Thursday, 13 November 2025

 Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (15:00): I rise today to talk on the Planning Amendment (Better Decisions Made Faster) Bill 2025. As we have received this bill and worked our way through it, there are some things in there which do help with our housing progression and building. We all know as we stand in this space – it does not matter what side of the house that we are on – that we do need more housing and more access for our constituents to be able to afford housing. What we do have concerns with in the bill are obviously the constant hold-ups and red tape in all manner of understanding. The member for Narracan spoke very well before when he stood up, and of course he is fully immersed in the building side of his former job. Being myself a former tradie, it does make some difficult decisions that we feel do stymie that charge towards actually unlocking the government’s move to build so many houses right across regional Victoria and right across metropolitan Melbourne.

One of the issues that I raise and I have raised before is that down in the Latrobe Valley, like everyone else around the state, we are looking for ways to build more cheap, affordable housing. We need to make sure that we are hitting targets. We have a parcel of land which has been 10 years in the making that is burdened with what we have down there: coal overlays. Obviously we have the power stations in and around the Latrobe Valley, and they have coal overlays, and rightly so in some areas. But we have coal overlays that are stymieing development. In one particular development down in the Traralgon East section of our town we have 2000 shovel-ready allotments that can be opened up for housing to be built. These are not reliant on funding by the government; these are particular individuals that have done their due diligence and homework and gone through the entire process of opening up this development. But the one thing that constantly holds them back is these coal overlays. We know that around the power stations we need to make sure that we do have these coal overlays, so we are not asking for all the coal overlays to be removed, we just need a proactive thought process.

I would even invite the Minister for Planning to come down. The Minister for the State Electricity Commission has been down and around in the area before, and I have spoken with her about the coal overlays and the impact that they are having. But I would encourage the Minister for Planning to actually come down and see firsthand just how far away this development is from the coalmine. The government are talking all the time about being constantly on the lookout to deliver our Big Housing Build, as they articulate so often in here. This is a 2000-house development which is going to be staged over the next decade, and they cannot even put a shovel in the ground and turn it over. I know that there are a lot of ministers on the other side that love getting a shovel in their hand and turning a sod of dirt over, so the minister can come down and take credit for removing this section of the coal overlay and opening up 2000 houses for regional Victoria.

It seems to be a no-brainer in most people’s thought process, and I think it fits in perfectly with the government trying to make more houses available through their Big Housing Build – 2000 houses, regional Victoria, ticking all the jobs, but it is just this one issue of coal overlay. So I would love the minister to come down and do that.

Other coal overlays in and around the Latrobe Valley – I speak with our local council down there and they have got ideas for manufacturing precincts and so forth. There are certain parcels of land with coal overlays that have been there for over 40 years, and we know that the government and the people of Victoria realise that the power stations are shutting down, so we do not need to expand the mines. The actual mines are shutting, so we really do not need these coal overlays being detrimental and stopping the growth of the Latrobe Valley. As I said, as we move through to do this Big Housing Build, we need to think outside the square a little bit about what is shovel-ready and what are things that are in place in regional Victoria that are going to make a difference. It is going to open up jobs, because we are going to build 2000 houses. Plans have been done. The council have gone as far as to do their own geothermal work and the technical work of drilling holes in the ground and actually seeing the stability of that land. They have actually gone out on their own and done that because they are hitting roadblocks with the Labor government to be able to progress anywhere. The government does not even really need to come in and do that work to see what the ground is like, because it is already being done by the local council. They can see the need for it. We are trying to grow our region, trying to make sure that are we providing certainty with new housing and new manufacturing in the Latrobe Valley. We need to have government come down and actually look firsthand, not see a map and try and make decisions on that side of things – actually physically come down and stand in the paddock and look at the vision that people had 10 years ago because they knew, the developers knew, that regional housing was an issue.

It will not only be my area in the Latrobe Valley; they will be opening up blocks of land right around regional Victoria. There are developers and other members in here – I am sure every single person in the chamber that is out in the regions – with other stories that may not be coal overlays that are holding up development, but it will be something small and minute. They would have ticked every single box to be able to move forward with a development, but there will be something small that just sits there and stops it from progressing forward. I think the minister should be proactive and come out and visit the regions and see and talk to the locals about not building these houses, not opening up for our younger generation to be able to build new and affordable housing and not being able to make sure that we are housing people that need our help as a government, those people that are fleeing domestic violence. We need to make sure we have housing stock online.

Some of our community housing that we do have down in the Latrobe Valley has gone backwards in the last 10 years. As we always constantly talk about the Big Housing Build and having social and affordable housing in our stock, not only in the Latrobe Valley but also down through East Gippsland – I clarify this with East Gippsland and the Latrobe Valley being number one and number two for domestic violence, unfortunately, and I think, Acting Speaker O’Keeffe, your electorate is probably number four, high up there – we need to make sure that we have the access to affordable social housing so that we can make sure that our people are safe.

