Wednesday, 29 October 2025

 Sonya KILKENNY (Carrum – Attorney-General, Minister for Planning) (20:34): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Planning Amendment (Better Decisions Made Faster) Bill 2025:

In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the Charter), I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Planning Amendment (Better Decisions Made Faster) Bill 2025 (the Bill).

In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with the human rights protected by the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of the Bill

The Bill makes a series of major reforms to the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Principal Act) that are aimed at improving housing supply in Victoria, which is one of the State’s most urgent policy priorities.

The key reforms delivered by the Bill include:

• Providing developers and the community with greater certainty about future changes to land use and development across the state by requiring planning scheme amendments to be consistent with State Planning Strategies such as “Plan for Victoria”, which was issued on 28 February 2025;

• Significantly reducing the time, cost and complexity of making the planning scheme amendments needed to support Victoria’s projected population growth by establishing planning approval pathways that are proportionate to the risks and complexity of the amendments;

• Reducing administrative burdens associated with the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes regime;

• Reducing the time and cost associated with obtaining planning permits by establishing three assessment processes that implement procedural steps and timeframes which are more closely aligned with the risk and complexity of different permit applications;

• Increasing certainty and reducing the complexity, time and cost of removing or varying restrictive covenants that are inconsistent with relevant planning policies and objectives under the planning scheme;

• Providing for traditional owners to be notified of proposed planning scheme amendments and development proposals in prescribed areas;

• Eliminating ambiguity, reducing claim management costs, and reducing future financial liabilities relating to planning compensation claims;

• Introducing new requirements to declare “reportable donations and gifts”; and

• Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of future compliance monitoring and enforcement by providing new tools, and updating penalties and sanctions, to align with regulatory best practices that have evolved in Victoria since the Principal Act was established in 1987.

The Bill also makes consequential amendments to the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 (LAC Act).

The aspects of the Bill of most relevance to this statement of compatibility are those that relate to:

• The amendments to Parts 3 and 4 of the Principal Act, which involve:

• Changed notice, consultation and consideration requirements in relation to planning scheme amendments;

• The inclusion of additional Ministerial power to continue abandoned amendments;

• New powers of exemption from notification and exhibition requirements for planning scheme amendments; and

• Modified notice and objections provisions in relation to applications for planning permits;

• The amendments to Part 5 of the Principal Act, which clarify when compensation will be payable for claims arising under the Principal Act, and how the amount of compensation will be assessed;

• New Part 5A, which establishes a new scheme for written disclosure of “reportable gifts and donations”; and

• The amendments to Part 6 of the Principal Act, which introduce additional enforcement powers and sentencing orders for breaches of the Principal Act.

Human rights issues

The following rights are relevant to the Bill:

• Right to equality (section 8);

• Right to privacy and reputation (sections 13);

• Freedom of expression (section 15);

• Freedom of association (section 16);

• Taking part in public life (section 18);

• Cultural rights (section 19);

• Property rights (section 20);

• Right to a fair hearing (section 24); and

• Right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 26).

Right to equality (section 8)

Section 8(2) of the Charter provides that every person has the right to enjoy their human rights without discrimination. Section 8(3) of the Charter relevantly provides that every person is entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination and has the right to equal and effective protection against discrimination. The purpose of this component of the right to equality is to ensure that all laws and policies are applied equally, and do not have a discriminatory effect.

‘Discrimination’ under the Charter is defined by reference to the definition in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (EO Act) on the basis of an attribute in section 6 of the EO Act. Direct discrimination occurs where a person treats, or proposes to treat, a person with an attribute unfavourably because of that attribute. Indirect discrimination occurs where a person imposes a requirement, condition or practice that has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging persons with a protected attribute, but only where that requirement, condition or practice is not reasonable.

Section 8(4) of the Charter provides that measures taken for the purpose of assisting or advancing persons or groups of persons disadvantaged because of discrimination do not constitute discrimination. Section 8 as a whole is concerned with substantive rather than merely formal equality. This means that any measure taken for the purpose of assisting or advancing a group disadvantaged because of discrimination, such as First Peoples, will not constitute discrimination where it satisfies the test for establishing a special measure. This includes demonstrating that the disadvantage to be targeted by the measure is caused by discrimination, that the measure is reasonably likely to advance or benefit the disadvantaged group, and that it addresses a need and goes no further than is necessary to address that need.

Right to privacy and reputation (section 13)

Section 13(a) of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. An interference will be lawful if it is permitted by a law which is precise and appropriately circumscribed, and will be arbitrary only if it is capricious, unpredictable, unjust or unreasonable, in the sense of being disproportionate to the legitimate aim sought.

Section 13(b) of the Charter relevantly provides that a person has the right not to have their reputation unlawfully attacked. An ‘attack’ on reputation will be lawful if it is permitted by a precise and appropriately circumscribed law.

Freedom of expression (section 15)

Section 15 of the Charter provides that every person has the rights to hold an opinion without interference (section 15(1)) and to freedom of expression (section 15(2)), which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information.

However, section 15(3) provides that special duties and responsibilities attach to this right, which may be subject to lawful restrictions reasonably necessary to respect the rights and reputations of others, or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality.

