Wednesday, 6 March 2024

Questions without notice and ministers statements

Housing

John PESUTTO (Hawthorn – Leader of the Opposition) (14:02): My question is to the Minister for Planning. In what year will the government achieve its yearly 80,000 new homes target?

Sonya KILKENNY (Carrum – Minister for Planning, Minister for the Suburbs) (14:02): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I am delighted to get up here and talk about this government’s plan for building 800,000 more homes by 2034. The fact is – I will let the opposition in on a little secret – you do not deliver more affordable homes by blocking them.

John Pesutto: On a point of order, Speaker, on relevance, the minister had plenty of time before being brought to the microphone, and since, and has not addressed the question. Can you bring her back to the question?

The SPEAKER: Minister for Planning, I ask you to come back to the question that was asked.

Sonya KILKENNY: The question is around building more homes for more Victorians, and –

A member interjected.

Sonya KILKENNY: That is right, in order to build more homes you need a plan to build more homes. As I was saying –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, the minister is now defying your ruling.

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Planning had only commenced her answer. There is no point of order.

Sonya KILKENNY: As I said, I am letting those opposite in on a little secret: that the way to build more homes is certainly not to block them but about providing the right conditions to support industry to get on and build 800,000 more homes that we know Victorians need. What we have done is that in September last year this government, the Allan Labor government, announced its housing statement, and that statement is a set of initiatives which provide those levers that government will be pulling to support industry to get on and deliver 800,000 homes. That includes working with industry, alongside community and alongside local government. The opposition leader can sit and shake –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, may I refer you to page 153 of Rulings from the Chair, Speaker Maddigan’s ruling of 2003:

When responding to a question a minister must address the question rather than responding generally.

The question was 12 words long and it asked for a year, and the minister has already spent half of the time available and has not answered the question.

The SPEAKER: Thank you for raising the point of order, Manager of Opposition Business. I am well aware of the standing orders. However, I cannot direct the minister how to answer a question. If the minister is being relevant to the question, then there is no point of order. The minister was being relevant.

Sonya KILKENNY: As I was saying, last year this government released its housing statement, and that sets out a number of initiatives about how we are going to support industry, working alongside local government and working alongside our communities to deliver on that commitment to building 800,000 homes over the next decade. One of those initiatives, can I say, is the development facilitation program. This is a pathway where industry can come direct to me as the decision-maker with big, major residential projects worth more than $50 million that will deliver at least 10 per cent affordable housing.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, the relevancy rule is farcical if a minister does not need to go anywhere near the question that has been asked. We asked a specific question: for a year.

The SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

James Newbury: On the issue of relevancy I would seek your guidance. This is now farcical. It does not matter what question we ask, ministers refuse to answer the question.

The SPEAKER: As I have said previously, I cannot direct a minister how to answer a question. The minister was referring to new home targets. She was being relevant to the question that was asked.

Sonya KILKENNY: My very next point was this, with the development facilitation program: already 5200 dwellings are currently being actively considered under this new pathway. As well, we have had hundreds of inquiries, with 34,000 dwellings now in the development facilitation program preapplication stage. These are thousands of homes, and it goes to show this development facilitation program is doing exactly what we wanted it to do, and that is to stimulate interest to be able to get industry to get on and –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, I do note previous Speakers’ rulings that ministers’ answers have to not just be relevant but be succinct in replying. With 5 seconds left and the minister not replying to the question, I would say the minister is not being succinct.

The SPEAKER: The minister has concluded her answer.

John PESUTTO (Hawthorn – Leader of the Opposition) (14:09): The Housing Industry Association said the cost of a house and land package is ‘significantly higher in Victoria than it is in other parts of the country’. After almost a decade under a Labor government, why are Victorians paying more for their new homes?

The SPEAKER: There is a very tenuous link between the first question and the supplementary. In that it relates to new homes, I will allow it.

Sonya KILKENNY (Carrum – Minister for Planning, Minister for the Suburbs) (14:10): The very point of our housing statement and our plan for Victoria is to address the very issue of housing affordability here in Victoria. We are directly addressing this housing crisis, which is why the Allan Labor government is pulling every lever available to it to get those conditions right, to provide that certainty and to establish that pipeline of work for our industry to get on and build and deliver the 800,000 homes that Victorians need over the next decade. This is exactly the kind of work that we are doing and highlights even more the very stark difference between those of us on this side of the house ‍– who have a plan to bring down the cost of living, to make housing more affordable, more diverse and to give Victorians more choice about where they live – and those opposite, who are entrenched in their own leadership crisis.