So please, minister, come down, have a look at these coal overlays – it is a stroke of a pen; it will not cost you anything. I am sure your driver will bring you down. I will even buy the minister a coffee. But come down, stand on the site, see what we are about, and let us get on with building some houses for regional Victoria.

 Lauren KATHAGE (Yan Yean) (15:10): I am so glad that we are in the house to debate this bill, because this gives those opposite a chance to come clean. This is the chance now for those opposite to come clean on their plans to cut infrastructure for growth areas. This is the time, and I would love to see the member for Sandringham –

Emma Kealy: On a point of order, Speaker, the member has strayed past the bill and is using it as an opportunity to attack. I ask you to bring her back to the bill in front of us.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Kim O’Keeffe): If you could come back to the bill, please.

Lauren KATHAGE: I am very happy to go into great detail and amazing emphasis so that the member opposite will understand why this is directly relevant to the bill, because those opposite seem to have a problem with the growth area infrastructure contributions, and in fact they have been very clear about that in this very chamber. This is the payment that is made by developers to pay for important transport and liveability infrastructure in our communities. We have recently seen funding from this to pay for our new 524 bus in Donnybrook, for example, and this bus means that people are able to access public transport to the shops, get to school and basically have improved liveability in our growth areas. Now, you would think it would be a good thing for developers to contribute to the infrastructure of the communities from which they benefit; however, we have seen from, for example, the member for Sandringham an absolute wringing of hands for developers. He is worried about those developers. He is worried – he does not want them to have to contribute so much to what he calls a crippling tax. A crippling tax is how he describes the responsibility – and I will call it the moral responsibility – of developers to contribute to infrastructure in our growth areas. In fact the member for Sandringham has stood in this place and talked about the work it would take to unpick. He spoke about unpicking this if they were ever in government, and that is why I am saying that this bill, which speaks directly to growth area infrastructure contributions, is an opportunity for those opposite to stand here, to come into the chamber and tell us that they do not plan any reductions to the growth area infrastructure contribution and that they do not plan to reduce what developers contribute to our community. Building infrastructure for our communities is what we are about, and our communities certainly need it.

The member for Bulleen might have a bit of insight into that, because I spoke previously about Donnybrook. The name Donnybrook brings up bucolic scenes in your mind, and in fact it was a farm; they were farms. but with the stroke of a pen the member for Bulleen turned what were farms into housing estates, and he has been here in this chamber crowing about that. ‘I’m the king of housing,’ he told us. ‘I am the king of housing.’ Well, through that change he was certainly kingly, because he definitely made some people very, very rich with those changes that he made. He made people very rich, but in that signing of the documents to create housing did he lift his finger or lift his pen to contribute anything towards infrastructure? No, nothing – nothing. The only thing that went into that community were the developers from those opposite – no contributions. So that is why this government has been working hard to deliver the infrastructure for those estates and those communities that the member for Bulleen created when he was the minister for planning.

For example, we have got the Donnybrook Road stage 1 upgrade, which is all about improving the flow on and off the Hume – we are partnering with the federal government on that – and we are busy doing the work to catch up to the changes that were made by the member for Bulleen when he was the Minister for Planning. But you know what, they are at it again, and I am not sure if they realise that we know that we have got Liberal Party members –

Emma Kealy: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the speaker is inappropriately using her time just to slag off our side of politics. I just ask her to pay respect to the people who actually want to see some improvements to planning across the state and come back to the legislation.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Kim O’Keeffe): I will ask the member to come back.

Nathan Lambert: On the point of order raised by the member for Lowan, Acting Speaker, part 9 of the bill goes directly to infrastructure contributions. The entire point of this house is to debate different approaches to bills, and the member is being entirely relevant in her contribution.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Kim O’Keeffe): The member was actually not being respectful to the member that she was referring to, so I do uphold the point of order and ask the member to come back to the bill.

Lauren KATHAGE: I am very willing to give due respect to the member for Bulleen, as he calls himself the king of housing. For the king of housing, we know that discussions are already happening in my community. We have got beautiful agricultural areas, we have got green wedge and we have got Liberal Party members going around to landowners saying, ‘Hey, your land is probably worth a bit if the planning rules are changed.’ That is what we have in my community.

Emma Kealy: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the speaker must be factual in her contribution. She has no evidence of that and is speaking for members on this side of the chamber. We all have opportunities to provide our own contributions on this legislation. I ask her to go back to expressing her own views and putting them on the parliamentary record.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Kim O’Keeffe): I ask the member to come back to the bill.

Lauren KATHAGE: I am very happy to show the member the printed invitation after the debate.

On their side, developers; on our side, communities. We are about helping communities get the infrastructure they need after those opposite have helped developers get the profit that they want, and that is the difference between those opposite and us. We are on the side of communities. We are introducing, through this bill, for example, changes to the superlots provision, which is going to help with bringing on infrastructure faster for our communities. At the moment there can be a barrier to developers getting going with their developments, which can mean that we have, for example, an issue like we do in Donnybrook of a footpath that comes and goes based on which developers have started their work. This superlot provision means that developers will be able to get going sooner with the first stage, which means that communities will not miss out on that linking infrastructure. This is a sensible and clever improvement by our Minister for Planning, and I welcome it very much in this bill.

