Wednesday, 14 May 2025

Matters of public importance

Housing

The SPEAKER (16:01): I have accepted a statement from the member for Albert Park proposing the following matter of public importance for discussion:

That this house condemns the opposition for failing to support reforms that deliver more homes for Victorians close to transport, jobs, schools and parks.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (16:01): I am very pleased to rise to speak to a very serious matter of public importance, and that is one that condemns the opposition for failing to support reforms that deliver more homes for Victorians close to transport, jobs, schools and parks. It is extraordinary the lengths to which the opposition will go in order to block housing any which way they can and maintain status quo. A long-term, and even a shorter-term impact of this status quo – and it is not even status quo, because it would mean going backwards if we did not to take these historic reforms forward – is that everyday Victorians and particularly younger generations will suffer if we do not make the decisions that we are having to make and that we want to make in the best interests of current and future generations of Victorians getting into homes and being able to afford to live a reasonable existence in our wonderful state of Victoria.

I will back in my contention regarding the lengths to which they will go to block housing for Victorians – to the extent that there was a rushed committee that was seeking to examine three planning scheme amendments, and fundamentally it was about stymieing plans to build more homes for Victorians. You really have to ask, ‘Well, what are they going to achieve by doing that?’ Absolutely nothing. In fact it would send the state retrograde, and it would penalise younger and future generations in a way that is simply unfair. I should say, it also belies the underlying purpose for which these reforms are being brought about.

The other thing that is really disturbing is the persistent misinformation and embellishment in an attempt to frighten people not to undertake and not to be part of these planning reforms or to go forward and to see the value in these planning reforms. It belies the why; it belies the how. It is also destructive when we want to present what is actually the truth about the amenity, which is fundamental and intrinsic to the nature of the reforms that are being brought about, because it is not only about increasing supply. But we know that fundamentally that is the solution. Increasing the supply is absolutely fundamental if we are going to resolve options for Victorians, both when it comes to rental properties but also when it comes to being able to buy into homes.

This idea that, ‘Oh, well, I don’t want some multistorey properties in my area because my area should always be guarded’ – it is like a secret fortress that no-one is allowed to be in, when in fact we can see that the reforms, and I am speaking very broadly before I do the deep dive, have been developed in a very strategic and consultative way.

In fact there has been extraordinary consultation across the state. I participated when the Minister for Planning came out to my electorate and very openly put the questions to Victorians. It was at the South Melbourne Market, but there were many other places across the state where the questions were asked – many, many questions which pertained to these very important reforms that have led to the decisions that we are making as a government, because it is the right thing to do and because housing Victorians cannot be facilitated by sitting on our hands and saying, ‘Not in my suburb.’

On that note, we know that for many Victorians, particularly young Victorians – and I have emphasised that because for those who are already in homes, it is obvious they are already in the market, and getting into the market is often the hardest step – it is harder than perhaps for the generations before them, whether it is renting or whether it is buying a home. Applying for a rental property, even back when I was renting, which was not so long ago, I remember was a fight; it was very competitive. I should say this is not exclusive to Victoria – this is actually Australia-wide – but the difference is that here in Victoria we are really doing something about it.

Our activity centre work, planning for more homes around transport, jobs and services – what is wrong with that? Why do they want to fight against this? On the one hand, you are not going to be able to tackle congestion unless you facilitate mechanisms for people to work closer to where they live and/or to be close to accessible public transport. It is just common sense, is it not, to be able to plan for activity centres that are in close proximity to transport, jobs and services? Hence if we are looking at the 10 pilot centre locations gazetted through – and I will just give the numbers for precision – VC257 and GC252 earlier this year, these were on the back of huge community engagement. This is what Victorians broadly are seeking, because the last thing – can I say, and I will speak very, very broadly – any parent wants is for their child not to have the opportunity to get, at a minimum, into a rental or into a home, and I would have thought those opposite would want the same for their children and grandchildren, as well for their neighbours, nephews, nieces and otherwise. We all want them to have a reasonable opportunity to have a good home over their head.

I did mention from the outset the issue of amenity, which I think gets grossly distorted, or perhaps not even vaguely covered by those opposite, but it is actually a really important issue. Hence our townhouse and low-rise code gazetted through VC267 is for the first time creating consistent deemed-to-comply standards across the state for townhouses and multi-residential developments of three storeys or less. Why is this important? I would have thought those opposite would have reflected on this particular issue, bearing in mind who they say they are as opposed to what they actually, can we say, do not deliver on. Giving certainty to industry while improving liveability, sustainability and amenity for residents and neighbours – what is wrong with that? Well, nothing, and clearly Victorians have spoken. With the extent of the engagement, we know this is what they are looking for.

Of course Australia’s largest housing project, the Suburban Rail Loop, has the tools to deliver more than 70,000 homes at the heart of the six stations. This significant investment in the city’s infrastructure is implemented through VC274. On their own we know that these plans that we are putting in place are not the whole solution when we are talking about housing affordability, but they are absolutely a key element in driving important change in this space. We cannot just sit on our hands and say, ‘Oh, it’s all too hard. We’re not going to do it because it can be uncomfortable.’ Change can be uncomfortable, yes, but working through it together and being very up-front about it, as we are with the extensive community consultation, no-one is resiling from this. No-one is hiding from it. The Premier has many times stood up to speak to these issues, as has the planning minister. On the contrary, we are actually providing solutions to questions and to assertions raised by fellow Victorians and people in our various electorates.

When we were looking at some of the reforms that were considered by, I have to say, the rushed inquiry last year, it was all about blocking housing. Let us take away the gloss from this. It certainly was not helpful when we were thinking about getting people into homes. VC257 and the subsequent GC252 will deliver capacity for 60,000 homes across 10 pilot centres. These amendments provide certainty for industry, which is what I was saying before, and enable that step change in approach to enable more homes in established suburbs close to transport, jobs and services.

So I think it is really about an attitude, and it is really about considering not only the people who have their homes proper, but what about their children – and their children? What about their neighbours’ children? And not only children, but the society in which you live, of which you are a part – isn’t this a time to be considered and to be thoughtful and to think about the fact that we are better off when we make sure we provide the reasonable and fair opportunities for our fellow Victorians to get into good homes?

These same tools will be utilised for the expanded program, which is creating capacity for more than 300,000 homes across another 50 centres. So we are getting to real numbers in terms of actually tackling and challenging this very significant issue that is right in front of us. I mean, there is no concealing it, and as I was saying from the outset, the actual problem of housing supply is not exclusive to Victoria. On the contrary, it is Australia wide, and there are global issues in the Western world. However, in Victoria we are not sitting on our hands and saying it is all too hard and just waiting and pushing it off into the ether because it is uncomfortable and difficult to challenge some of the premises upon which people have accepted their suburbs. On the other hand, isn’t it wonderful? We are going to get more lovely neighbours. But there is a lot of thinking behind it in terms of making sure that amenity not only is preserved but is improved as a result of these developments.

VC267 created the townhouse and low-rise code, which turns on, as I was saying before, the deemed to comply for multihome developments up to three storeys, which can actually reduce costs for industry and councils, create certainty for those wanting to build homes and fast-track approvals for housing developments. VC274 has the planning tools that will enable more than 70,000 homes across six stations, delivering more diverse housing right next to significant investment in transport, as well as industrial and commercial hubs for jobs and services. There are a couple of key threads which emanate from those planning tools, and one of them is: who wants to sit in a car for hours every day to and from work if they do not have to? If there are choices made, if there are governments brave enough, as we are, with Victorians alongside to make strategic, positive decisions about where these activity centres are built – and I know that increasingly there are a lot of younger people, and I will not speak for all, who do not necessarily want to be reliant on a car and actually prefer to take public transport and to take active transport, because it is much cheaper to take public transport or to use active transport. It reduces congestion and it reduces time commuting, which means more time doing the things that you enjoy outside your job, whether it be with sporting clubs or whether it is with your family. These are things that I think we will find many people actually value. It is good for their health and wellbeing and it is good for their quality of life.

Thinking about the improvements to amenity, because I think we need to be really up-front about this and dispel some of the myths, when we are looking at how the townhouse code improves the quality of homes, this code will make better design outcomes and make these buildings really nice places to live with better ventilation, better sustainability outcomes and better daylight, creating more space for trees. I do not know about you, but I have to say, speaking personally and I think others will share in this, in our electorates people want more trees. Generally they want better canopy cover. It keeps the areas cooler, but it is also aesthetically very pleasing, and being around nature is certainly good for our health and oxygen levels. Coming back to the amenity in terms of the aesthetic, neighbourhood character standards include street setback, side and rear setbacks, 10 to 20 per cent tree canopy site coverage and walls on boundaries. Internal amenity standards include space for backyards and balconies, minimum sizes for bedrooms, adequate sunlight to living rooms and bedrooms, natural ventilation and storage and accessibility guidelines. These have been guided by what Victorians want, but they are also the contemporary standards to which we are actually entitled to build.

These are reasonable standards I guess is the point I am coming to. This is the direction that Victoria should be going towards. Very importantly, and close to my heart, there will be new environmentally sustainable development standards, including overshadowing protection for rooftop solar panels – it is really good to have that issue addressed; I know it has been raised with me in my electorate a number of times – providing shading devices for north-facing windows; making sure homes have enough roof space to allow for solar panels if residents choose to install them – that is a good futureproofing mechanism but also allows residents to save money on energy costs – and requiring developers to achieve best practice stormwater management outcomes.