Freedom of association (section 16)

Section 16 of the Charter protects every person’s right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions.

Taking part in public life (section 18)

Section 18(1) of the Charter provides that every person in Victoria has the right, and is to have the opportunity, without discrimination, to participate in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

Cultural rights (section 19)

Section 19(1) of the Charter provides that all persons with a particular cultural, religious, racial or linguistic background must not be denied the right, in community with other persons of that background, to enjoy their culture, declare and practise their religion, and use their language.

Section 19(2) of the Charter further provides specific protection for Aboriginal persons, providing that they must not be denied the right, with other members of their community, to enjoy their identity and culture, maintain and use their language, maintain kinship ties, and maintain their distinct spiritual, material and economic relationship with the land and waters and other resources with which they have a connection under traditional laws and customs.

Property rights (section 20)

Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with law. This right requires that powers which authorise the deprivation of property are conferred by legislation or common law, are confined and structured rather than unclear, are accessible to the public, and are formulated precisely.

Right to a fair hearing (section 24)

Section 24(1) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence or a party to a civil proceeding has the right to have the charge or proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing. The term “civil proceeding” in section 24(1) has been interpreted as encompassing proceedings that are determinative of private rights and interests in a broad sense, including some administrative proceedings.

Right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 26)

Section 26 of the Charter provides that a person must not be tried or punished more than once for an offence in respect of which they have already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with law.

This right embodies the fundamental common law principle of ‘double jeopardy’, which guarantees finality and certainty in the criminal justice system. This principle ensures that a person is not subjected to multiple prosecutions for an offence for which they have been finally acquitted or convicted.

Amendments to Parts 3 and 4 of the Principal Act

The Bill makes significant changes to Parts 3 and 4 of the Principal Act. The changes include the introduction of three different assessment processes for for planning scheme amendment and permit applications that are applied based on the potential risk, complexity and impact of amendments and permit applications under consideration.

Part 3

Amended section 16N provides that an amendment to a planning scheme is to be categorised, in accordance with the regulations, as one of the following –

• A low-impact amendment;

• A medium-impact amendment; or

• A high-impact amendment.

It is envisaged that:

• A low-impact amendment will be a planning scheme amendment where the impact of the amendment is such that broad public involvement in the amendment process is not warranted;

• A medium-impact amendment will be a planning scheme amendment where the impact of the amendment is such that public exhibition is necessary but independent review via a planning panel is of limited benefit; and

• A high-impact amendment will be a planning scheme amendment where the impact of the amendment is such that exhibition and independent review of the amendment is necessary.

In other words, notice, consultation and consideration requirements for planning scheme amendments will depend on the category of the amendment. In particular:

• Notice of preparation of an amendment to a planning scheme will only be required for medium and high-impact amendments. There is a new requirement (at new section 19(1)(ba)) that such notice is to be given to any native title holders, traditional owner group entity or registered Aboriginal party for the area;

• Public submissions on exhibited amendments can only be made to the relevant planning authority for medium and high-impact amendments. However, the Bill makes provision for consultation in respect of low-impact amendments, including with the traditional owners for affeceted lands. For all amendments, the planning authority must prepare a proposed public engagement plan as part of its amendment application, and must prepare and publish an “engagement report” under new section 20F. The Minister may also direct a planning authority to undertake more consultation; and

• After considering comments and submissions, a planning authority may decide to change, not change or abandon the amendment if it is a low or medium-impact amendment. A planning authority must not refer a low or medium-impact amendment to a planning panel (however, the Minister may do so under new section 34AA.. For high-impact amendments, a planning authority may change or not change the amendment and refer it to a panel, or abandon the amendment.

The role of planning panels is to be more confined. The Principal Act will no longer provide that a panel is bound by the rules of natural justice. In addition, in most circumstances, a person making a submission will not have a right to be heard before a panel. Further, while a referral to a panel will ordinarily need to be accompanied by any submissions or comments received by the planning authority or the Minister about the amendment, those submissions or comments need not be provided if, in the opinion of the planning authority or Minister, they are:

• Frivolous or vexatious; or

• Wholly irrelevant to the amendment.

The Minister is to be granted broader powers with respect to planning scheme amendments. If the Minister prepares an amendment to a planning scheme, the Minister may determine that a high-impact amendment is to be treated as a medium-impact amendment if the Minister considers that a panel review of the amendment is unnecessary given the specific nature of the amendment.

Further, in specified circumstances, the Minister may decide to continue an amendment abandoned by a planning authority, and may exempt a planning authority from any requirement under section 19 if satisfied that the planning authority undertook sufficient public consultation before applying for authorisation to prepare the amendment.

New Division 3A of Part 3 introduces measures which seek to ensure transparency in decision-making in relation to amendments, and new sections 42A and 42B make provision for the collection, retention, analysis and reporting of information from planning authorities about the performance of the planning scheme amendment process under Part 3.