We also have an understanding of the types of infrastructure that our communities need, and that is why this bill looks at making sure that the principal base and linking infrastructure that communities need, even if it is not located right at their doorstep, to get from their doorstep to work is available and is funded, with developers giving their fair share.

I am not going to take a backward step, because I am not here to defend developers. I am not here to promote the interests of developers. That is not my role. I am here to represent the people of my communities. That is why I am working hard to make sure that this bill goes through the house, because last week when I was visiting a school I saw that there was no road out the front of the school. The developer had not seen fit to put a road there because there is no housing there yet. This is the mindset that we are facing. We will never be on the side of developers against our communities. We will always fight for our communities and push councils to make sure that developers are delivering what they promised and what they committed to for our communities, that what they put in their glossy brochures, which make them money, is made in reality and that what they use to sell their lots to my community happens lots, not just in a fantasy world.

We want developers to do what they promise for our communities, and I am not taking a backward step on that. I commend this bill to the house.

 Rachel WESTAWAY (Prahran) (15:20): I rise to oppose this bill, and not because I oppose better planning outcomes but because this legislation fundamentally fails to support the communities it is meant to serve. It is a bill that bypasses good governance, in my view, and our democratic rights. It is a bill that is setting us up for unwanted surprises with no ability to challenge them. The title promises ‘decisions made faster’. What it delivers in your neighbourhood is the inability to object to the development next door, this Parliament unable to oversight bad planning decisions and communities locked out of choices – choices in their own communities. This bill arrives at a moment when the Allan government is advancing activity centre proposals for Windsor, Hawksburn, Prahran, Toorak and South Yarra stations. These are already amongst the most densely populated precincts in our state. Just walk through these neighbourhoods on any given morning and you will see the strain the existing infrastructure already bears: primary schools under pressure, trams and trains absolutely packed, childcare centres with waiting lists. Yet the government now seeks to strip away parliamentary oversight, diminish council input and remove notification rights for neighbours, all while fundamentally changing how these communities will grow. At the very moment that we need stronger community engagement in planning decisions that will transform inner Melbourne, this bill pulls the community further from the table. My deepest concern is the bill divorces planning entirely from the infrastructure our growing communities desperately need. There is no requirement that new development be matched with schools and no requirement that it be matched with transport, open space or even early childhood education. The bill simply assumes that dwellings can be approved faster if we stop worrying about whether there is a place for children to learn, spaces for families to gather or services to support them.

Let me give you a case study from my own electorate that crystallises everything that is wrong with this approach. The Windsor Community Children’s Centre faces closure. Eighty local families will lose access to early education in a neighbourhood where demand already far exceeds supply, and 30 staff will be impacted. This is not a small community facility on the margins, this is a vital service in one of the proposed activity centre zones. It is already experiencing acute childcare shortages today, but it is an area where the government is planning thousands of new dwellings. The need for childcare at these activity centre sites will not diminish, it will multiply exponentially as development proceeds. These families have been advocating for months. They have written letters, they have attended meetings and they have made submissions. The Minister for Education has the power to intervene. As I have sat in this place, I have been stunned at the amount of times I have heard members from the opposite side of the chamber yell out, ‘Well, what would you do?’ I will tell you what the government should do: the Minister for Planning should ensure that any activity centre rezoning includes mandatory childcare requirements. Instead we have absolute silence and inaction – a government sitting on its hands while a vital community service disappears. And here is the brutal irony. This is happening at precisely the moment when planning reforms promise thousands more dwellings in Windsor, with no plan for the children who will live in them.

Under this bill a developer could lodge a low-impact planning application for a multistorey development and receive streamlined approval within guaranteed timeframes, with neighbours potentially totally unaware until construction began. Just imagine if you woke up one morning to find it all going on right next door to you with very little prior knowledge. Yet there is not a single provision for that development to contribute to the childcare, schools and open spaces those residents will need. You cannot build homes faster by ignoring the infrastructure families need. That is not progress. That is not even efficient planning.

This is a planning system divorced from reality and divorced from the people that it is really meant to serve.

The bill introduces scaling systems for both planning permits and amendments, with mandated timelines. It does sound sensible in principle, but the definition remains unclear, the criteria underdeveloped and the regulations promised for the next two years. We are being asked to consider and vote on this framework without knowing which developments will qualify for which stream, which projects will bypass community consultation and which neighbours will wake to find construction next door or across the road without having been notified.

Then there is the question of parliamentary oversight. The bill removes Parliament’s right to overturn a planning amendment without approval from the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, a government-controlled body. Planning decisions that will shape the character of our suburbs for generations will no longer receive full parliamentary scrutiny unless the government permits it. This is not a technical reform; this is a fundamental shift in democratic accountability. And surprise, surprise, it is being rushed through without adequate consultation. The bill was released on the Melbourne Cup long weekend. Councils, industry groups and community organisations were given days to respond to legislation that rewrites the entire planning system. That is not consultation; this is window-dressing.