These improvements sit alongside other changes our government has made to build more homes and to improve the quality of homes in Victoria. You can see on every level we are thinking about current and future generations. We are looking at strategically sensible mechanisms to build supply close to public transport, jobs and hubs where you have services, reducing commute time and increasing the time that people have whether it be for recreation, the arts or spending time with family as people see fit for a better quality of life. It goes without saying this is the right thing to do, and we would really appreciate the opposition resiling from blocking housing for Victorians.

Richard RIORDAN (Polwarth) (16:16): I rise today to agree with the government that this house absolutely condemns the shambolic attempt by this government to solve what has now become a critical housing crisis here in the state of Victoria. The efforts by this government have almost been laughable. Not only that but people that actually understand housing – the real estate industry, the construction industry, the building industry and the development industry – all think what this government is doing is completely going in the wrong direction. The municipalities that have to oversee this, that have to provide the amenity and the communities and the public spaces and the services, are all up in arms at the way this government is attempting to solve this housing crisis. Then there are the community groups. There are those that live in the streets and the suburbs and the new activity zones that this government has talked about, all condemning the approach of this government.

What are they condemning? First of all, they are condemning the fact that this government has not consulted with anybody. That is not just the opposition saying that. That is the Municipal Association of Victoria and the local cities throughout Melbourne’s suburbs that attended the recent select committee inquiry into the planning and building changes that this government has put forward. None of them had anything good to say about what this government has done in terms of its desire to solve the housing crisis.

What is it that is causing this housing crisis? It is a matter of affordability. It is not supply. The supply will get solved when you can produce a house that the average Victorian can afford to live in. What are the figures that the government is dealing with? The median house price in Melbourne is now just a tick over a million dollars. The market is telling the community that to buy any sort of family-oriented apartment or townhouse in suburbs around Melbourne is going to be in excess of a million dollars under current costs. What has this government done to work on affordability so that people on average wages can become home owners? Average young people; people who are in the wage bracket of between $60,000 and $120,000 a year, which is the median wage range that households are dealing with in Victoria; people on those incomes, young millennials, young people looking to get into the housing market, just plain and simple working families here in Victoria – how are they going to get their first home in a market that is designed around creating a housing stock that people simply cannot afford?

This government talks about the need and has been selling largely a false promise to millennials, to working Victorians, to families and to people who want their own home to go to each night. They have been selling them a false promise that if they destroy the fabric of Melbourne and create a one-size-fits-all planning approach – which would go against everything generations of Melburnians have fought for – if they go down that track, suddenly people will be able to have homes.

That is simply a lie; it is not true and it cannot be delivered by this government, because the cost of development and producing a home in Victoria is simply not attainable under current circumstances. What are some of those circumstances? Some of those circumstances are that builders and developers and those wanting to provide homes for Victorians – good quality homes and environmentally friendly homes – are under enormous cost pressures, not because of what they are doing but because of the influence this government’s reckless spend on the Big Build, on government projects, is having on the downstream and upstream provision of labour and services in the construction industry. Without exception, developers and builders and those tasked with the important job of providing homes for Victorians simply cannot bring to market a housing product that Victorians can afford.

This government now has overseen this calamitous state for coming up to 12 years next year, and in each and every one of those years this housing crisis has gotten worse. Its ability to provide homes for the most needy Victorians through our social and public housing system has gotten worse by the quarter – not only by the year but by the quarter. We have seen in the last 12 months, every single quarter, more than 2000 families added to the waiting lists here in Victoria, because not only is this government not helping the private sector build homes for the private market and for investors, it cannot even get the housing stock right through Homes Victoria and for the mechanism of providing sustainable, valuable homes for those who just simply cannot afford a home at all, Victoria’s most vulnerable.

We have seen terrible statistics. We are now at 64,000 families, some 120,000 people – 120,000 people every night do not have somewhere to call home. They do not have somewhere to go as a home. They are living in desperate circumstances. This government has made much of domestic violence, and yet singularly on an issue that this government has told the community it cares about, we now find that particularly women escaping domestic violence with children will be waiting just under two years – 23 months – before this government can even find and allocate them a home. Where are those people in the interim? They are living in caravans, in cheap motels and in their cars. They are living under extraordinary hardship, and sometimes that hardship forces them back into abusive circumstances. That is what this housing policy under this Labor government has delivered for Victorians.

Why shouldn’t Victorians trust this government to deliver on its promise of making affordable houses where people want to live and close to their work, which is an aspiration of all Victorians? Clearly the housing minister and the planning minister have gone and visited Redbridge and they have done the research and have decided that people want to hear the words ‘affordable housing close to where they live and work’. And why wouldn’t they? That makes sense. But what this government is delivering is not making sense.

I will point to three very good examples of real action this government could have taken in the last 12 years that would have made a difference. I point first of all to Fishermans Bend. Fishermans Bend, started by the previous government –

Members interjecting.

Richard RIORDAN: And what do we know about Fishermans Bend? It is nearly twice the size of the Melbourne CBD. What has this government delivered in that space? It is a space that could be housing 80,000. Eighty thousand people could be being housed down there in a wonderful new precinct, close to jobs, close to communities, close to where people want to be and within cooee of the city – a few football kicks from the MCG – and yet what has this government done in its 12 years? Not a thing. It has not released anything down there. So this government say, ‘Our solution’s going to go and change the fabric and the nature of the whole rest of Melbourne’, but it is an area that has been identified now for a good 12 years and they have not delivered one project on it.

They have not delivered a thing – none of the promised public transport, none of the promised access and none of the promised amenity improvement. They have done nothing; they have stayed away from it. Victorians would rightly be suspicious of this government’s ability to deliver anything affordable, anything new or anything that Victorians actually want and need, when something like that they have not been able to move on at all.

Then of course there is the Maribyrnong defence site. I have been in this place for 10 years on this side, and you guys have been talking about it and thinking about it –

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Polwarth, through the Chair.

Richard RIORDAN: and you have not taken any real action. It is not that difficult.

The SPEAKER: Through the Chair, member for Polwarth.

Roma Britnell interjected.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for South-West Coast!

Richard RIORDAN: This government has claimed it has a wonderful working relationship with the federal government. What approaches has this government made to its colleagues in Canberra to actually move that important parcel of land that could be housing 20,000 people and 34,000 jobs. It is an important precinct close to jobs, close to opportunity and close to public transport, and this government has done nothing to advance that cause.

Then of course there is the Arden precinct. For heaven’s sake, you have even built a train station to it.

The SPEAKER: Member for Polwarth, through the Chair.

Richard RIORDAN: For heaven’s sake, this government has actually built a multimillion-dollar train station to this precinct and has singularly failed to move the dial on it. It is an extraordinary waste of ambition from this government, to have actually put the transport in place but not facilitated any accommodation. It is a massive fail. Just within a short stroll of our beautiful CBD there are literally tens of thousands of housing opportunities, job opportunities and lifestyle opportunities and opportunities for young Victorians, for millennials, to find somewhere affordable to live, and yet this government has not delivered on it at all. Instead they have gone to a marketing agency and have dreamed up a concept whereby if they demolish the parts of Melbourne that generations, through their local councils and municipalities, have worked to preserve for future generations, somehow that will make a difference. It is simply not going to make a difference. Why isn’t it going to make a difference? Because the local municipalities have already been doing the hard work. They have already been doing the work on providing growth and opportunities in those communities, and this government have blatantly ignored them in their quest for cheap politics to solve what is and will always be a very serious problem and dilemma in this state.

All Victorians should have the right to have a home that they can call home, a home that they can live in with security and most importantly a home that they can afford to live in. Currently in Victoria the median house price has pushed owning a home, in whatever part of Melbourne you talk about, beyond the realm of so many people – and an increasing amount of people. It is a common cry from all generations, not just young people but older people as well. Getting into a home that you can afford to live in is becoming more and more difficult.

One of the other things that this government points to is the idea that if we make these big changes in the inner suburbs of Melbourne, we will suddenly have this onslaught of supply. But can I point out that at the same time that the government has made much of how this will bring on more affordable housing for people, it is worth noting that currently in many of these 50 precincts that the state government has identified up to 50 per cent of the new apartment stock sits unsold. Now, a little economics lesson here for some of those opposite in the government: if the market creates and builds new product and they cannot sell it, new entrants do not come into the marketplace to provide more housing. The industry and the market are saying, ‘What we’re building now is too expensive and it’s not moving.’ That is a problem, and that problem will not be solved by the planning regulations and changes that this government has implemented.

Another shocking statistic just here in the CBD is that 17 per cent of apartments – that is 8000 units within the CBD area here in Melbourne – that have been built in the last four or five years currently sit unsold. That just points to the fact that there is an affordability crisis in Victoria, not an availability crisis. The MAV – and this is the shocking one, as we finish up – gave evidence recently at a select committee inquiry into the planning changes this government wants to make that some 86,619 housing approvals in Melbourne within the precincts that we are talking about have not gone ahead over the last five years. Can you imagine that? We talk about this government’s ambition, set only in 2023, to create 80,000 homes a year, and we know that last year only 60,000 were achieved, so there is a huge shortfall. We know where that shortfall is coming from. It is coming when approvals are being given, but developers, builders and home owners cannot afford to go on with the projects.

This government is absolutely out of touch when it comes to how to solve the housing crisis. It is a tired government. It is a government that is full of trickery. It is a government that does not have the wherewithal or the understanding of how to get homes to market that Victorians can afford and that they can live in.