Finally, existing section 38 of the Principal Act – which requires the Minister to provide notice to Parliament of the approval of every amendment of a planning scheme within 10 sitting days, and permitting Parliament to revoke the amendment – is to be removed. Instead, the parliamentary scrutiny requirements applied to subordinate legislation under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 will be applied to planning scheme amendments.

Part 4

New section 47AA provides that there are to be three types of permit application: types 1, 2 and 3.

Only type 3 applications and “specified type 2 applications” will be subject to notice requirements.

Objections will no longer be able to be made in respect of type 1 and 2 applications. Section 57 of the Principal Act, which deals with objections to applications for permits, will now only apply to type 3 applications.

Under new section 57(2A), the responsible authority may reject an objection which it reasonably believes has been prepared by a third party and not the objector. However, this will not apply to an objection prepared by a third party for an objector if:

• The objector requires assistance or personal representation because of age or disability; or

• The objector has engaged legal representation for the purpose of preparing the objection.

The responsible authority may also reject an objection which it considers:

• Has been made primarily to secure or maintain a direct or indirect commercial advantage for the objector;

• Is frivolous or vexatious; or

• Is wholly irrelevant to the grant of the permit following the type 3 application.

The matters that a responsible authority is required to consider before deciding a permit application will be reduced in respect of type 1 applications (see new section 59A).

Further, the section 64 decision process will only apply to grants of permits for type 3 applications.

By specifically providing for First Peoples to be notified of, and participate in, planning scheme amendment processes, the Bill may engage the right to equality. Section 8(3) of the Charter may be engaged because these provisions provide for differential treatment between First Peoples and Victorians who are not First Peoples. However, given that notice is required to be provided to native title holders, traditional owner group entities and registered Aboriginal parties for the affected area, I consider that any limits on rights are minimal and appropriately confined. Further, I am of the view that these provisions constitute a special measure under section 8(4) of the Charter. These provisions also promote the rights of First Peoples under section 19(2) of the Charter.

By restricting the ability of certain persons to make public submissions and be heard in relation to planning scheme amendments, and the ability to object in writing to a planning permit application, the Bill may limit the right to freedom of expression under section 15(2) of the Charter in that it may prevent those persons from imparting information and ideas in writing or orally to the relevant planning authority, panel, or responsible authority. However, interested persons will still be able to impart information and ideas in relation to planning scheme amendment and permit applications in a range of ways, including by writing to the Minister, and speaking to or writing to their local council or local member. Further, to the extent that the right to freedom of expression is engaged, I consider that these amendments are reasonably necessary to accelerate the provision of improved housing supply, and thereby respect the rights of other persons – namely, Victorians who are negatively impacted by lack of housing and lack of adequate housing. I therefore consider that these amendments fall within the exception in section 15(3) of the Charter.

The Bill does not affect the rights of owners and occupiers of land materially affected by a planning scheme amendment, and recipients of notice of type 3 planning permit applications, to impart information and ideas orally or in writing to the relevant authority.

By confining notification, consultation and consideration requirements in relation to planning scheme amendment applications, and who may object to planning permit applications, the Bill may be relevant to the right to participate, without discrimination, in the conduct of public affairs and the right to a fair hearing, under sections 18(1) and 24(1) of the Charter respectively.

This assumes that planning scheme amendment and permit application processes could be “public affairs” for the purposes of section 18(1) of the Charter. However, that right focuses on participation in public affairs “without discrimination”. These amendments do not involve unfavourable treatment, or the imposition of a requirement, condition or practice that has the effect of disadvantaging persons, because of a protected attribute.

Further, section 24(1) of the Charter only applies where a person is a “party” to a “civil proceeding”. The Bill seeks to clarify the procedure of planning panels to make clear that the function of panels is to conduct independent reviews of planning scheme amendments. The role of a panel is intended to be inquisitorial, rather than legalistic. Persons who give evidence or make submissions to planning panels are not “parties” and panels do not make determinations. This analysis also applies in relation to the grant of permits by responsible authorities.

For these reasons, in my view, the section 18(1) and 24(1) Charter rights are not engaged and the provisions are compatible with the Charter.

To the extent that authorities or the Minister make determinations, the Bill is adequately confined in a number of ways. It clarifies what the authority or Minister is required to take into account in making decisions on planning scheme amendment and permit applications, and also establishes a performance reporting process for planning scheme amendments.

Amendments to Part 5 of the Principal Act

• The Bill amends Part 5 of the Principal Act to clarify when compensation will be payable for claims arising under the Principal Act, including: clarification that references to financial loss in sections 98(1) and (2) are references to actual financial loss;

• Clarification that references to value in Part 5 are references to market value;

• Expansion of the specified circumstances in section 98(3) in which a person cannot claim compensation under section 98(1), to include:

• Where the land has been vested in the acquiring authority by any means; and

• Where a condition on a permit granted in relation to the land provides that compensation is not payable;

• For a claim for expenses incurred in preparing and submitting a claim under section 98, new section 101(2) provides that the claim cannot be made in relation to any expenses incurred (a) before the right to compensation arises under section 99 or (b) after the claim is referred to the Tribunal or Supreme Court;

• Amendments to section 108 so that only a single claim for compensation for the same public purpose reservation may be made; and

• Making clear when a Minister, public authority, municipal council or acquiring authority is liable to pay a claim for compensation under section 109.