The bill also expands how growth areas infrastructure contributions can be used, allowing funds raised in one area to be spent outside that area, and it will now enable these funds to be used to cover administrative costs. What that means is that developer contributions can fund government administration rather than the roads, parks and community facilities residents were promised. Can I say that again – developer contributions can be directed to fund government administration. That is pretty alarming. I do not trust this government with their track record of financial mismanagement, and nor should the good people of Victoria.

My community is not opposed to growth. I am not opposed to growth. I am not opposed to housing. We welcome new residents, new businesses and new energy. Prahran has always been a place of change, of diversity and of opportunity. It is beautiful. It has got a mixture of heritage buildings, fabulous retail and contemporary new builds. I do not want to see the make-up of our area and the rights of my constituents quashed. Growth without infrastructure is not progress; it is a recipe for overcrowded schools, strained transport networks, disappearing open space and waiting lists for childcare that stretch for years. Prahran deserves planning reform that delivers infrastructure in line with proposed growth, not as an afterthought; community engagement strengthened and not diminished; parliamentary oversight maintained and not abolished; and action on existing deficits like the Windsor childcare centre – before we approve thousands more homes.

The government says this bill addresses Victoria’s housing crisis – but Victoria does not have a planning crisis. We have an affordability crisis. We have a construction crisis. We have an infrastructure crisis. This bill does nothing to address affordability, nothing to accelerate construction and nothing to ensure infrastructure keeps up with growth. What it does do is shift blame onto communities, onto councils and onto existing residents for crises created by policy failure at a state level. And now we are being asked to shut up and put up. This is a moment that will decide what will be built in your neighbourhood. My residents have chosen Prahran because of what it looks like and what it offers. They invested in their homes. They bought or rented based on their local surroundings. This bill will ruin our neighbourhoods. The seat of Prahran will oppose this bill – not because we oppose better planning but because we demand planning that is truly better, more accountable, more community focused and more connected to the infrastructure that makes great neighbourhoods possible.

You cannot close a childcare centre with one hand and approve thousands of new homes with the other and then call it progress, you cannot strip communities of their voice and then call it efficiency and you cannot remove parliamentary oversight and call it reform. I urge the government to withdraw this bill and return with legislation that genuinely serves Victorian communities, return with a bill that puts infrastructure in line with growth, return with a bill that strengthens community engagement rather than diminishing it and return with a bill that actually addresses these issues that I have raised today.

Return with a bill that strengthens community engagement rather than diminishing it. Return with a bill that actually addresses these issues that I have raised today. Our communities deserve better, Prahran deserves better, and I will not support legislation that promises speed but delivers only the erosion of democratic accountability and the abandonment of the infrastructure that our growing communities depend on.

 Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (15:30): We have heard from the Liberals and Nationals that they are opposed to housing. To gen Z and millennials: ‘Sorry, we’re too busy opposing housing and building the houses that our communities need.’ That is what we have heard time and time again from speeches. We have heard from those opposite that there is not enough housing, but there is not one solution that the Liberals and Nationals have brought to this Parliament, or brought to this discussion ever, other than opposing. That is the legacy that we see each and every time. It is why gen Zs and millennials have had enough of the Liberals and Nationals. We have seen this time and time again as they walk away from action on climate change and they walk away from building more homes for more Victorians.

Those opposite are the biggest NIMBYs, blocking the progress and impact that we need for our communities. Where are these houses going to come from if we do not have modern adaptive planning schemes that enable us to build the homes of tomorrow? I was at an outer suburban councils discussion with the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Narre Warren South at the City of Casey only a few months ago – there were a few other legends along there as well from the south-east – and what did we hear? The Leader of the Opposition talked about being on the side of developers at that time and opening up more growth in the growth corridor. Well, hello: 70 per cent of that has been the number that has gone in. The message to gen Zs and millennials living anywhere near the suburbs they grew up in, like Greater Dandenong and the City of Kingston, is: you are priced out. It is someone else’s problem. You do not deserve to have a house. Basically ‘You don’t deserve to have a roof over your head’ is the message and narration, because they have not come up with any alternative to the activity centre plans that have been put forward.

We see time and time again former leaders of the opposition on the back of utes, the former Minister for Planning and now –he might still be – the Shadow Attorney-General marching down the street saying Bayside should have no houses. For anyone under the age of 40, what is their story and their narration? What is their aspiration and their journey? How do we ensure that those that grew up in the suburbs and municipalities that they love and live in now have the option to have a house?

The message to gen Zs and millennials here is: we want you priced into the housing market. We do not want you priced out. Labor backs more housing to support gen Zs and millennials, not like the Liberals and Nationals, who say, ‘You need to work 50 times harder and sacrifice so much more and keep paying rent for the next 50 years before you get anywhere near it.’ That is the message loud and clear from the opposition’s approach to this bill. The member for Prahan literally just said, ‘Get rid of the bill. Don’t modernise the planning scheme. Don’t build more homes. Don’t have a fast track and streamlining through of planning services.’ We have seen this time and time again: on one side they say we should have more homes but then oppose every single measure to try to deliver more homes and more outcomes for Victorians. That just is not the policy and the approach that our communities expect. They expect solutions.