Josh BULL (Sunbury) (16:31): I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to support the fantastic member for Albert Park in relation to this matter of public importance (MPI). I had to make some reflections about being transported to some sort of mythical alternate universe in a greatest hits roadshow from the previous speaker around some of the stunning planning decisions that were taken when a previous lot sat on this side of the chamber. There were references, member for Footscray, to Fishermans Bend, which, if I recall the history correctly, was found to have a massive shortfall in planning for transport and perhaps schools, some education land –

Katie Hall interjected.

Josh BULL: Huge windfalls for developers as well. There were references to the Maribyrnong defence site, which I understand has significant issues when it comes to contamination and perhaps a more than $500 million clean-up bill. But let us not let that get in the road of whatever journey those opposite want to take us on when it comes to planning and good decision-making in this state. This side of the house is focused on more opportunities and more housing to market to address a critically important issue right across our community. What we just saw from those opposite is a failure to learn the lessons when it comes to ideology over science, ideology over listening to the experts and those that are involved within the industry and within markets and yet again a failure to consult the people of Victoria and, one must say – not to draw too heavily on the result that we saw just a couple of Saturdays ago – a comprehensive rejection of the policies that were taken forward by those opposite. But do not let that get in the way, member for Footscray and other members. They come in here and pretend that they have all the answers over on that side, while we on this side are focused on delivering practical outcomes that deliver more homes and more opportunities.

Why would we on this side of the house support those comprehensive reforms and those announcements that were made on 20 October last year for a couple of weeks that go to all of the provisions around planning for additional homes within our activity centres, within our greenfield sites and right across the state, making sure that we have got the transport options and opportunities for local communities to get a chance to live in an area at an affordable price? Members should remember last year those comprehensive and large-scale reforms that were announced by the Premier over that two-week period, making sure that we backed those in, whilst what we see from those opposite is just a consistent pattern of blocking and of coming into this place and making up all sorts of facts and figures, whilst we know the most important thing we can do is put a safe roof over individuals and families no matter where they live or where they come from, and we will continue to do that.

This government has a clear and comprehensive plan for housing in our state, and we know that those opposite want to block it. We have listened, we have acted and we are delivering, and we stand with those thousands of Victorians wanting to get a rental or wanting to buy their own home, each and every day.

As I mentioned, there is always an opportunity to be able to provide for local communities and to be able to listen and understand. As was referenced in the announcements made by the Premier last year, the status quo was simply not enough, and not enough was being done to provide those opportunities – no matter where people might live – for every single Victorian and their families. More homes closer to transport, more homes closer to services and more homes right across our community – that is what we stand for. We will leave it to those opposite to come in here and make all sorts of wild claims about matters that they want to reference in this place.

When it comes to delivery, we know that this year is an incredibly exciting year as we get on and deliver and open the Metro Tunnel – those five new stations – and deliver key projects like the North East Link, removing dangerous and congested level crossings and delivering the West Gate Tunnel and the Suburban Rail Loop, great projects indeed. Delivering those projects to make sure that we have the transport opportunities to deliver more homes is something that we remain focused on.

Just this morning, we have yet again seen another announcement around stamp duty cuts extended to build more homes. We know that this investment of $61 million to slash stamp duty for off-the-plan apartments, units and townhouses for another 12 months – cutting up-front costs, speeding up building and saving homebuyers an average of $25,000 – is another very important part of the puzzle in ensuring that we are making those commitments each and every day. We know and understand that those announcements that were made, which of course relate to this MPI, go to the arguably the largest suite of housing reforms ever announced in our state: the delivery of the 50 new train and tram zone activity centres; off-the-plan stamp duty concessions, which I referenced earlier; funding for more infrastructure where homes are getting built; unlocking greenfield areas in areas such as mine; providing for a regional housing plan; reforms for renters; and the list goes on. Making sure that we are delivering these is important to each and every one of us, and making sure that we are delivering those right across the community is something that we remain focused on in communities from Bendigo to Bundoora –I see the member for Bundoora has just wandered into the chamber – making sure that we are providing all of that support each and every day.

Whether it is local communities such as mine and the great people within my electorate, or those broader conversations, particularly with young people, making sure that we are providing additional options and opportunities is something that we are very much focused on. Support for new homes and making sure that we are providing for those opportunities through many agencies that each and every day do outstanding work is something that is very important to our communities. We are speaking with people, no matter what point they are at in their life but particularly those who are vulnerable and those who have been through distressing and tough situations, including family violence. I am certainly aware of the commitments that were made up north from me, possibly in your electorate, Speaker, for homes for those who are fleeing family violence: eight new homes built in Kangaroo Flat, a partnership with Haven Home Safe, making sure that we are providing those opportunities all the way through to the large-scale reforms that I mentioned earlier.

This is what this government remains focused on. The work is not done, and we will remain committed through the budget process, through all ministers and all levels of government, to ensuring that we are supporting those within our community to get into the rental market, to be able to buy a home and to be able to have those options and opportunities and the transport options as well to be able to do that. This is what we are focused on.

It is hard often to work out, particularly from listening to the previous contribution, what those opposite are focused on. Particularly over the past couple of weeks, we have seen the very deepest of divisions, which are just rattling along in what is a very shabby outfit over there. But that is okay, because we remain focused, we remain united and we remain determined. We remain committed to making sure that we are focused on supporting every single Victorian to be their best and to have the best opportunity in life and on supporting those individuals and their families, and we will do that each and every day.

Tim BULL (Gippsland East) (16:41): It is a pleasure to rise and make some comments on the matter of public importance submitted by the member for Albert Park. I could have easily rewritten this MPI with just a couple of little word changes to read: that this house condemns the government for failing to provide homes, transport and jobs in not only Gippsland East but also rural and regional Victoria.

Let us start with housing in my electorate, which is also the electorate, I might add, of the Minister for Housing, Ms Shing, in the other place. Here is the reality of government funded public housing in my electorate. The government’s own figures state that in East Gippsland and Wellington shires in 2015, 10 years ago, we had 1612 public housing residences. In 2023, the most recent figures available, it was down to 1610 – two less public homes in 10 years, when the government spruiks a Big Housing Build. If we want to go a little bit further, into the Latrobe Valley – and I see the member for Morwell just coming into the chamber – it gets worse. Latrobe has 19 less public housing homes now than it had in 2015, in the housing minister’s own electorate – what a disgrace. The big build is a joke.

Ms Shing talks about new homes in her media releases, but they are not additional homes. There might be some new ones, but they are not additional. What is the reason for this? Why have we got some new homes but public housing that is lesser in number? The reason is the government is selling off and demolishing homes at a faster rate than they are building them in our electorates in Gippsland. We see it all the time. We see the auctions coming up. We see the sites where public housing was located with homes now demolished. The so-called big build is not delivering in my electorate. It is a housing renewal program in some areas, but it is also overseeing a reduction in others.

In addition to all this, and we are talking about housing and housing availability, this government continues to slug mum-and-dad investors with a whole range of taxes, forcing them to invest either in other areas like the stock market or maybe to take their housing investments interstate. When they do sell up their homes, their second residences, these mum-and-dad investors, they are not being bought by people on the public housing waiting list, because they cannot afford to buy into the market. So you are not actually rectifying the problem that you are setting out to try and resolve. This government could not make a bigger mess of housing if they tried, and then they try and sell us the big build. It is just a joke.

On top of this we have got the rebranded fire services levy and we have got the increases to land tax. All of these cost-of-living pressures are falling on renters who cannot afford to stay. There would not be a week go past when my electorate officers are not dealing with people who have been in rental properties who have been forced out of their rental property due to the rental increases and the cost of living, because government policy has reduced the pool of rental properties that are available.

They have policy in place that reduces the pool. Families who once had very stable private rentals are now finding themselves either homeless or pushed into crisis accommodation – if they are lucky. Others are still looking down the barrel of eviction, as I stand here now. It is just a joke.

Housing has been a disaster in my patch. It has been an absolute disaster. And the minister, when asked about this, simply says, ‘We’ve built 34 new homes in this electorate or that electorate.’ She will not go into the detail that they have demolished or sold off 40. That does not come into the argument – do not want to talk about that, do not want to know about that – ‘We’ve just built new ones,’ but there is no net gain. We will just tell the community half the fluffy story that we want to tell them.

The MPI talks about jobs. Let us talk about jobs in my electorate and many other areas of rural and regional Victoria, and I will start on the timber industry. We have the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They are the world-leading authority on this. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us in its papers in several different documents that it has released that we should be building everything with wood as a climate change mitigation measure, and they say that because it is the only renewable carbon-storing building product that we have, and we have got a few builders on our side of the chamber who will tell you that – it is the only carbon-storing renewable building product that we have. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says we should be using a mixture of plantation timber and native forest timber harvested on a sustainable basis. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that. So, what do we do in response to that? We close our native timber industry. We close it down – and not only do we close it down. The hypocrisy is incredible from this government, because they are happy to have government MPs standing at the new Altona Pier and government MPs standing on the new St Kilda Pier built with hardwood imported from other states because you have closed down our native timber industry here in Victoria.

The SPEAKER: Through the Chair.