Additionally, new section 100(3) narrows the operation of section 100 to an assessment of the value of the land based on the existing residential use of the land.

These aspects of the Bill may engage the section 20 Charter right. It may be argued that the Bill “deprives” a person of property by reducing the amount of monetary compensation that they may have otherwise been able to obtain against the State. While such deprivation of property is likely to be considered “in accordance with law” in so far as the Bill is “publicly accessible, clear and certain”, existing case law (PJB v Melbourne Health) also requires that it be shown that the Bill does not operate arbitrarily. The Court of Appeal, in WMB v Chief Commissioner of Police (2012) 43 VR 446 in the context of discussing the meaning of ‘arbitrary’ in section 13(a) of the Charter, has stated that a law is arbitrary where it is capricious, unjust, unpredictable or unreasonable in the sense of not being proportionate to a legitimate purpose. Withdrawing compensation to which people may otherwise be entitled, could be considered to be “capricious” or “unjust”. Therefore, an argument might be made that the deprivation of property under the Bill is arbitrary, so that the right not to be deprived of property otherwise than in accordance with the law is limited.

However, I consider that any limitation on property rights is reasonable and justified. These amendments are aimed at reducing ambiguity about what a person might be entitled to claim against the State, and restoring the text of the legislation so that it reflects Parliament’s original intent. Ambiguity regarding the meaning of “a residence” in the existing section 100 of the Principal Act has led to multiple contested compensation claims, including the claim litigated in Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change v Megson [2017] VSC 774, sometimes resulting in a higher dollar amounts being paid to claimants in additional allowance on top of the planning compensation for a permit refusal (where the claimant retains their land), than is paid in solatium following the actual taking of the land on the eventual acquisition of the land. These clarifying amendments will reduce ambiguity for claimants, assist the Courts in interpreting the relevant provisions and ultimately reduce the State’s financial expenditure in connection with compensation claims. This money will be able to be redirected into investment in improved housing supply for Victorians and building Victoria towards 2050, in line with the “Plan for Victoria”.

I do not consider that these amendments engage or limit the right to a fair hearing in the Charter, because this right will be engaged where a person is prevented from having their civil rights or liabilities in a proceeding considered by a court. However, this right does not prevent the State from amending the substantive law to alter the content of those civil rights.

New Part 5A

New Part 5A inserts, in section 113B, requirements that persons, and their “associates” (as defined in section 113B(4)), who make “relevant planning applications” or “relevant planning submissions” must disclose, in the form of a disclosure statement, “reportable donations and gifts” (as defined in section 3(1)) given to “relevant recipients” (as defined in new section 113C). If the relevant recipient is a Minister or a Councillor, reportable gifts or donations to their registered political parties (where known) must also be disclosed. These requirements only apply during “the disclosure period”, which is defined to mean the period commencing 2 years before the relevant planning application or submission is made, and ending when the relevant application or request is determined.

A disclosure statement must include a range of matters, including names and addresses of donors and recipients, the amount or value of the gift or donation, the date the gift or donation was given and any other prescribed matter.

New section 113G creates an offence for failing to disclose a reportable gift or donation, punishable by 240 penalty units or 2 years’ imprisonment or both.

To the extent that the information collected under these provisions includes personal information, the right to privacy will be engaged. However, the disclosure of personal information is not arbitrary as new section 113F requires publication of the disclosure statement in accordance with the public availability requirements.

Further, if this right is limited by new Part 5A, these limits are reasonably necessary to achieve legitimate anti-corruption purposes, including those set out in new section 113A. IBAC has investigated and reported on allegations of corrupt conduct involving councillors and property developers in the City of Casey in their report on Operation Sandon. The outcomes of Operation Sandon highlight system vulnerabilities, emphasise corruption risk in state and local government and underscore the need to establish transparent planning decision-making processes. IBAC’s Special Report recommended amendments to legislation to require the disclosure of donations made by parties to relevant planning decision-makers. These provisions implement that recommendation.

Amendments to Part 6 of the Principal Act

To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of future compliance monitoring and enforcement, the Bill provides for updated, increased penalties for contraventions of the Principal Act.

The Bill makes it an offence to knowingly or recklessly make a false or misleading statement to a person or body carrying out a function or power under the Principal Act, and to produce a document that the person knows to be misleading. These offences are punishable by 240 penalty units or 2 years’ imprisonment or both. The Bill clarifies that a proceeding for a summary offence against the Principal Act must be commenced within 24 months.

Additionally, the Bill empowers courts to make the following “specific court orders”:

• “adverse publicity orders” that require offenders to publicise wrongdoing including the offence, its consequences and penalty, typically in electronic and print media;

• “commercial benefit orders” that require offenders to pay a fine of up to 3 times the estimated gross commercial benefit (profit) that was received;

• “supervisory intervention orders” involving the appointment of persons or entities to supervise the activities of offenders, most commonly where offenders are found by courts to be persistently or systematically breaking the law; and

• “industry exclusion orders” that exclude a person from participation in an industry for certain periods if the courts finds that the person is a persistent or systematic offender against laws.