Those opposite can talk also about the infrastructure needs. We have we have opened more new schools than ever before in our state. We have seen a hundred new schools coming through under the leadership of the Minister for Education and Deputy Premier. When we came to government, I do not know if people remember how many schools there were: zero. Zero was the number of schools that we had to open when we came to government in 2014. How many new rail projects and upgrades were delivered during that time – they talk about needing more infrastructure to support the needs of communities that are growing? Zero. What did they give our communities? They put stickers down at Southern Cross for an airport rail that does not exist. The biggest infrastructure contribution was to the printing company that got the contract to print about 50 stickers that confused passengers coming out of Southern Cross station trying to look for airport rail and ended up back at the Warrnambool line wondering where the airport rail was. That was the infrastructure and planning and thinking and contribution that went into infrastructure planning.

We have a massive build agenda with the Building Blocks early childhood reforms that we are seeing right now. We have seen kinders modernised and increased in size – an aspiration that we have never seen in Victoria – and an early childhood sector that has been supported with capital and funding to give all the youngest Victorians hopes and aspirations for their future and to their parents and grandparents and guardians, who want to see the very best future for them.

We have had a huge build agenda that complements our work and a huge investment in healthcare and modernisation of our hospitals, at record levels – billions of dollars that have gone in. So to cheapen this to ‘Oh, we won’t have the infrastructure for some of this housing growth and these targets’ – well, guess what, there are people in Victoria now that are in high school and uni wondering where their aspiration lies in this Victorian Parliament. When they hear messages from some in this Parliament that are opposed to more housing, they realise that their aspirations are going to be smothered, and it will make it harder and harder into the future. That is the inequity that was addressed in the Minister for Planning’s Plan for Victoria, because we have had too many municipalities that have taken high levels of growth. I think of the growth corridors that I grew up in: Casey and Cardinia, out through Melton and through Wyndham, through Hume, and some of the Surf Coast council areas. Armstrong Creek is one of the fastest growing as well. When you see that – and 70 per cent has been in interface council areas and growth corridors – we need to find a better way to do things. We have seen success in a number of communities where we are able to leverage existing transport infrastructure, arterials, on buses, on trains and on tram routes and can deliver greater outcomes and affordable housing and tap into that aspiration that makes us truly Victorian.

That is the Plan for Victoria strategy. That has the activity centres that have been put forward, which have been vehemently opposed by those opposite. Once again, it is 53 weeks until we face the Victorian people, and I wonder what the message is. Is it to keep pushing people out to the growth corridors – just keep pushing people out further? Those opposite are opposed to working from home as well, which takes the pressure off infrastructure in our communities. It allows people to have that balance in their community, to be closer to the people that they love and support and to have that balance. It is a very much a gendered policy, where we support women returning to the workforce with more flexible outcomes. I absolutely love the community I grew up in in Berwick and Beaconsfield, but it can be a long trundle on that Monash Freeway. It can be a hard slog on the train after five days of work. Well, guess what, we can break it up and balance it. If you can work from home, we will legislate that and protect those two days.

That is an infrastructure argument; that is a planning outcome. Those opposite are opposed to that. So you would have even more infrastructure pressure coming in, more pressure on our services and more pressure on our transport and road networks. Where are the solutions? I do not know, Acting Speaker O’Keeffe, you might be able to give me a steer here, because it is a riddle that I cannot solve, and I was not the best at riddles in the day. Those opposite claim that they support more housing, but they oppose our activity centres. They support more Victorians in work but then oppose work from home. Is that right? They oppose the flexibility and the impact that will have. They have opposed all major infrastructure projects that we have put forward. Remember, they shelved Metro Tunnel, a key infrastructure project that opens up next month, in December. They opposed the Suburban Rail Loop, which is enhancing housing and access to education, to housing and to work precincts.

So what is the solution, then, for millennials and gen Zs, who are very tech savvy and who are looking at their aspirations going further and further away in a cost-of-living challenging environment and finding housing affordability more of a struggle? We have seen support from the federal government to get first home buyers in and support them with deposits. We have teamed up with the Albanese government to give more support to people to find housing as well. Yet we see here again the blockers, the naysayers and the NIMBYs telling gen Zs and millennials that there is no plan for them in the future.

The choice is clear on this bill. I would caution the Leader of the Opposition about being so opposed to building more houses for gen Zs and millennials. We have a collective purpose here that should be truly Victorian – not Liberals first, not Liberals first in your council areas, but Victorians first. What are the housing outcomes and aspirations to really give people? I mean, where are the kids in City of Kingston going to live? The median price has gone up. We need more and more housing. What is the story for the kids going through Mordialloc and Parkdale secondary colleges now? For the kids who are going up the road to Monash or down the road to TAFE in Frankston who want to be close to their families in Greater Dandenong and Kingston, what is their option right now? Well, we have got a plan to price them in. We have got a plan to build the rail connections, like the Suburban Rail Loop, and say, ‘Guess what, you can be up the road, jump on the Mordi freeway, jump on the Frankston train line and go see your mum and dad. Go connect with your community and raise a family in our patch.’

