Tuesday, 3 February 2026

The ACTING SPEAKER (John Mullahy): Before the house considers these amendments, I direct the attention of the house to amendments 1, 2, 5 and 6 made by the Legislative Council. Following examination, the Speaker is of the opinion that the amendments are a direct infringement of the privileges of the house, as they seek to impose a tax. Under the Constitution Act 1975, a new tax can only originate in the Assembly.

 Sonya KILKENNY (Carrum – Attorney-General, Minister for Planning) (19:50): I move:

That:

(1)   Amendments 3 to 4 and 7 to 35 be agreed to.

(2)   The Assembly refuses to entertain amendments 1, 2, 5 and 6 as they infringe the privileges of the Assembly.

(3)   The Assembly makes the following further amendments to the bill:

1. Clause 2, lines 2 and 3, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

“(1) This Part and section 11(2) and (3) come into operation on the day after the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.

(1A) The remaining provisions of this Act come into operation on a day or days to be proclaimed.”.

2. Clause 2, line 4, omit “of this Act” and insert “referred to in subsection (1A)”.

3. Clause 11, line 20, before “After” insert “(1)”.

4. Clause 11, after line 22, insert –

‘(2) After section 6(2)(j) of the Principal Act insert –

“(ja)   provide that any use or development of land is conditional on the provision of an affordable housing contribution;”.

(3) After section 6(2) of the Principal Act insert –

“(2AA)   For the purposes of section 6(2)(ja), an affordable housing contribution may be imposed as a condition on a permit if –

(a)   the relevant planning scheme identifies a need for affordable housing in the area; and

(b)   the application exceeds a threshold prescribed in the regulations that is expressed in terms of number of dwellings or value of development.

(2AAB)   An affordable housing contribution is to be in the prescribed form, including a monetary contribution in lieu of the provision of affordable housing.

(2AAC)   The regulations may prescribe the maximum affordable housing contributions that can be required under a planning scheme, including the application of differing maximums by reference to different zones and overlays.

(2AAD)   If a monetary contribution is made to acquit a requirement specified in a planning scheme for the provision of an affordable housing contribution, the monetary contribution must be collected by the responsible authority for the proposed use or development of land.

(2AAE)   Despite anything to the contrary in any other Act (other than the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006), any monetary contribution collected by a responsible authority under subsection (2AAD) must be spent on a project to construct new affordable housing in the municipal district in which it is collected.

(2AAF)   A responsible authority must keep proper and separate accounts and records of any monetary contribution collected under subsection (2AAD) and how that monetary contribution was spent on the provision of affordable housing in the municipal district.

(2AAG)   The accounts and records required under subsection (2AAF) must be kept in accordance with the Local Government Act 2020.”.’.

5. Clause 86, page 89, line 4, omit “(2)”.

I would like to make clear that the proposed amendments would, using the authority of the Legislative Assembly, give effect to what was in fact agreed to in the other place. The government supported these amendments in the other place and continues to support these amendments being made to the Planning and Environment Act 1987 through the bill. I note that these amendments were carried on the voices in the other place and were not opposed.

In summary, the amendment establishes a new head of power that enables planning schemes to make any use or development of land conditional on the provision of an affordable housing contribution. This is in line with action four of Plan for Victoria, which seeks to increase social and affordable housing across the state, including through legislative reform. The details, regulations and operation of this provision will be worked through with the planning regulation advisory committee, made up of stakeholders, councils and experts who deal with the planning system day to day.

I take this opportunity to thank all those members who contributed to the passage of this legislation, including members of the crossbench in the other place. I want to thank them for their thorough consideration of the bill and their willingness to work with government to ensure its passage and support much-needed planning reforms here in Victoria that will get more homes built right across Victoria.

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (19:55): I want to start by saying that the government gave an ironclad commitment that this set of amendments would not be dealt with tonight. I am appalled that the government would break their word on the first day of the –

Members interjecting.

James NEWBURY: No, no, no. Government members, when you give your word in terms of managing the chamber – there is a lot of management of this chamber which is dealt with in good faith, and for the government on this basic principle on day one of the year to break their word is appalling. It is absolutely appalling. The Leader of the House personally told me not 1 hour ago that these amendments would not be dealt with tonight. I offered to facilitate and said we could deal with them quickly because in my view we would not be calling a division, and we will not be calling a division. But in good faith I offered to assist with the management of those amendments. So how sneaky could you possibly be on a non-controversial matter?

Sonya Kilkenny: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, we have a very narrow debate here on the amendments, and I would ask you to ask the member to come back directly to the amendments that are before the house.

The ACTING SPEAKER (John Mullahy): I ask the member for Brighton to come back to the amendments.

James NEWBURY: I am speaking to the amendments, Acting Speaker. These amendments that I am holding are the amendments that the Leader of the House gave an ironclad commitment would not be dealt with tonight. Not an hour ago across the chamber the Leader of the House said to me these would not be dealt with. How can you possibly have any integrity when you cannot keep your word for an hour?