These provisions empower a court to limit the right to privacy and reputation (in respect of all specified orders), the right to freedom of association (in respect of supervisory intervention and industry exclusion orders) and property rights (in respect of supervisory intervention and commercial benefit orders). However, I consider that the courts’ powers to make these orders are reasonably necessary to deter non-compliance with the Principal Act, and are adequately confined, including because:

• The court has a discretion as to whether to make any of these orders;

• Any order made will be subject to Court-imposed conditions, for example as to the duration of the order;

• A supervisory intervention order can be made for a maximum period of one year;

• The commercial benefit order provisions expressly state that a court can make an order for less than the estimated gross commercial benefit; and

• The supervisory intervention and industry exclusion order provisions provide that the person in respect of whom the order was made can apply to the court for amendment or revocation of the order (and the court can amend or revoke the order if satisfied that there has been a change of circumstances warranting the revocation or amendment).

While an argument might be made that these provisions engage the right not to be punished more than once, in my view they are unlikely to constitute punishment for the purpose of the section 26 Charter right. I therefore do not consider that these provisions engage or limit the right not to be tried or punished more than once.

New section 134A empowers an authorised person to enter land without notice, consent or a warrant if the authorised person reasonably believes that permanent and irreversible damage or material harm to the environment in contravention of the planning scheme is occurring, is about to occur or has occurred on the land. This provision may engage the right to privacy under section 13(a) of the Charter and the right not to be deprived of property other than in accordance with the law under section 20 of the Charter. However, given the provision specifies the limited circumstances in which an authorised person may enter land without notice, consent or a warrant, requires an authorised person to announce themselves on entry and produce their identity card for inspection, and excludes entry into a building being used as residential premises without consent, any interference will be lawfully permitted. In addition, in my view any interference will not arbitrary, as it is for the clear purpose of preventing permanent and irreversible damage or material harm to the environment.

The exercise of new enforcement powers will also occur by reference to a policy – which new section 150B of the Principal Act will require the Secretary to develop (after consultation with responsible authorities and other relevant stakeholders) – designed to promote compliance with and enforcement of planning laws. The policy is to provide guidance on the exercise of monitoring, compliance, investigation and enforcement powers. The Secretary must provide training, guidance and support to authorised officers in relation to the policy and persons involved in compliance, monitoring or enforcement activities must have regard to the policy when exercising powers under, the Principal Act.

The Hon Sonya Kilkenny MP

Minister for Planning

 Sonya KILKENNY (Carrum – Attorney-General, Minister for Planning) (20:34): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.

Incorporated speech as follows:

The Bill amends the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to make reforms to the planning system in Victoria and to make consequential amendments to the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 and the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994.

Victoria is a great place to live and work. Known for its cultural diversity, strong economy, education opportunities, beautiful natural landscapes and vibrant arts and sports scenes, Victoria has consistently drawn people from across Australia and the world.

With Victoria’s population expected to grow from 7.2 million residents in 2025 to 10.3 million residents by 2050 we must plan for more homes and other developments to support that population growth whilst maintaining Victoria’s enviable liveability.

Victoria is facing a housing challenge, with more and more Victorians finding it increasingly difficult to find a home, particularly younger Victorians. This challenge has been decades in the making.

While there is no quick fix, addressing this challenge requires reform and sustained commitment. That means building more homes in well-connected areas, modernising planning rules to deliver housing faster, and investing in social and affordable housing so that no one is left behind. It also means working with local government, industry, and communities to ensure new developments are sustainable, inclusive, and resilient ‍– creating neighbourhoods where people can live, work, and thrive for generations to come.

Victoria’s Housing Statement – the decade ahead 2024–2034, set a target to build 800,000 homes in 10 years.

Consistent with the commitments made in the Housing Statement the Government is using every policy lever available to it to increase the supply of land, make redevelopment opportunities available and streamline the delivery of housing and other developments that are needed to accommodate population growth.

In the planning portfolio, this includes:

• Planning for 60 new train and tram activity centres and establishing the new Housing Choice Transport Zone and Built Form Overlays for Activity Centre cores to streamline approvals in these centres.

• Establishing a new precincts zone to facilitate the development of 15 priority precincts, which are key areas for transformational urban development to deliver new homes, jobs, and better transport, as outlined in the Plan for Victoria. Priority precincts include Fishermans Bend, Arden, Sunshine, Parkville, Docklands, Footscray, East Werribee, the Richmond to Flinders Street corridor and several new precincts that will be established as part of the Suburban Rail Loop program.

• Codification of residential development requirements to eliminate or otherwise streamline planning permit requirements for townhouses and low-rise apartment developments; single dwellings on blocks over 300 metres squared; single dwellings on blocks under 300 metres squared; small second dwellings; and two dwellings on a block. These reforms will significantly streamline and enable small scale development at the local level.

• Enactment of legislative reforms to the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 to: enable streamlined consideration of low impact planning scheme amendments; provide a formal and transparent process for proponents to initiate amendments; enable the Minister for Planning to complete abandoned amendments; provide planning panels with increased discretions to consider submissions on the basis of documents without holding a public hearing; and provide the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) with broader powers to actively manage proceedings in the interests of making just, timely and efficient determinations.