We are not going to tell you you have to go and get out of our community. That is the message from those opposite: ‘You can’t be any more in our community. You’ve got to go out and come back in, because that’s how it’s done.’ Well, that is not the message of this Allan Labor government that is going to build the houses of tomorrow and support Victorians and the aspirations of our gen Zs and millennials, who will be the engine room of our nation’s economy going forward.

 Will FOWLES (Ringwood) (15:40): It is my very great pleasure to rise to make a contribution on this planning bill. It is a topic very close to my heart. I have got significant experience in this industry, and I have heaps to say. There is no way it can be contained to 10 minutes, but I did want to hit on a few of the areas contained within this bill, because they are important not just for my community but for the future of housing in the state of Victoria. There are a great many things that are contemplated in this bill. A number of those reforms, in fact the overwhelming majority of those reforms, I do not just support, I strongly support. More than that, I argued for them inside government. The former Minister for Planning Minister Wynne and I had many, many conversations about a number of the things that we are finally seeing produced in this bill, and I commend the Minister for Planning for having produced such a comprehensive package of reforms.

Necessarily, congratulatory speeches do not add much to the public debate, and I will be focusing my contribution today on a couple of things I think there is opportunity to revisit down the line and maybe do just a bit better. Before I do that though, I do want to pick up on the mention of the disallowance trigger. The special disallowance rule for planning matters has been shamelessly exploited for political purposes by the LNP and the Greens in the other place over the life of this government, and they did it most particularly in relation to Markham estate in my former electorate of Burwood. That was done purely for political reasons. It had nothing to do with the merits of the project. We now have the Markham estate, we have that important bit of public housing, but it was shamelessly exploited. I think it is terrific that we have now normalised the way in which disallowance motions are treated. If this bill is passed, particularly upstairs, there will be a normalisation of the way in which those matters are dealt with.

But I do want to speak today about the elephant in the room, the great missed opportunity with this planning reform bill, and that relates to the privatisation of building surveyors. I will indulge, if I can, in a little bit of education for the chamber. The privatisation of municipal surveyors commenced under the Kennett government in 1993, and it became law in 1994. Like many of the Kennett government’s legacies, it is bloody awful. This was just a terrible decision then, and – no disrespect to all the governments that have been and gone since, Labor and Liberal – no-one has taken it on and still no-one is taking it on. There is a baked-in conflict of interest in town planning in Victoria, because the job of the building surveyor is not to go, ‘This is lovely. I love the colour scheme you’ve picked, and isn’t this a nice apartment, I’d love to live here.’ The job of the building surveyor is to assess compliance with the planning permit and the code. That is their job. Their job, ultimately, when you boil it down, is to say no to things if things have not been done properly.

Cast our minds back: the previous government, the Andrews government, had to deal with an enormous problem in relation to cladding. That problem was derived in no small part from corrupt building surveyors signing off on buildings that were not built to code, that were not built in line with the regs. An entire and very expensive set of infrastructure and compensation measures were put in place to address the cladding problems right across the state because of the failures of building surveyors – building surveyors who are by design structurally on the payroll of the people they are being asked to say no to. It is a baked-in conflict of interest that can only be untangled by the reintroduction of municipal surveyors or by creating a disconnect between those private building surveyors and their clients – that is, the client builder or developer ought pay their money for the building survey to be done but have no say whatsoever in which building surveyor is retained and have no ability to direct that building surveyor in any way; they must only cooperate with the building surveyor.

I presume the Kennett government’s motivation was largely about privatisation and efficiencies in the sector and all of that, and probably there were some hopeless municipal surveyors getting around. But, oh, my Lord, there are some hopeless building surveyors getting around now. The reality is that until you break the nexus between the developer and the surveyor, you will continue to have corrupt surveyors signing off on buildings that are not built to code.

Just metres from my office is an apartment building of some 30 units. So bad is the construction of this building that the developer retains ownership of 17 of the 30 apartments because he has not been able to sell them, because the thing leaks like a sieve. They have had water ingress in the basement and they have had water ingress through all the apartments, and it all comes about because a corrupt building surveyor on the payroll of a corrupt developer signed off on a building that is not fit for purpose. This is a building that will now probably have an economic life in the order of 10 to 15 years. The rust is in the pylons, the rust is in the very structural foundation of the buildings because of the issues with a building surveyor corruptly signing off on a building that is simply not built to code.

