chair of the committee will be non-government members. I will not specify the further logistic details of the motion, but it touches upon quorum rights, substitute members, meetings periods, public hearings, technical and specialist assistance and more.

The activity centres have been established to deal with an unavoidable problem. It aims to build 60,000 new homes across Melbourne to deal with the pressure – (Time expired)

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (15:51): I am pleased to sum up my response in this debate and thank members for their contributions. This is an important motion. It enables us to look closely at these three planning amendments VC267, VC257 and VC274. The state government has not consulted properly on these. It is true that there is a lot of work to do to understand the exact impact and how these will work in a local context. That work has not been done by state government. It should have been. They have overridden councils and communities in many of these decisions.

There are real concerns about the impact and how these will actually cut through and work for local communities – concerns, for example, about the ResCode and how that will work; the impact of the deemed to comply approach; the removal of the ability to consider neighbourhood character; the broader policy in the planning scheme where applications are deemed to comply; a very low minimum tree canopy, and a number of members have mentioned this small tree canopy requirement, which seems to go completely contrary to the government’s other objectives and the objectives that most of us in this chamber would hold as sensible; and the removal of third-party review rights to VCAT for the deemed to comply provisions under clause 55. All of these are very important concerns that people have expressed.

The state government is in something of a panic on these planning matters. They have been in power now for almost 11 years – they are in their 11th year. The difficulties that we face in this state with respect to housing are their responsibility fundamentally. It is true, as others have pointed out, that tax and other matters are very significant, and it is also true that the machinery that the state government has had in place has not worked well over a longer period. But much of that is not the responsibility of councils and communities; much of it is the responsibility of the department and the minister. Things sit on the minister’s desk for years in some cases, and yet the government has the temerity to point at local communities and local councils. I am sorry – the truth of the matter here is we can do much better as a community, but we also importantly need to recognise that bringing forward options in housing is an important objective; it is just that the state government has got 11 years of failure behind it on these matters. Prices have gone up, availability has gone down; that is true, and that is the state government’s fault. It has actually caused these problems over the last almost 11 years. However, this is a very narrow motion in the sense that it deals with the three planning scheme amendments. It is in the context of other announcements by the state government, but those three planning scheme amendments can be looked at closely, and a sensible approach can be adopted where we make sure that they impact in the right way, that there is a proper approach to this and that the genuine outcomes that most of us want to see can be achieved.

I say local communities should have a say; I say councils should have say. I say people are entitled to live in an area and make sure that the area is held in such a way that the outcomes are fair and the objectives are balanced; now, that is a reasonable request. It is not what the state government is proposing in a number of its recent steps. It is proposing to steamroll local communities and do that unfairly. But even if you agreed with the state government in most of its approaches, you would still want to understand precisely how these planning schemes – these three individual but important planning schemes, which are applied across the Victorian planning provisions, so they are statewide provisions – will actually impact on local communities. I have got to say the state government does not want the examination or the transparency here, because the state government wants to cover up its failings.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (22): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, David Ettershank, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Adem Somyurek, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (17): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Tom McIntosh, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Motion agreed to.