Importantly, the government has systematically engaged with the community, local government and industry to plan for the future through the development of Plan for Victoria. Following the most extensive community-led consultation ever undertaken for a strategic plan in Victoria, Plan for Victoria is a plan for Victorians, written by Victorians. More than 110,000 Victorians were engaged through the process.

Housing targets have been established for every local government area as part of Plan for Victoria to ensure that enough homes are built in the right places. These housing targets have now been incorporated into all planning schemes across the state by amendment to the Victoria Planning Provisions.

A large number of planning scheme amendments will need to be made over the next 10 years to supply land and enable greenfield development that will accommodate new homes. Further, a large number of planning scheme amendments and planning permits will be needed to enable the delivery of more homes in established areas, including in regional Victoria.

It this context, it is of utmost importance that assessment and decision-making processes remain robust: ensuring that changes to land use, and proposed developments, are economically, socially and environmentally sustainable. Regulatory processes must also be agile, proportionate and efficient to respond to dynamic changes in community needs and preferences in a timely fashion.

Consistent with the commitments made in the Housing Statement the Government is systematically reviewing the Planning and Environment Act 1987. From the initial phase of the Review, the evidence is clear that regulatory processes for making planning scheme amendments and for processing planning permit applications under the Act are not fit for purpose.

Reform of planning scheme amendment processes

It takes greater than two years, on average, to make a planning scheme amendment. Given this, it should not be surprising that successive State Government Planning Ministers have been called on to use special exemption powers in the majority of cases. However, this practice does not deliver transparency, and it does not deliver certainty. Importantly, the current one size fits all process is not sufficiently responsive to the emerging needs of the community.

The Allan government recognises the importance of planning for the future and is doing so through a Plan for Victoria. But we also recognise the importance of responding to the market. The current prescribed process for making planning scheme amendments does not effectively enable this to occur. We need better decisions made faster.

The Bill will make amendments to Part 3 of the Act to establish three pathways for planning scheme amendments that are proportionate to complexity, risk and the potential impact of the amendment. This will deliver significant time and cost savings, and importantly, will provide greater certainty and predictability to development proponents and to the community regarding the process to be followed. The community does not have that certainty at present because of the extensive use of exemptions.

For low impact amendments, the Bill requires the Planning Authority to consult with affected landowners, occupiers and prescribed authorities. The Planning Authority must then deliver a report to the Minister for Planning to inform the Minister’s decision making on the amendment.

For moderate impact amendments, public notice and exhibition would occur but there would be no independent review by a planning panel and no public hearing, unless the Minister determines that independent review and advice from a panel is needed. The Minister would make this decision when the proposed amendment is adopted by the Planning Authority and provided to the Minister for approval.

Under the high impact pathway, there would be public notice and exhibition and independent review by a planning panel, but this does not necessarily mean that a public hearing would be conducted. As indicated, the Parliament has already provided planning panels with discretion to undertake their review functions “on the papers”, either in full, or in part, using public hearings to supplement and support their considerations as the panel see fits.

The Bill also makes additional planning scheme amendment reforms that will add to the cost, time and certainty benefits associated with establishing the three new assessment processes.

In summary, the Bill:

• Provides explicit processes for the initiation of amendments, including cost recovery arrangements for councils who choose to facilitate proponent-initiated amendments. These reforms will build on those included in the Consumer and Planning Legislation Amendment (Housing Statement Reforms) Act 2025.

• Provides that when authorisation is sought to develop an amendment the Minister may request further information is provided by councils, and that once further information is provided, the Minister will then have a prescribed timeframe to make a final decision on the authorisation request.

• Provides that the Minister may, subject to receiving a request from the planning authority when authorisation is sought, grant exemptions from notice and exhibition requirements where the planning authority has already undertaken an equivalent level of public consultation in relation to the changes to the planning scheme the amendment seeks to implement.

• Requires a planning authority proposing to prepare a planning scheme amendment to develop a public engagement plan and submit this with the authorisation request is made to the Minister. The engagement plan would set out how the planning authority will give notice and undertake community consultation in respect to the amendment. This is intended to replace prescriptive requirements, for example, advertising in newspapers, and enable innovation in respect of the method of engagement.

• Requires amendment proponents and persons who make submissions to declare financial interests. This reform would acquit the IBAC’s Operation Sandon Inquiry recommendation to require every applicant and person making submissions to a council, the Minister for Planning or Planning Panels Victoria to disclose reportable donations and other financial arrangements.

• Requires the planning authority for a planning scheme amendment to publish a report on submissions received following exhibition of the amendment. Codifying this practice will ensure transparency and foster accountability and accessibility in the planning system by providing community members and other stakeholders with clarity regarding how their submissions have been considered and the extent to which the details of the amendment are proposed to change in response.