Whether it is from the cladding disaster that has cost Victorian taxpayers millions and millions of dollars or whether it is from this spray of apartment buildings now right around our city that are simply not fit for purpose, not built for code, I would hazard a guess that every metropolitan MP in this place has had someone come to them and say, ‘I live in a new apartment building. The basement leaks. We’ve got a problem.’ I see the member for Preston nodding. I would guess almost every metropolitan MP in this this place – I am seeing some more nodding over here – has had that experience, and they have had it because building surveyors are paid by the very people they have to say no to. It does not work. It is a failed system, a failed Kennett policy and a policy that, regrettably, has been allowed to survive all through the Bracks government, the Brumby government, the Baillieu government, the Napthine government, the Andrews government and now, sadly, the Allan government. No-one has taken on this fundamental flaw in our planning system, and until such time as we get building surveyors that will act in the in the public interest – a public interest that they are duty-bound to uphold, mind you – we need to make that economic disconnect between them and their developer or builder clients because the conflict is just so obvious and so substantial as to render much of their work meaningless.

At the end of the day, it is the government who pays the bill. Cladding – the government has paid the bill. For all of these trash apartment buildings that are not built fit to purpose the government will end up paying the bill, because that is what happens when you have a systemic problem. This is not a one-off; there is a systemic problem with building surveyors in the same way that there was a systemic problem with flammable cladding, and that is the issue. That is the issue on which I think I would provide the strongest of encouragement to the planning minister – who I commend on these reforms – to take on that big one. It will not be easy, but there is a fair bit of courage in this bit of legislation, and I am always all for courageous legislating.

I do want to make a couple of comments about rezoning. I dealt with a number of rezoning matters in my previous life, and the process was a complete absurdity. Council needed to first agree that they wanted to explore it, then it would go off to a planning panel and then the panel had to make a decision. Then it came back to council, and council, only then, after it had been to the planning panel, would determine whether they would even put it up to the minister for signature or for consideration. Then the minister might go off and get her or his own advice – the process was just diabolically bad. The process laid out in this bill is much, much better. Not perfect – heaps better. Make no mistake, when you have got buildings – I can think of one example in Abbotsford – where a whole street is zoned mixed use but for legacy reasons one of the sites is zoned commercial and it needs to be zoned mixed use, the process takes four years before you actually get the development that that site needs. It is absolute trash, nonsense. This improves it dramatically, and that is a very, very good thing.

In relation to the growth areas infrastructure contribution, I do want to say that it is very, very sensible to broaden the applicability of those GAIC funds. What we do not want to see is a loss of hypothecation. It is so, so important that the funds that are derived from those developments in those communities are used for the for the benefit of those communities. I absolutely accept the premise that extending a railway line might fall out of the LGA and that still benefits that community – absolutely it does, of course it does. But what I would not want to see is going down the slippery slope of severing the hypothecation of the GAIC from the communities that it is in fact meant to serve, because at the end of the day – and the economists will debate this until they are blue in the face – it is the home owners who are contributing to that GAIC because it is factored in at the cost base for the developers. So those home owners deserve to have that money for the GAIC, that general infrastructure contribution – I have forgotten what the A stands for; the member for Preston might assist me – the infrastructure contribution fee spent for the benefit of that community.

That is absolutely and critically important.

I have spent a lot of time speaking about housing in this place; I have barely had a chance to get to it in this speech. I think it is a good bill, and I encourage the government to go better and harder in delivering all of the housing supply that Victoria so desperately needs.

 Luba GRIGOROVITCH (Kororoit) (15:50): To pick up on the member for Ringwood, the GAIC, the growth areas infrastructure contribution, is something that I am very familiar with in my neck of the woods. The area that I represent is Kororoit; we are Deer Park through to the cusp of Melton. Melton, one of the city councils also covering the area, is the fastest growing LGA in the country. We are currently having 72 babies per week and cannot keep up with demand, so it is an absolutely huge area for us and a place where GAIC is very much important to my residents and to making sure that we are the first ones to put our hand up for any funding that is available. I have got to say Melton City Council are fantastic at actually partnering with the state government and making sure that they deliver on the partnership that has been put forward and the money that is coming from the state government. So GAIC is something that I too am very proud of, and I am very glad that we are able to tap into that in that part of my electorate.

As Hansard will show, this is not the first time that I have risen to speak in this place about planning systems in Victoria, and I am sure that it absolutely will not be the last. Infrastructure is absolutely needed, and there has been a lot of red tape. I really want to commend Minister Kilkenny for all of the work that she has done in this space to make sure that we can get these planning amendments through. Better decisions made faster: that is what this bill is all about. Planning is not only about paperwork and permits; rather it is about people and where they live and where they work. It speaks to the kind of future that we are building for generations to come.

As members of this Parliament know only too well, our planning system has for too long been a source of frustration for councils, for communities and for industry alike. It is complex and at times it is very much outdated, and this bill is planning to clean that up. That is why I rise today in strong support of the Planning Amendment (Better Decisions Made Faster) Bill 2025. It seeks to deliver the next stage in this government’s commitment to making Victoria’s planning system faster, fairer and of course more responsive for our growing state. We are a very attractive state and a state that many people want to be part of, and that is evident in our increasing population. Through the housing statement and Plan for Victoria this government has made it clear that we are using every policy lever available to increase the supply of land, to make redevelopment opportunities available and of course to deliver more homes where they are needed the most – close to amenities, close to where people work, close to where people can catch a train and go to shops et cetera. Housing targets have been set for every local government area. They are ambitious – that is the truth of it – but they are fair. Those targets have now been incorporated into planning schemes across the state through amendments to the Victorian planning provisions. By providing legislative foundations for these commitments, we are equipped with the necessary tools to deliver housing both efficiently and of course transparently.