Tim BULL: You have – the government, this Labor government, has closed own our native timber industry, and poses for photos with Darwin stringybark coming from Queensland because it has shut down our native timber industry. It is hypocrisy at its greatest level, and it is a disgrace. Half the problem is they would not know. They would not know where the timber came from. They would not understand the ramifications of the decisions that they make in relation to the timber industry, because we just want to try and out-green the Greens and hold on to half a dozen inner-city seats. That is what it comes down to, nothing more than that. There is no consideration to communities like Orbost, where that town has been decimated by the loss of the timber industry.

Tim McCurdy interjected.

The SPEAKER: Member for Ovens Valley!

Tim BULL: And what do we have when we decimate towns like Orbost? We have the government saying, ‘Don’t worry, we’re going to provide you with some replacement industries.’ Where are they? Since the timber industry closed down and all those harvest and haulage contractors lost their jobs in Orbost, all those VicForests staff lost their jobs in Orbost and replacement industries were promised, where are they? They are not there, because it is a media release full of absolute garbage that never comes to fruition. The nursery that Ms Shing in the other place promised for Nowa Nowa did not eventuate. When Hazelwood closed down, we had an electric car manufacturing plant promised. It did not eventuate. All of these things do not eventuate. They are media releases where nothing happens.

Anthony Cianflone interjected.

Tim BULL: You will get your chance to speak later, and you can read from your notes again like you always do.

The SPEAKER: Member for Pascoe Vale!

Tim BULL: The MPI also covered off on –

John Lister interjected.

The SPEAKER: Member for Werribee!

Tim BULL: Thank you for your protection, Speaker, I appreciate it. The MPI also –

Danny O’Brien interjected.

The SPEAKER: Leader of the Nationals!

Tim BULL: The MPI also covered off on transport. Let us talk about transport as well. The duplication of the Gippsland line has been needed for some time. It was earmarked three years ago, I believe, to allow more services to get to Sale and Bairnsdale to service the people of Gippsland South and the people of Gippsland East.

It has not happened. It sits idle, but yet we have an MPI where the government wants to pat itself on the back for the work it does in transport. It has been hopeless. You are literally hopeless in that area. All the areas mentioned in the MPI have been hopeless.

We are talking about transport – roads. Goodness gracious me, Bullumwaal Road just out of Bairnsdale has had a ‘traffic hazard ahead’ sign on it for five years. The Monaro Highway is an absolute disgrace as soon as you drive over the border. You write to the minister about it and she says, ‘We’re fixing up 1 kilometre of it. Give us a pat on the back; we’re going to invest there.’ Do not worry about the other 35 kilometres that look like the Somme battlefield. The potholes are that big it is a matter of time before we have a serious accident that claims a life.

In summing up on this MPI, the government has given us less public housing than we had 10 years ago in East Gippsland. It has ripped the jobs out of our communities, as it has done not only in my area but across rural and regional Victoria. Its transport is a disgrace. The investment has not been there in rail. The investment is not there in roads. We have got a budget next week and God only hopes that we can get some decent investment in roads from our Minister for Roads and Road Safety to fix our roads properly. This MPI is basically a Dorothy Dixer. These are areas where the government have failed, and I will conclude my remarks by saying they need to lift their game and deliver a good budget.

Michaela SETTLE (Eureka) (16:51): I rise to speak on this matter of public importance (MPI):

That this house condemns the opposition for failing to support reforms that deliver more homes for Victorians close to transport, jobs, schools and parks.

Listening to the recent contribution, of course they continue to focus on everything other than homes for Victoria. I am left to ask myself why those on the other side hate housing so much. Their absolute history of blocking and opposing housing is extraordinary. With their friends the Greens they have blocked social housing –

Members interjecting.

Michaela SETTLE: You are the ones who got them elected on your preferences.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members are not in their allocated seats.

Michaela SETTLE: They just continue to block housing, whether it be social housing, whether it be affordable housing or whether it be an opportunity –

Richard Riordan: How many houses have been blocked? You just have not even built them.

Michaela SETTLE: I am getting to that. You just buckle on in.

The SPEAKER: Member for Polwarth, you had your turn.

Michaela SETTLE: We have basically seen from those on the other side an absolute opposition to this government’s desire to build more houses for Victorians. I wonder why they are like this, and it will always be summed up for me by the statements from Wendy Lovell in the other place. Let no-one in this room ever, ever forget that she said that there was no point in having social housing in wealthy areas where the children cannot mix with others. Ms Lovell pointed out that children from low-income families cannot afford the latest sneakers and phones and they would never fit in. That is at the heart of the objections we get from the other side. They do not want people in their electorates, and so they continue to block housing every time. They do not want people there that they do not know, that do not have the same white colour of their skin and cannot afford sneakers.

Let us look at some of the things that they have done. The member for Hawthorn in 2021 climbed on the back of a ute in Hawthorn to oppose a public housing project that the government is delivering in Bills Street. Again they have got the wrong sneakers. They do not want people in Hawthorn, kids with the wrong sneakers. The Markham estate in Ashburton is public housing that the Liberals opposed. It went through the entire planning process only for the Liberals again to team up with their mates the Greens to revoke it in Parliament. The government did not give up. We got on and got it done, and public housing tenants are now in state-of-the-art homes that the Liberals opposed. In 2017 the member for Brighton opposed a development in Hampton building 207 new apartments.

In 2018 he supported the former member for Brighton’s opposition to a new public housing development delivering 300 new homes. In 2021 the member for Sandringham opposed a proposal to build 1048 apartments in Highett. In 2018 he opposed another development, the former gas and fuel site in Highett. Why? Why do those on the other side hate housing so much? I can only imagine that the answer to that lies in those abhorrent statements from members of theirs in the other place. They would suggest that some people have no right to live in their suburbs, because they have got the wrong sneakers and the wrong phones. They need to ask themselves about the communities that they pretend to care about and that those people out there that need housing have been blocked again and again and again.

In March 2021 the Liberal opposition made an eleventh hour attempt to stop social and affordable housing projects. They tried to revoke a planning scheme amendment that would have streamlined the delivery of new homes through the Big Housing Build, so as recently as 2021 they were playing those games. At that stage they tried to revoke the amendments in the upper house, and they lost, 25 to 12. There are an endless stream of things that they will do to oppose housing – whether it be, as I say, social and affordable housing or, in the case of the discussion on this MPI, around housing that is close to transport and shops. I want my kids to have the opportunity to live in those leafy suburbs that they all live in, that have all of the amenities and enjoy those same amenities, regardless of what sorts of shoes they wear and what Apple iPhone they have that day. They have a right to live amongst you because all Victorians should have a right to a safe home.

I was being interjected with questions about what housing had been built. In my electorate we have put in social housing totalling 146 houses. I was really delighted a few weeks ago to stand with Haven Home Safe as they opened three new social houses. They are across the road from the Mount Clear shopping centre and also on the bus route that goes into central Ballarat. We stood there and thought what a wonderful opportunity it was for people in need to live in these places but also to have access to all of those amenities. This government has worked so hard in its planning provisions to make sure that more Victorians get to experience those amenities and get to live where they all exist.

We condemn the opposition today for further attempts to block housing. I would like to bring to light the select committee that was brought forward. One can only see this as yet another stunt. It might not have been on the back of a ute, but it was a stunt nonetheless. When you run a committee for just six weeks, that is a stunt, on the back of a ute or not. The whole process ran for six weeks. Submissions opened over Easter, with Victorians having just six business days to prepare a submission. We hear an endless lament from those on the other side about offering enough time for consultation with the community. If they would like to tell me that six days is enough time to consult the community, I would love to hear their arguments.

They put up another stunt, and of course Mr Davis in the other place bound himself with a willing ally in the Greens. There was a bit of interjection before when I called them their friends, but let us have a look at some of their voting records. Let us see how often they work hand in glove to push away housing for people that need it the most.

My advice to the Greens is not to follow in the footsteps of their federal colleagues – indeed we should call them their former federal colleagues – who paid the price for blocking the Albanese government’s housing reform. They should think about that on the other side, that the people of Australia voted resoundingly for policies that provide more homes to people. At this election we saw more gen Zs and millennials than boomers. If I were to give any advice to those on the other side, I would suggest that they look to that cohort and what that cohort is calling out for. They are calling out for homes to call their own. Everyone in this place owns their own home. My children and your children deserve that right as well. While you continue to block housing through stunts like the select committee, you continue to deny people the opportunity to live near shops and near trains and to enjoy the amenities that you all do.

I will forever wonder what the thinking is on the other side when they think representing their constituents means blocking housing for thousands and thousands of people. I would counsel them to think, before we go into 2026, about what the electorate is asking for. They are asking for more houses, and I would not want to be on their side, standing there with a record of blocking housing again and again. But as I say, I must repeat once more that I can only imagine that their ideological position, which would support Jenny Lovell in the other place telling us that kids are not allowed to live in their suburbs –

A member interjected.

Michaela SETTLE: It is Wendy Lovell in the other place – one of yours.

Matthew GUY (Bulleen) (17:01): This is an interesting matter of public importance because it begs the question: if we are talking about a housing crisis in Victoria, how did we get here? How did we get to a stage where there is a self-confessed housing crisis from the Labor government in Victoria, saying, ‘We need more homes. We’ve got to bring in all these big policies and big builds because we do not have enough homes’? It is not new that Victoria’s population has been growing at record rates; this is not new. It is not new that housing affordability has been a problem in this state. In fact it has been a conversation from when Justin Madden was the planning minister. For a long time we have, as a Parliament, been talking about housing affordability and population growth. So why then, after a full decade in government, does the Labor Party now run around and say, ‘My god, there’s a housing crisis. We need something, a big response to do something about it’? The simple point is: what the hell has the government been doing for the last decade that this crisis has developed?