• Provides that the role of and function of planning panels is to undertake an independent review of the amendment and that the panel has discretion over who the panel chooses to hear from during the conduct of public hearings. These changes will complement amendments made through the Consumer and Planning Legislation Amendment (Housing Statement Reforms) Act 2025 that provide for the fulfilment of panel function using only written submissions. The effect is that there will no longer be any entitlement to respond to all submissions or opinions provided by other parties.

• Provide that planning scheme amendments will follow the normal tabling, scrutiny and disallowance procedures under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994. This means that approved planning scheme amendments will be reviewed by the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee (SARC) and subject to disallowance on the recommendation of SARC.

• Makes provision for annual performance monitoring of the planning scheme amendment process, including compliance with statutory timeframes.

While the delivery of time and costs saving is the direct benefit of the proposed reforms, it is equally of importance to deliver certainty and predictability so the development industry can consider and mitigate development risks with a much higher degree of confidence. The substantial time and costs savings associated with the reforms to the assessment and approval of planning scheme amendments will allow earlier realisation of development benefits to the community.

Reforms to planning permit assessment and approval processes

Just over 40,000 planning permit applications were received by responsible authorities in 2024 relating to proposed development works in excess of $38 billion. For the period between 2015 and 2023, the number of days it took for an application to reach an outcome have remained consistently high. However, the average processing time of approximately 140 days – more than double the statutory time period – hides the true extent of the problem. Applications that receive at least one or more objections or submissions take an average of just over 300 days to reach a final outcome.

The opportunity cost of delays in decision making in excess of the statutory timeframe of 60 days are estimated to be in excess of $1 billion per annum. Potential use and development of land is at risk of stalling, or not proceeding, due to costs associated with delayed decision making. In the case of residential development, delays risk the future availability of housing stock. For these reasons, reforms to reduce the time and cost of planning permit processes is essential.

Following consideration of the options available to address planning permit delays the Red Tape Commissioner (2020) recommended streaming planning permit applications according to risk. Similarly, the Victorian Planning System Ministerial Advisory Committee in its 2011 report considered that a system of planning permit application streams should be developed. This was further supported by the Victorian Auditor-General in its 2017 report Managing Victoria’s Planning System for Land Use and Development. Many of these past inquiries have noted that the ‘streaming’ of planning permit applications already occurs in most other Australian States and Territories to provide for more efficient and timely consideration of development proposals.

The Bill will establish three assessment processes that implement procedural steps and timeframes which are more closely aligned with the risk and complexity of different permit applications. The three application assessment processes vary in terms of timeframes for requesting information; whether or not notice is required and if so, the extent of notice that is required; the extent to which applications are referred to public authorities for comments and conditions; the timeframe for a decision and whether deemed approvals apply, or whether a failure to determine an application gives rise to a right of review at VCAT.

Assessment type 1 is established to process simple low risk proposals that are envisaged by the zone and overlay that applies to the relevant land. Assessment type 1 will replace the existing vicsmart process. As is the case with vicsmart applications, there would be no public notice of these development applications with the assessment of applications being made by responsible authorities against the relevant decision guidelines and codes set in the planning scheme. For applications considered through assessment type 1 it is proposed to establish a new deemed approval mechanism in circumstances where the responsible authority has not made a decision within the prescribed timeframe. In short, if the responsible authority does not make a decision within the prescribed period, then the permit is deemed to be approved.

Assessment type 2 would apply to applications for uses or developments that are intended to comply with specified codes; or significantly comply with specified codes but also include an element or elements that do not comply with the code but are permissible under state and local policies applied under the relevant planning schemes. No notice will be required to be given for permit applications under the type 2 assessment process, unless the code or the planning scheme specifies circumstances where notice must be given. The statutory time period for making a decision will be prescribed in regulations and is intended to be less than the 60 day period that is currently specified. This assessment process will only be applied to permit applications where it is not necessary to refer the permit application to a referral authority. Codes, such as that developed for town homes and low rise developments, are proposed to be developed in collaboration with local Government, the development industry and the community during the proposed implementation period for reforms.

Assessment type 3 will closely mirror the existing planning permit assessment process set out in the Act that provides for public notice and referral where it is required. This assessment process is applicable to proposals that are more complex and represent a higher risk of negative spillover effects on owners and occupiers of land in the proximity of the proposed development and the local community more generally. Determination of type 3 applications require the balancing of state and a local policy, and a determination of appropriateness against the purpose and decision guidelines of the zone or overlay controls that apply to the land. The Bill specifies assessment type 3 as the default process that is applied.

The Bill provides for a number of reforms to steps in the assessment process that is currently specified in the Act. In summary, the Bill:

• Provides for regulations to specify the type and extent of notice required for each type and class of permit application instead of continuing to rely on differing interpretations of the requirement to notify anyone who could potentially suffer a material detriment as a consequence of the proposed development.

• Requires that requests for information from the responsible authority to the applicant must have a clear link to the assessment that is required to be undertaken and demonstrate a connection to controls that trigger the permit required. This will be achieved by enabling the form and content of further information requests to be prescribed. Subject to complementary regulation changes, requests for information will also not reset the statutory clock, but instead, will result in a pause.

