Wednesday, 13 August 2025

Opposition performance

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (17:44): We grieve for the future of young people in Victoria if the member for Brighton is ever in charge. Not only does he oppose work from home, he does not want young people to have a home to begin with. He is a blocker. He is about blocking homes and blocking opportunities, and I have got plenty of examples to show that, especially opportunities for young Victorians. He would deny young Victorians the same opportunities their parents had – the opportunity to live where they want and the opportunity to have access to the things they need to lead happy, healthy and prosperous lives.

It is really perplexing that this is subject to where people want to live, because that is fundamentally important, and that is what we are all about on this side. I do not know why the Liberals, and specifically here we are speaking to the member for Brighton, would not want children, when they grow up, to be able to live close to their parents so they can catch up regularly. If they are having to move hours away, that would be really sad, unless they are wanting to live elsewhere – the dynamics of the family is a whole other issue. But assuming families want to be connected and to stay connected throughout their lives, giving young people the opportunity to live where they need, with the transport and access to jobs and other things which will help them live high-quality lives that are fulfilling – I would have thought the Libs would have been onto that. But clearly the member for Brighton thinks otherwise, and unfortunately the Liberals are on a unity ticket here. They used to have one YIMBY, one lone voice, who spoke about increasing housing supply in the inner city and the middle suburbs near infrastructure. Mr Mulholland in the other place once said:

If my party wants to remain relevant to young people, we must at every opportunity reject this shortsighted and unfair approach and champion home ownership.

But he is not saying that anymore. And why is he not saying that anymore? Because the member for Brighton has won out. In 2017 the member for Brighton opposed a development in Hampton building 207 new apartments. In 2018 he campaigned to close down housing for rough sleepers in Brighton. You see there is a bit of a pattern here; he has form in this regard. This year he opposed 84 townhouses on a former Xavier College campus 350 metres from Brighton Beach station. That was 84 townhouses. You have to ask yourself, ‘Why would the member for Brighton be so vehemently opposed to townhouses and so close to Brighton Beach station?

I have actually been to Brighton Beach station a number of times, when I was in the upper house. It is nice and close to the beach. Imagine young people being given the opportunity to have that accessibility to transport and live in townhouses. I do not know what his problem is. Nevertheless, it is persisting, and it is a real shame. It is a shame for Victorians more broadly as well. He also opposed activity centres in Brighton – I think he is almost infamous for this – stating:

… if we are fortunate enough to be elected, that ain’t going to happen.

So he wound up a frenzied mob to protest the announcement. I think that went viral, and unfortunately not for good reasons. For the member for Brighton I think it was decidedly embarrassing, to be perfectly frank. He said the announcement would ‘take a wrecking ball through our suburbs’.

I wonder if he has a little regret about making such pretty blunt statements. Really it is about truncating. It is like putting a stake in the ground and saying, ‘Nup. Everyone up to this point – so me and people who are already existing and living in those inner suburbs – that’s fine. Everyone else, stuff you. We don’t care about you. We just care about the people up to this point. Everyone else’ – by implication, younger generations – ‘you’re stuffed. I don’t care.’ I am being frank, but that is the net effect. What looked like somebody purporting to champion the people in his suburb, when you follow the thread of the ramifications of that so-called championing of his suburb, the net effect is that it compromises the future of young Victorians, which is indeed very, very sad.

To demonstrate just how completely lacking in compassion for other Victorians he is, the member for Brighton also campaigned to close a facility that provided emergency housing for people who were rough sleeping, saying, ‘We have a right to preserve our way of life.’ What does that actually mean – ‘preserve our way of life’? That is literally drawing a line in the sand and saying, ‘We’re okay.’ It is really just putting a line in the sand and saying, ‘Everyone else, well, fend for yourselves. Good luck.’ Not only did he want to close it, he wanted to do what Liberal governments do best: sell it off.

The Liberal and Nationals coalition’s attitude to social housing can be summed up by the former Liberal housing minister, who believed low-income families had no place in the member for Brighton’s district. I actually remember this vividly, because I was in the upper house in the time period of this statement:

There is no point putting a very low income, probably welfare-dependent family in the best street in Brighton where the children cannot mix with others or go to the school with other children or where they do not have the same ability to have the latest in sneakers and iPhones et cetera.

That is Wendy Lovell, Hansard, 23 March 2022. I probably remember it because we were all pretty horrified on this side of the house. I know the specific area that she is talking about. Actually, that whole site has been rebuilt. The children from that site, many of them, went to Elsternwick Primary School. The net effect would have been that they would have mixed with – I have got to be careful with those words – talked to and played with kids in Brighton who were not necessarily at that public housing site. Somehow it worked for many, many years, from whenever that site was built – let us say, the 1950s and 60s. Anyway, our Labor government has rebuilt that site and, guess what – I was just talking to a teacher from Elsternwick Primary School today – they now have kids from the new site who are going to Elsternwick Primary School. Inclusion – oh, my goodness. Who knew? So it has worked out. Fancy that!