As I said, it is not new that Melbourne’s population has grown. Let me talk about the metropolitan area of Melbourne, which last week population statistics showed is growing at 143,000 people per annum, compared to Sydney at 100,000. We are now right on 200,000 people fewer than Sydney in the metropolitan area, which means that sometime in the next Parliament Melbourne will overtake Sydney as the largest greater statistical area in the country. And the government is still talking – not acting, talking – about fixing housing or housing affordability. Look, as I said, this matter is just gratuitous and ridiculous, because if the government wanted to do something about it, they would have. They have had all the armoury and ability, with three planning ministers, to do something about fixing housing affordability.

Previous speakers have run in here and said, ‘Liberals or Nationals, you don’t want things in your seat.’ I think this is the fifth time that I will say again: the minister should intervene and remove mandatory height restrictions in my seat, in the activities area in my seat, in Doncaster – take off the 18-floor height limit so we can get more people in central Doncaster. But the minister kind of scoffs. She did not think of it as an idea and therefore it is not up. She does not want to consider it because she did not think of it – you know, the part-time minister – so of course it goes nowhere. Here is an activities area which can manage more people in central Manningham, taking pressure off existing low-density neighbourhood residential zones which abut that activities area, and the minister does not do anything about it.

Then there are Labor MPs who run around and say, ‘Oh, you don’t want people in your seats.’ More people have come into central Doncaster – in fact about 13,000 over the last 10 years, which, in numerical growth, is more than most regional cities in the state. In fact it is comparable to the previous speaker’s electorate in the last decade, and I have had it in one suburb. I have not opposed it. As a Liberal, I have come in here and said there should be more, because you can manage it in that location.

But this is the trick: you cannot manage it in every location, and you cannot have a one-size-fits-all policy. That is the point: a one-size-fits-all planning policy does not work. You turn your city into a bland nothing of a metropolitan area that loses its neighbourhood character. Why would central Doncaster be the same as Templestowe? It is not, and they are only 5 kilometres away. I would not advocate for the same schedules and zoning in one suburb as the next, but the current Labor government is saying in similar examples in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne that they should be the same. Well, that is just stupid. Why would they do something so dumb? Why would a government who says we need more housing and more apartments in areas where people could walk to work, walk to school, walk to the park and walk to public transport then restrict growth in downtown Melbourne? This Labor government has put in more restrictions on growth in the downtown area of Melbourne than any government in the last 40 years. And I give credit to the Brumby government; they took a lot of them off. I took more off because we knew, both Minister Madden and I, that the downtown area of Melbourne is a place which can accommodate growth – so you put it there. People can walk to the largest railway station in Australia – Flinders Street. They can walk to the largest jobs precinct in Australia – the Hoddle grid, which is the CBD of Melbourne. They can go to the botanic gardens, which is one of the biggest parks in Australia. They can walk to the shops down the road; they do not need to own a car. And that is the place where the Labor government is restricting growth.

Then you have the Minister for Planning intervening on three-storey developments in her own seat and then running into the Parliament saying we have got to have more housing. Yes, of course we do. Maybe we offer up Carrum, like I am offering up my own seat in Doncaster. Find activity areas that can sustainably manage growth.

I just cannot believe that the government could then say, on one hand and with a straight face, that they want to increase housing supply in this state, yet they demonise urban renewal. At the one small urban renewal precinct in Arden there are more restrictions on building than there are on building in a national park. You can hardly build anything there. Developers are struggling to get anything off the ground. They bagged Fishermans Bend, they bagged developments in Southbank and they bagged developments in the CBD. This is the government that say they want to get more housing. Then they have activity areas in their own seats, like Preston, where they bagged them and put height limits. The minister intervened in her seat in Carrum; the previous minister intervened in his seat in Richmond, so really, is this a government that wants to facilitate housing? To me it looks like a government of short-termism. They look like a government that just want to deal with another political problem, and it is a political problem that they created. This has been a problem that we have known about for the last decade, but the government has done nothing about it except whinge and whine and blame everyone else. They are still rolling into this chamber and blaming the Kennett government for housing affordability. I sometimes find it comical, and then I realise these people have been elected.

But seriously, as I said before, if you want to get growth in the Melbourne metropolitan area, which I am quite comfortable with – I mean, Plan Melbourne was in incarnation when I was a minister, and it was all about growing activity areas sustainably. It was always about making sure that activity areas kept their personality –

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members on my right!

Matthew GUY: because Doncaster ain’t the same as Elsternwick, and it ain’t the same as St Albans, so why would you have a planning scheme that says one is the same as the other? That is what the current government want to do.

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members will be removed without warning.

Matthew GUY: And to do that on the planning scheme is stupid. It says that you do not understand the city that you are trying to urban plan, because you should not have the same schedules or zonings in activity areas that have nothing in common. One might be on the water, if you go down to Frankston, compared to one that might be inland on flat topographical land like Preston – so one in terms of shadow, one in terms of beach, one in terms of native veg that might be near the riverfront or be bayside.

You can manage things very differently, so why would you have the same schedules? This government is lazy when it comes to this issue. They are very lazy because they are out of ideas after 10 years. They are reacting to a political problem, not trying to actually fix it. If they were trying to actually fix housing affordability, as I know from people in the industry who told me when I was minister, it would be about supply, and the minister has got to be the one to flush the supply through the market. There are different parts of the market. There is the central city market, which this government has crippled. There is an urban renewal market, which this government does not support. There are activity areas, which this government wants a one-size-fits-all approach for. There are growth areas markets, which this government has done very, very little with, despite having the ability for the planning minister to go into her scary cupboard and get some PSPs, some precinct structure plans, and approve them.

But there is another part of this equation which has never been considered by this government, and that is our regions. Why are we not planning in the Premier’s electorate of Bendigo East, like when I was minister, to build higher density around the central city area of Bendigo? Because the government does not want to play politics in the Premier’s electorate. She wants to play politics everywhere else. Areas like Bendigo, the Latrobe Valley, Geelong and Ballarat can manage population growth, as can Melbourne, in a sustainable and sensible way without a one-size-fits-all policy. But instead all we have got is the government of the day seeking to fix a political problem because it has failed over 10 years.

Gary MAAS (Narre Warren South) (17:12): I too rise to make a contribution to this matter of public importance (MPI) that has been put forward by the member for Albert Park:

That this house condemns the opposition for failing to support reforms that deliver more homes for Victorians close to transport, jobs, schools and parks.

There is one thing I have noticed from the 3 May result, and that is that if you stick to your values, generally you will get through. But if you keep blaming, if you keep this notion of grievance and if you keep this notion of shouting at clouds going without any solutions, then you are probably going to get what you came for. Speaking of which, I just happened to check the electoral results in the seat of Goldstein, and I noticed that Zoe Daniel is now 500 votes from nabbing that seat.

Members interjecting.

Gary MAAS: I have obviously hit a raw nerve.

James Newbury: No, you haven’t.

Gary MAAS: I have indeed – 500 votes, and what a sting in the tail that would be if Zoe Daniel did get there. I will concede she is running out of days and she is running out of votes. But my, oh my, is she getting closer and closer each and every day of that count. The candidate for Goldstein has already gone out there and taken the prize. He has already said it is his. He has already taken it, but it is 508 votes at the end of today’s counting. Let us see if the Liberals can in fact get a seat in Victoria. Whilst we are on the election, because it has been raised in this debate, I do note that Labor was able to hold its 23 seats. It has picked up the seat of Melbourne from the Greens, and out in that eastern corridor, where I think the Suburban Rail Loop will be and where the biggest housing project that this state will see will be, it has picked up the seats of Menzies and Deakin.

There has been some talk about the seat of Bendigo. Let me talk to you about the seat of Bendigo, because the seat of Bendigo seems as though it has been cannibalised by the Liberals’ coalition partner, the Nationals. The Nationals ran a candidate for the first time in a couple of elections and took 16 per cent off their Liberal coalition partners.

There has only been an 8 per cent swing from the sitting Labor member, who continues to be the sitting Labor member. Do you know what, these are the sorts of results you get in the state of Victoria if you stick to your values, and Labor has always had fantastic values when it comes to creating transport, creating job opportunities and building schools – of which 100 will have been built by next year, since this government has been in place in 2014 – and parks as well.

Let us delve more into our key housing reforms that the government have been putting together. We are talking about key housing reforms – some of the boldest in the country – from the expanded train and tram zone activity centres to the new townhouse code that will help reduce approval and planning permit assessment times to get on with building the townhouses and low-rise apartments that are needed. We have also introduced housing targets for every local government in Victoria, which give certainty about where homes will be built and put councils on notice to be enablers and not blockers. This will deliver more housing in established areas and suburbs to help take the pressure off Melbourne’s outer fringe. My electorate of Narre Warren South is within the great corridor of the City of Casey, an area that has seen significant pressures due to major population growth. These housing targets ensure that councils in those inner-suburban and middle-ring suburbs are also building more housing to help more young people and families to own and to rent. If you increase supply, you increase housing affordability for more members of our community.