Right now it takes far too long to make the planning changes that allow homes and jobs to be delivered. On average over the last five years it has taken around 433 business days, which is almost two years, just to get a planning scheme amendment to move from initial authorisation over to final approval. For some people that is just far too long. This is an average of two years to rezone land and unlock housing and development. And this is only a tentative average; some projects take even longer. Every member sitting in this chamber would be able to tell a story about a reform or a project of theirs that has been stuck in the system for years. I know I have got plenty in my neck of the woods, and many members often tell me about it. Not only do these delays hurt the developers, they hurt the communities. By driving up housing costs they stall investments, and by stalling investments families are denied the opportunity to build a home in the community which they love and where they want to live – often close to family, often close to a school that they want to send their children to, often close to friends. This bill recognises that the delay is not neutral and the delay has consequences.

At the heart of this bill is a new and proportionate approach for the assessment of planning scheme amendments.

This helps recognise that not all amendments carry the same level of risk, of complexity or of impact. To ensure that the processes are proportionate to the proposal, the bill introduces three new pathways. Firstly, for simple or low-impact changes, a streamlined pathway will be used. This permits for more targeted consultation, so ultimately for faster decision-making. For moderate-impact proposals, there will be a standard pathway which balances both community input and of course efficiency. Finally, for more complex high-impact amendments, a more comprehensive pathway will be implemented. This ensures the inclusion of thorough public engagement as well as rigorous scrutiny.

Right now too many low-impact amendments are forced through a one-size-fits-all process, a process that is designed for major projects, and that is what we are trying to fix up. We do not call this good regulation. We call this inefficiency. The new pathways established by this bill ensure that the process fits the project, saving time and costs and ensuring that decisions are each made on merit rather than on how long someone can wait, and by freeing up resources currently tied up in low-risk cases, councils and the department can focus their expertise on the projects that matter most, the complex proposals that need the greatest scrutiny.

It should be noted that local governments play a vital role in Victoria’s planning system, and this bill aims for nothing more than to strengthen it. By providing clearer statutory frameworks, performance expectations and procedural guidance, councils will have the tools that they need to make timely, consistent and high-quality decisions. It gives councils the confidence to focus their time and deliver on what truly matters to their communities by giving them assurances that their voices are and will always be heard.

One of the most important features of this bill is its emphasis on transparency. For the first time, planning authorities will be required to publish information about amendment pathways and consultation outcomes and to make sure that performance metrics are met. That means that the public can see in real time how efficiently and effectively decisions are being made. Doing so helps to build trust, strengthen accountability and make sure that our planning system continues to serve the public interest. Planning reforms are not about choosing between growth and sustainability, they are about achieving both, and this is what this bill plans to achieve. In doing so, it supports the delivery of housing and infrastructure that not only meet today’s needs but will stand the test of time.

The bill delivers on key commitments in the government’s housing statement and Plan for Victoria, and those commitments include delivering 800,000 new homes over the next decade, ensuring housing growth is distributed fairly across all local government areas, supporting redevelopment and infill housing in established areas, and reducing red tape and unnecessary duplication in approvals. To achieve those targets the system needs to work efficiently, and this bill makes sure that it does. These reforms have been meticulously developed in consultation with councils, with industry and with community organisations. It responds directly to the concerns we have all heard from around the state. Peak bodies like the Master Builders Association of Victoria, the Housing Industry Association and the Urban Development Institute of Australia have all recognised this bill as a step in the right direction, a step that is both pragmatic and balanced, unlocking housing supply and investment across Victoria.

Some may ask whether faster decisions mean less scrutiny, and the answer is: absolutely not. These reforms maintain all existing safeguards for environmental, for heritage and for community consultation. They simply ensure that the process applied is proportionate to the risk and impact of the proposal. By striking the correct balance, we are able to enable timely decisions without having to compromise on transparency or quality. We are not cutting corners, we are cutting the red tape. A faster, a more predictable planning system is not only good policy, it is good economics. Planning delays cost money. They inflate housing prices, they deter investment and they limit job creation. By improving efficiencies, this bill will reduce costs for builders and developers. It will stimulate construction activity. It will support the broader economic recovery, which is exactly what we need. It will also help deliver housing, infrastructure and commercial developments that drive productivity and prosperity in every region of Victoria. By ensuring better coordination between agencies and levels of government, it will make sure that those benefits are shared sustainably. This bill recognises that good planning is good governance and that timely, balanced decisions are the foundation of livable and sustainable communities. I am well informed that the member for Brighton has a protest planned this week, and it is great to see him in here in the chamber. Again, it is one of those NIMBYs – not in my backyard. I commend this bill to the house.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.