But we can see that those opposite are not sure about it. I think it comes back to something I said a little bit earlier, if I can requote. I have to find that quote. He said: ‘take a wrecking ball through our suburbs’. No, there was something else, something more precise: ‘We have the right to preserve our way of life.’ But what does that actually mean? That means we draw a line between those who have and those who do not have, so to speak. I think that is what that means, and that is definitely the very opposite of inclusion. But we can see that young Victorian children, guess what, are all over it. They just make friends. They just get on with it.

Tim Richardson interjected.

Nina TAYLOR: They do. It is easy. Who knew? That is something that those opposite, and particularly the member for Brighton, might want to take on board.

But there are plenty more examples of how those opposite block and oppose more housing. They have form – my goodness, do they have form. I am going to unpack it. The member for Sandringham opposed a proposal to build 1048 homes in Highett in 2021. David Davis attended a rally in 2021 protesting the development of 178 public and affordable homes at the Markham estate. There is more. It does not stop there. You see, there is a pattern. It keeps on giving. It is evidence. Let us not forget that in 2021 the most recent former Leader of the Opposition ‍– let us be really clear about that, as it gets a bit confusing because there are a few – climbed up on the back of a ute in Hawthorn to oppose a social housing project at Bills Street. It is shameful. While John Pesutto tried to block these 200 ‍homes in Bills Street, we got on and built them. And the new residents of Bills Street live in those homes because, despite the Liberals’ attempt to block them, this government got on and built them.

Tim Richardson interjected.

Nina TAYLOR: Exactly right. We want to see Victorians housed, but we do not just talk about it, we actually deliver, because we believe we are accountable. That is why we are delivering. The last time the Liberals were in government every single budget delivered significant cuts to housing assistance, social housing and support for disadvantaged Victorians to access the rental market, which would seem to be quite counterproductive when it comes to actually seeing all Victorians housed. A total of $348.8 million was cut from social housing funding in the Liberals’ 2011–12 budget alone. That is a pretty large figure in anyone’s language. That is a lot of money, and that would really have hurt.

On this side, though, we are not blockers; we are builders. We are building social and affordable housing, and we are delivering more townhouses and apartments where young people want to live near train stations. It is really about opening doors for young people. I know, having younger staffers in my office as well, they are not all actually hurtling out necessarily to get a drivers licence either. A lot of them are very focused on the climate but also on saving money and thinking about not being caught in congestion et cetera, so a lot of them are very mindful about using public transport – they are pretty passionate about that – and I think that reflects really well on them. So why do we not reward younger generations for their thoughtfulness/ It is actually pragmatism, isn’t it, at the end of the day? It is a choice. Let me say, when it comes to our housing statement, we are very conscious, and there certainly has been a strong emphasis and prioritisation, about people being able to choose where they want to live and how they want to live. If somebody wants acres of land, so be it, fantastic, that is great if they can afford it – yes, that is the other side of the equation. On the other hand, there are the others who are deliberately choosing to have smaller gardens so that they have more free time to do other things. I think that is fair enough too when you think of all the beautiful parks and gardens we have in Victoria, the arts, bike paths, major events capital – there is always something going on, isn’t there? That goes without saying.

This is about choice for people but particularly for young people, because we really do have to think of them. I think it is a great pity that the member for Brighton has just made a decision and said, ‘Well, look, we’re okay, Jack, but you don’t matter. Younger generations, you just kind of work it out, wing it somehow. Good luck. Off you go.’ I think it is pretty harsh and it is a real shame. But thankfully, he is not in charge, and we are getting on and we are building housing. Actually we are number one for approving builds and number one for building.

A member interjected.

Nina TAYLOR: Yes, thousands more than New South Wales, thousands more than Queensland, in spite of those opposite who perpetually try to distort the reality of what we are doing. But we are not stopping there. That does not mean we say, ‘Oh, it’s all okay.’ We are absolutely committed to continuing to deliver on the promises that we have made. I know there is certainly social and affordable housing well underway in my electorate in Port Melbourne. I know that Mr Davis did pop down to try and see if he could mess it up early on, along with, I have to say, the Greens political party. They did the best they could to stymie it, everything you can imagine – pulling in people not necessarily from my electorate but from other electorates to do kind of stunts and things. But thankfully, we pushed on because we know it is the right thing to do. We really want to make sure that young Victorians – the cross-section – have quality, energy-efficient housing with good landscaping and amenity.

Question agreed to.