This is building on top of the work that we announced in October 2024, which includes more homes near train stations by delivering 50 new activity centres; off-the-plan stamp duty savings to build more homes to rent or to buy; more local infrastructure funding where more homes are built; a 10-year pipeline of land for family homes and backyards; a tough new building watchdog, for buyer peace of mind; more townhouses in suburbs, thanks to easier subdivisions; more social homes in the regions, in a boost for regional councils; more fast-tracking the buildings that are great designs and built the best; $30 million for more parks and upgrades, and you tell us where they go; and more rights for renters to make the system fairer.

I do note that the member for Bulleen is still in the house. He keeps saying that we like to refer back to the Kennett era. Maybe we should refer back to the era when he was planning minister. Again, Fishermans Bend was noted before. The member for Bulleen rezoned some 250 hectares of industrial inner Melbourne to create that development precinct, which he is very proud of, but it effectively doubled the size of the Melbourne CBD, without a master plan, height limits or a mechanism to capture infrastructure, services or any of the hundreds of millions of dollars in increased land values that the decision triggered. That unilateral rezoning was later slammed by an expert committee. Who was on that committee? It included the former Liberal leader Robert Doyle. In his quote, not mine, it was ‘unprecedented in the developed world in the 21st century’. It delivered huge overnight paper profits to property owners and developers, including senior Liberal Party figures, donors and supporters, and it has made purchasing power incredibly difficult when it has come to building new schools in those areas.

The member for Bulleen in that time expanded Melbourne’s urban growth boundary, the green wedge, again delivering overnight windfalls to many Liberal Party mates, to farmer Peter Carpenter, to developer Watsons – you might remember that was John Woodman’s company – and to lobbyist and former Liberal MP Geoff Leigh.

James Newbury interjected.

Gary MAAS: Yes, I am very happy to go down that path, because he is a mate of yours. He was never a mate of ours.

Members interjecting.

Gary MAAS: Mr Carpenter had attended two Liberal Party fundraisers with Guy before the 2004 –

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Bulleen! Through the Chair, member for Narre Warren South.

Gary MAAS: I object to the member for Bulleen using the language that he just used, and I ask him to withdraw.

Matthew Guy: I withdraw.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member to continue, without assistance.

Gary MAAS: Mr Carpenter had attended Liberal fundraisers with the member for Bulleen before the 2010 state election. The member for Bulleen’s changes to the green wedge were even criticised by Warwick Leeson of the Liberals for Green Wedges group. ‘There is enormous local community resentment,’ he said, ‘and people are getting really scared about what this could mean.’ Also attending was Julia Hamer – there is a name I recognise – the daughter of Sir Rupert Hamer, who founded the green wedges.

In wrapping up my contribution to this MPI, I would like to take the chance to speak to the terrific work that the Allan Labor government has done in advocating and fighting for more housing in this state. Whether it has been fully or partially revoking planning scheme amendments, this will only keep serving the status quo. Doing that, being blockers, will continue to create uncertainty. All it does is delay projects. It will block the delivery of more homes and it will block the opportunities of future generations in this great state to own their own home.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (17:21): I rise to speak on the government’s matter of public importance, effectively on major activity centres, and I will start by asking: so far the mover of this motion, the member for Albert Park, how many activity centres are in her electorate? Zero. The next speaker, Sunbury? Zero. The next speaker, Eureka? Zero. The next speaker, Narre Warren South? Zero. Each of the four members is getting up and telling the communities that have an activity centre the advice they would like to give them – the free advice they would like to give those communities – about what they think about towers in their communities. What a pack of hypocrites. We have not even had one speaker who has an activity centre in their electorate. Not one government speaker who has got up has an activity centre, which just goes to show what a sham this matter of public importance is.

Now, who has got activity centres from the government side – because most of the activity centres are in Liberal electorates. Of course they are, because it is all politics. It is all politics with this Premier, and that is how she has decided where the activity centres go. But where do the activity centres go in the small number of Labor seats? When you look at the list, it is interesting. It is in the Deputy Premier’s seat – leadership rival; Minister Williams’s seat – rival; Ros Spence; Paul Edbrooke; Minister Carbines, the Deputy Premier’s numbers man; Kat Theophanous – family challenge –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member, correct titles.

James NEWBURY: I mean, seriously, when you look at this list, you can see exactly what the Premier is doing. These are factional hits. Not only is it in Liberal seats, but there are factional hits across where these activity centres are based. If you look at the names, it is just true. That is what the Premier has done – I forgot member Halfpenny; I do not know which seat she has got. When you look at the list, you can see what the government is doing.

The other thing that the government members who have spoken today – all of whom do not have an activity centre, every single one of them; we are waiting for one with an activity centre to speak – have all spoken about is consultation. Consultation – how good has consultation been? Well, firstly, how would they know, because they do not live in any of the areas affected? How could they possibly know? Well, guess what has happened in the shadow of the federal election? No-one has picked up on this yet.

Consultation has started on what the government intends to do in 25 of the areas that are getting an activity centre. Did you know? No-one knew that consultation had commenced in the 25 areas. Why? Because the government did not tell anybody. They have told no-one that consultation has commenced. Have we heard a minister talk about it in this chamber? No. Have we seen a press release? No. Has the Premier come to Brighton to announce it? No. Has the Premier said anything about it? No, and neither has the minister. Why? Because it is a sham.

And it gets worse – this sham consultation gets worse. Number one, you cannot find the consultation – I went onto the website – by searching for your own suburb affected on the Engage Victoria website. You cannot find the consultation session on Engage’s website. You have to click backwards, effectively, through another link to find it. I have got four activity centres in my community. The fact that you cannot search by the suburbs affected to find the consultation tells you how hard they are trying to find it. But it gets worse again. Within an hour of the consultation sessions opening in my community, they were filled. Within 1 hour our consultations were filled. And guess what? There are no more, so my office is being inundated with people who cannot register to attend a consultation session, which is online. Why do they need to cap an online session? They have capped it at a thousand, and we filled it in an hour. The government is denying the community access to their sham consultations, and no additional consultation has been announced.

I am waiting to hear the government members get up and talk about that one. How can you block thousands of people who want to attend a consultation session from attending? And what is worse is that the consultation sessions are not for each area. It is not like the Middle Brighton community has a right to attend a Middle Brighton consultation session about what the Premier plans to build in our area in Middle Brighton. They have packaged six activity centres into one consultation session and capped it, so we know it is a scam. And what is worse – I have not even got to the worst part – the community is being asked in these consultation sessions to have a view on what the government is proposing to do in the areas and is refused a release of any mapping. If you can get a spot in a consultation session – which you cannot, because you are all being blocked – you turn up, and you will not even be given a map for the six areas you are supposedly there to ask questions about. This is a total scam, and the community knows it.

What this government is doing is wrecking suburbs, and we know why: because the Premier does not live here. The Premier does not understand Melbourne. The Premier does not understand Melbourne – you can see it across multiple policies – whether it comes to wrecking suburbs, whether it comes to crime. The only time the Premier caught on there was a crime problem was when there was a protest in Bendigo. Before there was a protest in Bendigo the Premier did not even think there was a crime problem. No wonder the swing in her seat was so dramatic. It was because the community knows she does not get it. Anyone who comes in and says they are going to wreck the uniqueness of the communities in Melbourne should stand condemned.

What is so bad about the activity centre plan – set aside the outrageous addiction of Labor to taxes and set aside everything else – is that it wrecks the character of Melbourne. Every council has already come up with a plan to suit their community and enhance and encourage growth. Councils have done the hard work, and when you look at the numbers the councils have proposed to enable growth in their communities and you add them up by municipality, there is no difference to what the government is doing in the very small number of communities it is about to trash. What does that tell you? What it tells you is it is just stupid policy. But we know what it is about; it is about politics, and it is about attacking certain communities. You can see it. I mean, 10 activity centres in Malvern – how could you possibly think that is going to keep the character of Malvern? – and four in Brighton. As I said before, when you look at the hit list of Labor MPs you see leadership rival, leadership rival, disgruntled factional opponent, factional opponent, minister on the outer. This is what the list is. There is no great supporter of the Premier on that list. There is no Minister for Planning. I mean, the Minister for Planning opposed three storeys in her own seat. What a captain hypocrite. I mean, it is just outrageous to think this government is trying to pretend it has a fair plan. It is a plan of politics. It is a disgrace. Victorians will see it. They absolutely will see it, and the polling, for what that is worth, shows that before anything has been built, they have seen it. The community will turn on this government, and rightly so, because this Premier does not live in Melbourne, and she does not understand it.

Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (17:32): It is always a bit dangerous following the member for Brighton, and I have said this on previous occasions.

James Newbury: It is a joy.

Sarah CONNOLLY: It is a joy. It is always a bit dangerous, because I tend to get the giggles listening to him thump out these majestic dystopian-type speeches about God knows what. I get the giggles and I cannot stop, and I would love to. Member for Brighton, I will come up and ask you later on about what label you would put on me, because there is an activity centre happening right outside my boundary, in Tottenham there, with the member for Footscray. I am not sure what label you gave her, but I would love to know what label you give me. But we can talk about that a little bit later on. I need to compose myself, because I get the giggles with the member for Brighton. I never take anything he says seriously, and it is really hard to stop laughing once he stops.