Sonya Kilkenny: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I reiterate my point of order that the scope of debate here is very narrow, and it is on the amendments before the house. I also note that the opposition did not oppose these amendments in the other place, and I would ask you to ask the member to come back to the very narrow debate on these amendments.

The ACTING SPEAKER (John Mullahy): I bring the member for Brighton back to the amendments.

James NEWBURY: I note that there are some three pages of amendments which have just been moved, not in the original form as they were passed through the Council. They were just passed to me in the chamber as they were circulated some 3 minutes before I got up to speak on them. How could I possibly be across cross-referencing these amendments? This is outrageous. This is spurious.

Steve Dimopoulos: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member is not talking about the amendments. If he wants to make a point of order about process, he should make a point of order about process. He is not talking about the amendments.

The ACTING SPEAKER (John Mullahy): I bring the member for Brighton back to the amendments.

James NEWBURY: I am speaking directly about the amendments, Acting Speaker. I directly referred to the amendments that were passed to me. How much more closely could I speak to the amendments than by talking about the substance of what has been handed to me? It is absolutely outrageous to be passed these amendments, which I have already noted the coalition will not be opposing. However, this is a set of amendments that there was an ironclad commitment would not be dealt with tonight and would be dealt with tomorrow. It says everything about integrity.

We have spoken about this bill in substance. This bill in substance makes substantive changes to the planning system, which of course these amendments go further to, which of course take away community rights and strip away community rights. What are communities? Communities have no say when it comes to the planning system under this government.

Sonya Kilkenny: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I reiterate my earlier point of order, which was to remind the member that we are on a very narrow debate here, and I ask that you bring the member back to the debate on the amendments before the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Brighton to continue on the amendments in front of the house.

James NEWBURY: We are speaking on the amendments, and that is, I think, the fourth interjection by the sneaky minister who broke the government’s word.

Members interjecting.

James NEWBURY: It is sneaky to break your word.

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Imputations on members are disorderly. The member for Brighton to continue on the amendments without imputations.

James NEWBURY: Just to provide you context – as you were not in the chamber, Deputy Speaker ‍– for the amendments themselves, what I was speaking to before you came back into the chair was the ironclad agreement that the government gave that these amendments would not be dealt with tonight and would be dealt with tomorrow, the ironclad commitment which has now been broken. I am refreshing you in terms of the debate that occurred just prior to you coming back into the chamber and my disappointment that, of course, on the first day –

Members interjecting.

James NEWBURY: They would not know how to lie straight in bed, these people. It is true.

Sonya Kilkenny: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, again I remind the member that the debate here is narrow and it is on the amendments. I also note that the Shadow Minister for Planning was advised that this amendment would be debated tonight.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Thank you, Attorney-General. The second point was not a point of order. The first point –

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Who is going to be first this year? The member for Brighton to continue, without imputations, on the amendment. Other matters are matters for debate and not a matter for the Chair to decide on content or if factual.

James NEWBURY: I have made my point. In relation to the amendments and the bill that they pertain to, I also made the point during the substantive debate when the bill was first in this place that this bill does strip away the rights of the community. It entirely strips away the rights of the community, and it centralises –

Steve Dimopoulos: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member for Brighton is being dishonest with himself, the community of Brighton and the rest of the Victorian community.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, Minister, and you know that frivolous points of order are annoying.

James NEWBURY: Deputy Speaker, I could not have said it better myself: annoying. That is the comment of the day. Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

Steve Dimopoulos: Better than being dishonest.

James NEWBURY: That is right. So you are annoying; they are dishonest. That is fair. I will cop that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Brighton, through the Chair. You are not innocent yourself.

James NEWBURY: Again, the coalition will not be opposing these amendments. I reiterate my disappointment in relation to these amendments.

 Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (20:04): It is ironclad, isn’t it? It is ironclad. I think this is really confusing. It is really interesting to be here this long and still have to explain how Parliament works. But the thing is, we cannot understand it for you. We can only explain it to you. For the Liberals, I note that this amendment was carried on the voices in the other place. It was not opposed by any other party. So why would we be so rambunctious right now? Why would we be so stirred up about this? Is it because maybe members opposite have gone home? What is the reason? But I also note I have it on good authority –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker: relevance.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member for Frankston to continue on the amendments.

Paul EDBROOKE: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, I will be guided by you. But I would like to say that I draw to the attention of the opposition that they might need to communicate with each other, because I have it on very, very good authority that there are some MPs that were advised of this at 4 ‍o’clock and they replied. They replied, and you will take back what you have been saying about people on this side of the house being liars.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the House an hour ago –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think I can pre-empt your point of order if you indulge the Chair. The member for Frankston on the amendments, or give someone else a chance.