• Changes the decision-making criteria that apply when an applicant applies to remove or vary a restrictive covenant using a planning permit. The effect is that responsible authorities will have greater discretion to approve the removal or variation of a restrictive covenant in circumstances where the restriction is inconsistent with what is permissible under the planning scheme, zone and overlays that apply to the land to which the covenant applies.

• Incentivises referral authorities to comply with prescribed timeframes by making it clear that if there is a failure to respond within the relevant timeframe, the referral authority is deemed to not object and the permit application progresses without any conditions being recommended or required. To address the underlying resourcing issues that lead to delays, referral authority will be enabled to charge a fee to the applicant when applications are referred to them and responses are provided within statutory timeframes.

• Enables responsible authorities to not consider a submission when it is frivolous or vexatious or irrelevant. It will also be required that an objection must be submitted to the Responsible Authority by the person making the objection and not by a third party.

• Limits the right to apply for a review of a permit decision to VCAT to objectors that have the potential to be impacted and are therefore required to be directly notified of the permit application in accordance with the regulations.

• Requires a proposed amendment to an approved permit to follow the assessment process, that is, type 1,2 or 3, that would apply if the amendment was a new application.

• Establishes a clear process and decision framework for the assessment of extension of time requests for approved permits, including requiring requests to be in a prescribed form, prescribing a clear timeframe for decision-making and introducing decision criteria based on the relevant case law. It is also proposed to specify that an approval to extend a permit must have a minimum extension timeframe of six months and VCAT is being given jurisdiction to review the length of the period that permits are extended.

• Specifies that a permit and its conditions do not extend to subsequent development of land that does not need a planning permit, except in specific circumstances. This would reduce the number of permit amendments and secondary consents that are required, reducing costs and delays for permit holders and freeing up resources within councils.

• Establishes a head of power that would enable the Minister to issue directions or guideline on the form and content of permit conditions and require that any conditions included on a permit must be in accordance with the requirements of the direction or guideline.

• Establishes a new process to guide the assessment of plans and documents submitted to satisfy conditions on planning permits. The process would require the responsible authority to endorse or reject submitted documents within a prescribed time and send a referral to a referral authority within a prescribed time if required. If the responsible authority does not make a decision to endorse or reject the plans within the prescribed time, then the plans are deemed to satisfy the condition.

These changes to the legislative framework for planning permits that are necessary to make better decisions faster.

Other reforms to the Act

The Bill, as I will now explain, also makes a range of other improvements to the Act. The Bill:

• Ensures that the planning system is focused on delivering the outcomes that the community desires and expects it to deliver by aligning the objectives of planning in the Act with community aspirations identified during the development of a Plan for Victoria. This includes making it an explicit objective of the planning system to promote the rights, interests and values of Traditional Owners and enable Registered Aboriginal Parties (raps) to be notified of, and then participate in, strategic planning for Country.

• Provides developers and the community with greater certainty about future changes to land use and development in the state by requiring planning scheme amendments authorised and approved by the Minister for Planning to be consistent with strategic land use and development plans such as Plan for Victoria.

• Improves the efficiency and effectiveness of future compliance monitoring and enforcement by providing new tools, and updating penalties and sanctions, to reflect regulatory best practices that have evolved since the Act was established in 1987. The Bill also provides for better coordination between enforcement agencies and transparency and accountability in respect to the use of powers.

• Eliminates ambiguity, reduce claim management costs and reduce future financial liabilities of the State due to planning compensation claims by making a range of technical changes to planning compensation provisions.

• Reduces administrative burdens associated with the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes scheme by making technical changes and aligning the processes for developing and making amendments to affected planning schemes with the new planning scheme amendment processes included in the Bill.

• Acquits Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission (IBAC) Operation Sandon recommendations and outstanding recommendations of the Environment and Planning Committee of the Legislative Council by requiring transparency in decision making; requiring financial relationships and donations to be disclosed; extending the period of time available to commence prosecutions for contraventions of planning laws; and in specified circumstances, eliminating the notice authorised officers need to provide to entry land (except places of residence) for compliance monitoring and enforcement purposes.

• Amends the Infrastructure Contribution Plan provisions to:

• Enable revenue for icps to be used to acquire land that is needed for the purpose of establishing new infrastructure and facilities;

• Provide clear authority to include in an ICP, infrastructure, facilities and services that are located outside of the plan collection area but are needed to address the needs of land owners and occupiers within the plan area;

• Reduce the level of project detail required when icps are established and enable specific projects to be identified and prioritised for funding as part of a subsequent process, so that funding can be used more effectively to address emerging community needs;

• Enable ICP administration costs to be paid for from ICP funding; and

• Improve the Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution (GAIC) scheme by:

• Enabling the staging of payments on progressive subdivision of land;

• Provide clear authority to fund infrastructure, facilities and services that are located outside of the GAIC area but are needed to address the needs of land owners and occupiers within the GAIC area;

• Enable roads and active travel projects to be funded from the Growth Areas Public Transport Fund; and

• Enabling administrative costs to be funded from GAIC revenue.

I commend the Bill to the house.

 Richard RIORDAN (Polwarth) (20:35): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Wednesday 12 November.