I too rise to speak about this matter of public importance, and it is just so relevant not just to folks here in Victoria at the moment but indeed across the nation. It was something that dominated our political discussions recently right across this country. When we have the debate about housing in this place, I think it all comes down to a fundamental question that we are trying to answer, and that question is about what the future of our city, our suburbs and our state looks like and what it is going to be like to live in. We are asking questions like: are we a city that is going to be unliveable, where young people, our kids, our grandkids and the next generation that we talk about all the time in this place cannot afford to buy a home? That is happening right now; when they are exiled to the fringes of the city or out to the regions away from their parents, cut off from services and employment and forced to spend hours commuting to the city for work. Are we a state where this housing crisis rocks even our own regions, where young people are locked out of opportunities in places like Geelong, Ballarat or even Bendigo? Doing nothing to address the supply of housing will lead to a reality that looks just like this.

We on this side of the chamber believe that housing should be affordable to all and that Victorians should be able to afford a home, whatever that home looks like, or a place to rent in the suburbs, most importantly, that they want to live in. We know that this requires a radical overhaul of how we build our cities. I do not think there is any silver bullet that is going to solve everything about the housing crisis that is happening not just in this state but in this country. But the one thing we all know that we need to do is build more homes, and we need to build them in places where people want to live and where they want to work and where there are great transport connections to move folks around.

The answer does not just lie purely in low-density urban sprawl in the outer burbs. When I look at my electorate of Laverton, I see every single day the contrast between older, more developed suburbs like Sunshine, Albion and Braybrook and the outer western growth corridor in places like Truganina and Williams Landing, where we have built housing estate after housing estate.

The member for Bulleen – I think he last called himself the king of skyscrapers – has banged on and on about Melbourne and other places in Victoria. But I want to share what the four years that the member for Bulleen was the Minister for Planning meant for the Wyndham community and what he did to the Wyndham community. The member for Bulleen approved 11 PSPs, precinct structure plans, in Wyndham and he did not spend one cent. Not one cent.

Matthew Guy interjected.

Sarah CONNOLLY: You did not spend one cent on schools, on roads or on the train network. Cuts and closures are all that growth community received. The absolute pain and nightmare of commuting and getting around Wyndham is partly a result of the approval of 11 PSPs in four years and of never spending a cent on the services that the community in one of the largest growth corridors needed. He knew it would be one of the largest growth corridors and he spent not one single cent. For you to come in here and talk about how you know everything about growth in this state –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Through the Chair, member for Laverton.

Sarah CONNOLLY: The member for Bulleen pretends to know about growth, and his commitment and investment to this state and the people of this state –

Matthew Guy interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Bulleen! You are warned.

Sarah CONNOLLY: The people in the outer suburbs here in Victoria know the ramifications of irresponsible, reckless members of Parliament and those in the Liberal Party and those like the member for Bulleen. That is the legacy the member for Bulleen has left in Wyndham, and it is something we are going to be shouting about until election time, member for Bulleen – you better believe it.

When we talk about the contrast between older and newer suburbs, this kind of development does have a role, but it cannot be the only solution. We cannot afford to keep pushing people out onto the urban fringes here in this state. We will not solve Victoria’s housing crisis by making the outer burbs do all the heavy lifting – they cannot do all the heavy lifting. Whether it is the south-east, the north, the north-west or the outer west, these areas cannot be expected to do all the heavy lifting. You know what, that is something our government and our Premier understand. That is why we are creating a total of 50 activity centres across Melbourne to encourage greater density – apartments, units and townhouses in areas with great and tremendously well-used transport connections, local services and amenities.

Most of these precincts are not in Melbourne’s west, where we have seen a lot of the growth. It means that in these well-established suburbs, we are creating opportunities for folks to either buy a house or rent a home in their own local community. But it quite often seems to me that we are the only party that cares about getting more homes built and creating more opportunities to live in Melbourne and across our great regions, which is why I was not surprised but disappointed to hear about that sham inquiry in the other place that those opposite set up to try to stall our planning reforms that would lead to more homes being built. I am disappointed, but I have to say I am not surprised. For them it is all about preserving the status quo. It is about protecting their leafy blue-ribbon suburbs in the eastern suburbs from having more apartments, townhouses and units where folks may find a place to live. We see it time and time again when those opposite rally and protest against housing developments in their own electorates. No-one exemplifies this more than the Shadow Minister for Housing, the member for – sorry, I was going to say the blocker from Brighton, but it is the member for Brighton. That ‘blocker from Brighton’ is just burnt into my brain.

I think a better title for the member for Brighton would be either ‘the blocker for Brighton’ or ‘the shadow minister for NIMBYs’.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Correct titles would be appreciated.

Sarah CONNOLLY: I will never forget the footage of those protests he led outside the Premier’s press conference when she announced the 50 activity centres they are now trying to block. And of course it is not just limited to Brighton. The member for Hawthorn, the former leader, stood on the back of a ute with Mr Davis and Ms Crozier from the other place opposing the former Melbourne Uni campus being rezoned and rebuilt as 350 new homes and an adjacent site where we have just added 206 social and affordable homes. I can go on and on – we have got the member for Malvern right next door.

Sites like this are perfect to build more homes on. They are where people want to live. They are already well serviced, and the infrastructure, most importantly, is already there. But it is telling that it is suburbs like these – Hawthorn, Kew, Malvern, Glen Iris and Brighton – that bring out the inner NIMBYs in those opposite. You would never see them out opposing housing in the outer burbs, where their membership wants to send to everyone to live. They are on record as saying, I think it was at the Brighton protest, ‘Send them to the outer burbs.’ Well, that went down like a ton of bricks, I can tell you, in Wyndham. It is something that will be remembered at the election next year.

We need to build more homes. It is one of the key ways in which we are going to solve the housing crisis, to get more people into homes, to ensure that folks who want to rent can find an affordable rental. It requires a tremendous amount of reform. It requires a tremendous amount of maturity, which those opposite have never been able to show when it comes to this debate. I wholeheartedly commend the member for Albert Park for putting forward this MPI. It is such an important topic. It is something that is talked about in my local community time and time again, and I commend it to the house.

Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (17:42): It has been very interesting to sit here and listen to members on both sides talk about transport and about housing and, as the member for Laverton said, approach this in a mature way, which I hope to do this evening. It is a little hard to do when I hear a lot of preposterous statements, though, and talk of activity centres. A quick survey of my Nationals colleagues: have you got an activity centre in your neck of the woods? Have you? No, because you need access to adequate health care and public transport.

In fact Mildura is the largest regional city in Australia without a passenger train, and this has been going on for a long time. The member for Mornington was the CEO of Mildura Regional Development back in 2015. When the Labor government talks about transport and investment into public transport, they have had over 10 years to invest in public transport to Mildura. Maybe then we could decentralise some of these activity centres. The member for Mornington has been fighting this for a long time, as have I – the lack of passenger rail – so activity centres are kind of irrelevant.

I will tell you what is relevant to us though: adequate housing. Let us talk about the housing issues. The housing crisis that we are seeing now, after over 10 years of a Labor government, is one that they have created. In regional areas this is not just about supply and how decimated the rental market is because of poor policy decisions by the Labor government; it is also a planning issue, because one size does not fit all, particularly when it comes to regional planning. I have spoken to the member for Polwarth about this even just today, because there is not a week that goes by when my office does not get inquiries and complaints and conversations that need to be had. I had two community groups come to me just last week with some planning issues and provisions that might work in the city but they are so inflexible they just do not work in regional towns like Red Cliffs and Merbein. There is no flexibility to be able to move at all.

Take, for example, worker accommodation. This again might sound great on paper, but it is not practical for communities in small towns like Red Cliffs and Merbein. We have heard a lot of talk about hypocrisy as well. The childcare centre that is desperately needed in Red Cliffs and has been announced is across the road from a workers accommodation facility – let us call it that – that houses a lot of Pacific Australia labour mobility scheme workers. Again, the agriculture industry needs this in Mildura because everything is connected to the agriculture sector.

We need those workers. But that facility, which has now got a planning permit application in for 109 beds, is right across the road from the new childcare centre and near the early childhood learning centre, which is 50 metres away. There have been complaints, crime has already occurred in another facility in the next block, including sexual assault, and there has been a murder. And a childcare centre is planned for that very same vicinity. Is that good planning policy? I would argue that it is not good planning policy at all, not good planning in any aspect.

We were talking also about informal worker accommodation. Let us talk about the illegal rooming houses and illegal building modifications that happen all over. This is not because people are trying to do the wrong thing; it is because the system has failed. It is because the Labor government has failed to provide adequate housing where people need it in the regions. We can talk about activity centres near health care, near public transport, near public amenity and near services, but when you have not got that because of lack of investment in regional Victorians, what are we supposed to do? Those workers, who we need in our ag sector in particular, are needed on the ground.

The provisions have been changed. In the past property owners would be able to order dongas, if they had their planning permits approved, to house their workers on farm, which was difficult in the first place, and they would be able to be built, prefab, offsite and transported. Now the provisions mean that those bedrooms and rooms have to be bigger. They do not fit on the back of a truck. The solutions that might look good on paper are completely impractical on the ground. So we have got illegal extensions happening. I know this because CFA captains and members come and talk to me and show me what they look like after a fire has occurred, after switchboards have melted, because they were overcrowded and they were unsafe. There is a housing crisis, but people are having to do whatever they can do to put a roof over their head, even if that is housing people in their sheds, under tarps and under coolroom panels, in completely unsafe and unregulated accommodation, causing all sorts of social issues and community cohesion issues in these centres.