Paul EDBROOKE: This amendment establishes a new head of power and enables planning schemes to make any use of land conditional on the provision of an affordable housing contribution. It is in line with action 4 of Plan for Victoria, which seeks to increase social and affordable housing across the state, including through legislative reform. It adds an additional tool to the toolbox that can be utilised to build more social and affordable homes, which I think we can all agree is an aim. That is particularly in settings where there is uplift or additional benefit or capacity being delivered in a given area. Mechanisms like this are already in place in Fishermans Bend and Arden, delivering affordable housing outcomes in new developments, and this government is certainly committed to building more homes, including more social and affordable homes across Victoria. This bill will make the planning process quicker and simpler, with clearer timeframes for developers, councils and the community. I want to thank the minister for bringing this amendment forward today, and I do just want to set the record straight that the opposition were told about this. They just do not get along with each other and they do not communicate.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance, it is total rubbish.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has concluded.

 Will FOWLES (Ringwood) (20:07): I cannot speak to the veracity of whether or not the opposition was informed about any of this. I certainly was not. My office certainly was not.

Steve Dimopoulos interjected.

Will FOWLES: I certainly was not. I cannot confirm or deny is all I said; I do not know whether they were or not. I am not a party to those discussions. On that basis, I move:

That the house now adjourns.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Unfortunately, member for Ringwood, you cannot contribute and then call that the house be adjourned. Member for Ringwood, for the benefit of the Chair, can you repeat the words that you said at the end of your contribution?

Will FOWLES: I move:

That the house now adjourns.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You cannot move that the house adjourns.

Will FOWLES: I move:

That the house be adjourned.

That is all I am trying to achieve. Perhaps I could have some guidance, Chair. The intention of what I am saying is that we move to adjourn and deal with this matter tomorrow – that the debate be adjourned.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You can, with the assistance of the house, move that the debate be adjourned.

Will FOWLES: Then I move:

That debate be adjourned.

Assembly divided on motion:

 Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (20:16): The only reason I am on my feet is because the member for Frankston decided to get onto his feet. Instead of just calling time on the discussion on the amendments from the Legislative Council regarding the Planning Amendment (Better Decisions Made Faster) Bill 2025 and it just going through to the keeper and us getting on with the adjournment debate and carrying on, the member for Frankston decided to stand up and contribute to the debate. I thought I would give it a whirl as well, so here I am.

At the start of an election year, at the start of this year, on the very first day of Parliament, an article of faith has been broken. There was no assurance given. There was no notice given to the opposition that these amendments from the Council would be brought forward now. In fact explicitly –

Belinda Wilson: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance, this is a very narrow debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member for Sandringham to continue on the amendments.

Brad ROWSWELL: These are the amendments before the house. They have come to us from the Legislative Council, having been debated in that chamber at some point prior to them arriving in this chamber, whether it was last year or –

Matthew Guy: How did they get here?

Brad ROWSWELL: Well, the parliamentary staff are outstanding in transferring the amendments from one chamber to the next, member for Bulleen. I do not wish to reflect upon their efforts at all. What I do want to say is this: if this is the way that the government treats this chamber, how can the Victorian people trust them at all at the start of an election year, if in fact at all? It is just such a basic thing. If you cannot manage this chamber properly, if you cannot respect the members of this –

Sonya Kilkenny: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I would ask that you ask the member to come back to the very narrow debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sandringham, on the amendments, to continue.

Brad ROWSWELL: Indeed the amendments before the house, brought here without notice, are being debated without the courtesy of notice. In the interests of every member in this place and in the interests of the conduct of this chamber, I desire to move:

That the question be now put.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sandringham, I have the feeling that the Greens party would like to contribute, so it is a bit early to put the question. Do you want to contribute further?

Brad ROWSWELL: No.

 Gabrielle DE VIETRI (Richmond) (20:20): I will speak on the amendments. The Greens agree that our planning laws need updating. They need reforming. They are overly complex. They are not fit for purpose for modern challenges like the housing crisis and climate change. When this bill was first introduced we had some serious concerns, and we shared those with stakeholders and community members. But through negotiations with the government we have secured some really important amendments that the government is replicating tonight to pass in the lower house.

Most significantly, the Greens have secured a new head of power that finally allows state and local governments to force developers to include affordable public and community housing in new private developments. We are in a housing affordability crisis. Leaving housing to the market has completely failed us, so governments now need to actively step in. This finally gives them the power to do so, and it would not have happened without the Greens. We also ensured that this power comes into effect immediately, meaning that the government can now mandate a quota of genuinely affordable housing in new developments, including in the activity centres. The responsibility now lies with the government to actually use it.

We also secured a commitment to establishing a planning regulations advisory committee including the Municipal Association of Victoria, councils, planners and legal experts at the table, ensuring that those who implement the system also help to design it. We reinstated consideration of ecological processes in the act, critical for managing flooding and other climate impacts, and we stopped the government’s undemocratic proposal that would have stripped the Parliament of its power to disallow planning permits, including for new coal and gas projects.

While these amendments do make some improvements and the bill as a whole does improve the planning system, there are many concerning planning changes that are happening outside of this bill. Communities will live with these decisions for decades. We need planning that delivers affordable, climate-resilient, livable communities, and the government must work harder to achieve that.

Motion agreed to.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: A message will be sent to the Legislative Council requesting their agreement.