It is absolutely preposterous to say that we on this side are blocking housing. It has not even been thought of. We are not even an afterthought in regional Victoria for things like that. We do not even register. So you can imagine the angst of us sitting on this side when we hear all the talk about activity centres and levels. We cannot get planning approvals or flexible-enough planning provisions to build adequate, safe houses to house people safely. This will cost lives. When CFA volunteers are coming to me on a weekly basis saying, ‘This house is unsafe, and this house. We got called out to another one because of the overcrowding and the overload on the power supply.’ I am not sure if you know this, but correct roofing, infrastructure and building codes are not being met. They are not putting solar panels on their roof; they are drawing out of the grid. Often they are tapping into that illegally or they are tapping into the plumbing supply illegally. There are open sewage pits in backyards. Councils are struggling to enforce any of these rules because there are no building surveyors to do it.

Here is the other thing: if someone was to make a complaint that someone is living in a shopfront or that there is an illegal rooming house, how much notice does the council have to give to the property owner before they can go and inspect it? They can only do it during business hours. Do you know how long? Forty-eight hours, which is enough time to pull all of those people out of that place and put them somewhere else so that when the council inspectors walk in everything looks fine, with no-one living in it. It is like playing whack-a-mole. After it has been inspected and ticked off, they all go back in there, and we can see it.

I was talking to some community members. I went and visited Red Cliffs over the weekend. They were astounded that this has been going on for many years, and I was the first one that they have spoken to in local government – and in state government, previously, before my time – that actually understood what they were talking about, and I understand because I live it every day because we are integrated in our communities. I do understand.

So there is not just a housing problem. It turns into a workforce problem, because there is no adequate housing for workers. It is a safety problem, a community cohesion problem, like I said, and it is infrastructure – not to mention the rental market that has been decimated. And if we have a look at some of the figures and talk about how much the rental market has dropped, I mean, I can tell you that trying to get a rental in the city of Mildura – just the city of Mildura – is almost impossible. You have got people camping down on the river, you have got people living in cars, you have got people living in caravans in backyards, and that is not unique to Mildura. That is everywhere.

And how can we attract? How can Mildura grow without adequate public transport out into our smaller periphery towns as well, like Merbein and Red Cliffs, where an alcohol and other drugs centre is about to go and a new early childcare centre is about to go? There is no adequate public transport, no passenger train and no housing. We have not even been an afterthought. Think about the largest regional city in Australia without a passenger train growing – we have the space, we have the land and we have the people wanting to invest and build housing, but because the planning scheme and all of the ideas come out of the city, it is city-centric policy that is failing regional Victorians every single day. It is regional Victorians that are paying the price because Labor cannot manage housing.

John LISTER (Werribee) (17:52): I thank the member for Mildura for her contribution. I just did want to pause and reflect on one thing you said at the end there, where this is city-centric policy. I think you might be in a little bit of disagreement –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Through the Chair.

John LISTER: Sorry. The member for Mildura might be in a little bit of disagreement with the member for Brighton, who accused this side and the leaders of this side, the Treasurer and the Premier, of not being from the city and not understanding city problems. What is it? Are we worried about the city? Are we worried about the country? Well, this side is worried about both, but I do want to focus on my electorate in particular.

Werribee, Manor Lakes, Mambourin and Wyndham Vale are great places to live. For generations we have welcomed people from across the country and the world. People in my community have helped build our state, whether it was working on the West Gate Bridge or the main trunk sewer project in the 1970s and 80s, building CityLink in the 90s, or working on the West Gate and Metro tunnels in this decade. Governments in turn have built infrastructure in our community, like the regional rail link, our western roads upgrade or the level-crossing removals. I have grown up in my electorate and I have seen how it has grown. I know we need more, which is why we are building those key infrastructure projects like the Wyndham ring-road and upgrading key intersections in our community.

I did want to reflect on what the member for Laverton said earlier about what it means to plan for growth and deliver infrastructure for growth. It was something that we were looking into a little bit earlier, those 11 precinct structure plans approved in the twilight hours of the previous government by the member for Bulleen as planning minister. There are 11 precinct structure plans for places like Manor Lakes, Truganina and Rockbank, all places that we have now had to go into and make sure that we build the infrastructure to meet the demand that is there from those precincts. It is pretty disappointing that he signed off on that literally in November of the election year, knowing full well that they were on the rocks and would not have to be responsible for that growth in my community.

This motion reflects on the character of the political parties opposite. It condemns them for failing to support reforms that deliver more homes for Victorians close to transport, jobs, schools and parks. And why would the member for Werribee be so worried about the inner city? Well, I think it goes to what our government is trying to do, which is a balanced approach to planning, supporting growth in outer suburbs like mine, but also making sure that that growth is supported in our inner suburbs.

Those opposite pretend to care about my community, conveniently showing up at election time to shrill about neglect yet for two elections in the past six months have offered no commitments to infrastructure, no commitments to community facilities in my electorate, and worst of all, stood by while federal Liberals vowed to cut funding from the western suburbs and send it to roads in the outer east. The member for Berwick shows up during those elections to take selfies and ask people, ‘Do you know who I am?’ – the resounding answer was no – and then removes all evidence of this sojourn to the suburbs on social media after a resounding election defeat for the Liberals in the west. Our community are a practical lot and see right through this. While the member for Berwick pretends to care about us in the outer suburbs, he has his colleagues in Brighton and other inner suburbs leading protests against more housing near existing infrastructure.

Let me turn to the policy those opposite have so vehemently opposed. Those Liberals, the once free market champions, would understand Smith’s principles of supply and demand. The issue we have in housing is one of supply. We need more houses to meet demand and make the market more affordable. The issue we have is also geographic. Melbourne has had decades of greenfield development to meet this demand and left us with what is a housing doughnut, with its hole in the inner east and south-east. Some housing activists have also referred to this as the missing middle. We can see this in the number of housing approvals in Wyndham City Council when compared to municipalities like Bayside, where our Brighton suburbs are located. In Wyndham in the financial year to date, in 2024–25, 3133 dwellings were approved, while in Bayside only 897 approvals were made. While Wyndham may have the benefit of greenfield space for many of these dwellings, we need to look at the imbalance. After all, when you build in paddocks, you need to upgrade roads and build public transport, health facilities, emergency services and schools – all things we have been good at in Wyndham, and I have been to many of those projects in the last couple of months.

This government’s work around the activity centre pilot looks at unlocking potential space for development in places with access to existing public infrastructure. Many people on this side have gone through the specifics of those VC257, VC267 and GC252 planning changes, but I did want to reflect on what that means for younger people. As one of the youngest members in this place and perhaps one of the few renters I want to reflect on what these planning changes mean for people looking to enter the market – and do not worry, as a renter I do not have any sneaky investment properties in London, like some of their mates opposite. Having the potential of 60,000 homes in these activity areas gives so many opportunities to people renting to purchase decent townhouses or apartments close to existing services. Many young people and my friends from my electorate leave home to study in the city. Having housing options close to the city means they will have better access to those professional jobs they aspire to. Having set apartment designs means homes can be built and constructed for a lot less money, meaning savings for those first home buyers.

This brings me now to an area of planning policy that is close to my heart and the community I represent: our greenfields planning policy and the horizons we have set for new precinct development. As I mentioned earlier, the people in Wyndham have supported the growth we have seen in housing, welcoming in new communities to our existing townships. Werribee and Wyndham Vale have this small-town feeling with a big heart towards people who want to be a part of our community. However, I have heard loud and clear that we need that break from housing estates while this government continues to build the infrastructure we need to meet increased demand caused by those opposite. That is why I welcome the government’s 10-year greenfields plan to help meet the housing and infrastructure demand in the outer suburbs. This plan sets out future precincts, and I note there are no new precincts in the Werribee electorate due to start planning until 2029–30. This gives me and the government time to continue to build the infrastructure we need, like our game-changing Wyndham ring-road to connect Tarneit to Wyndham Vale and provide an alternative connection to the freeway, getting people off Ballan Road and Heaths Road.

This brings me to my campaign message to the Liberals and Nationals, who frankly need all the help they can get when it comes to campaigning. Give Werribee the break we need and build it in Brighton. I echo the message from the Minister for Planning. We need to make sure that we have a balanced approach where our greenfield sites are supported with the infrastructure they need but at the same time we are encouraging more intense development in those inner rings of Melbourne.

I want to put on the record some of the attitudes that those opposite are supporting through the random protests that they have in Brighton and other places. We have heard the comment ‘Send them to the outer burbs’. The people who want to live in those beautiful communities like Brighton, send them out to the outer burbs. I do not know who they are insulting more, the people of Brighton who love that place and would welcome new people coming in, or our community, saying there is something wrong with them and they need to go out there instead.

Look, the member for Brighton perhaps needs to do a little bit of work on their Facebook monitoring, because there are a lot of comments on the posts about development that I think are pretty abhorrent –things like, ‘How about Melton or Tarneit for the new housing? Send them out there,’ or in reference to the height limits, ‘Fill those high-rise buildings with immigrants, resulting in another slum.’ It is pretty disgusting the kinds of attitudes that side has dug up. We will still see houses going up in our community, and we will welcome people with open arms in Wyndham, but it is a kick in the guts, given the hard work we do in the outer suburbs, to see protests in leafy suburbs against reasonable development. It goes to show, no matter who the member for Berwick appoints as a quasi-shadow minister for the western suburbs or special envoy or whatever it is, no matter what noise they screech about neglect, no matter how many times they have approved precinct structure plans that we have met the growth or infrastructure demands for, they only truly care about NIMBYs in the leafy inner suburbs and the eastern suburbs.