Wednesday, 18 March 2026

 Sonya KILKENNY (Carrum – Attorney-General, Minister for Planning) (11:11): I move:

That this house commends the Allan Labor government’s housing strategy, including the Big Housing Build, housing targets for councils, planning and rental reforms and activity centre planning and recognises that improving affordability requires clear planning direction and building more homes where Victorians live, work and access transport.

I am delighted to be able to speak to this motion this morning – a motion that is commending the Allan Labor government’s housing strategy. At the outset can I say that we can speak to this motion because we have a housing strategy, which is to build more homes for more Victorians. Contrast that with that of those opposite, who appear to have a strategy to simply block more homes here in Victoria.

On this side of the house we are builders, not blockers, and we are here to ensure that we open more doors for Victorians. We have been listening to Victorians, we have been working with Victorians and we are building with Victorians so that people can choose the communities that they want to call home. I am really proud to be able to say that Victoria is approving and building more homes than any other state in the nation. We want Victorians to have real choice – choice about where they live, choice about what type of home they live in and choice about the future they build for their families. We want to give them hope and opportunity – opportunity that they will be able to find homes of their choosing in the places that they want to live. That might be in regional Victoria, which is now well accessible with regional rail. It might be a family home in one of our growing suburbs. It might be a townhouse within walking distance of a train or tram stop or an apartment in the vibrant heart of Melbourne city or next to one of our many suburban stations.

We know those opposite would cut that choice. They have confirmed even today that they will cut homes in well-connected locations. They will put the walls up. We heard from the member for Brighton even today that he will rip up our activity centres. He will rip those up. All that will do is lock out more Victorians from these really well-connected, well-serviced suburbs. They will limit supply, they will lock out communities and they will lock out young Victorians and ensure that Victorians are competing for fewer and fewer homes at higher prices. That is not a housing plan, member for Brighton. That is the status quo. This is everything that we are dealing with. It is everything that we have seen that is wrong with the planning system. It is everything that has led to the challenges that we are facing today, where more and more Victorians are losing hope and are finding it harder to find a home where they want to live.

We know the opposition believe in the status quo because the status quo serves them. It serves them, locking out Victorians from their communities and pushing more and more Victorians to our urban fringes, to our growth areas, which have already carried the burden of more homes – a disproportionate burden of new homes. The status quo has left a greater and greater divide between Victorians, and it has simply led to suburbs where families cannot afford to live. And we know this because the data is telling us – suburbs like Kew and Hawthorn, where school enrolments are actually going backwards. The status quo is leading to childless suburbs. We cannot stand by and allow this to happen. We cannot watch as well-connected, well-serviced suburbs see the population of children and under 65 years go backwards. That is not leadership. But under Jess Wilson and her Liberals that is exactly what Victorians will get. Only the Allan Labor government is committed to ensuring Victorians can choose where they live and how they live.

The facts are clear. In the 12 months to January 2026, Victoria approved around 52,800 new homes. That is 10,000 more than Queensland and over 2000 more than New South Wales, and we have provided nearly 12,000 more first home buyer grants than New South Wales. That is because Melbourne remains more affordable than Sydney and Brisbane for both houses and units – because supply matters. We know that the more homes you build, the more affordable they become. Independent reporting has also shown that Melbourne is building more homes per capita than major global cities such as London, New York, San Francisco and Paris. Victoria ranks among the fastest states in the country for the time it takes to build a home. It is important that we are working together to pull all the levers to ensure that we are getting more homes built right across Melbourne and right across Victoria, not locking up suburbs, not keeping the status quo and locking families out from some of our most well-connected suburbs, not pushing more and more people into our urban fringes but making sure we have a holistic housing strategy that is ensuring there is diversity of homes right across Melbourne and right across Victoria that meets communities’ needs at every stage of their life.

We are not just talking about housing, we are delivering it. Our $6.3 billion Big Housing Build and Regional Housing Fund are delivering 13,300 social and affordable homes, with nearly 12,000 already underway or completed. On average, the Labor government has delivered around 250 more social homes per year than the previous Liberal government. But housing of course is not just about statistics, it is about people. It is about first home buyers who are trying to get that foothold into the market. It is about renters wanting stability. It is about grandparents who want to live near their grandchildren. It is about students, workers, nurses, teachers and tradies who keep our state running. Those opposite speak about housing reforms, they speak about a housing policy, but they oppose every single reform we bring in – reforms that are designed specifically to increase housing supply, to drive down the cost of housing and to ensure that all Victorians can find a place to call home that is more accessible and more affordable. We are making sure the planning system actually works so homes can be built faster, with more certainty and at a lower cost.

You have heard me talk time and time again about our Plan for Victoria. Throughout 2024 we engaged in the biggest community consultation ever undertaken in this state’s history. That culminated in a vision for Victoria, a vision written by Victorians for Victorians. The arrogance of those opposite who think they can speak for Victorians when they have ignored the extraordinary feedback that we received through that consultation, which was: we need more homes everywhere.

We need more affordable homes so that everyone has that opportunity to find a place to call home where they want to live, not just out on the urban fringes, not just in our city centre, but right across Melbourne and right across Victoria. We are not locking up our suburbs, as those opposite have done, those who want to maintain the status quo of a system that has failed to serve Victorians and failed to serve them equitably. We have for the first time set clear housing targets; this has never been done before. Every local government in Victoria has a local housing target. Every community – and I remind those opposite, their communities as well – must contribute to meeting this housing target, because we need to ensure that growth is shared fairly. We are sending the clearest message to Victorians and making it a really clear choice between the Allan Labor government and the opposition: build the homes, do not block them.

But we have not stopped at setting targets; we are pulling every lever available to increase that important supply. We have removed the need for planning permits for granny flats, making it easier for families to support relatives or create a rental option in their backyard. We have introduced 10-day pathways to build two homes on a block, to subdivide your backyard, helping deliver gentle density in established suburbs. And importantly – something else those opposite have opposed from the beginning – we have introduced the townhouse code. We want to make Melbourne and Victoria the townhouse capital of Australia. This is about removing uncertainty for home owners.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the minister is required to be factual. I welcomed it on day one of the announcement.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Member for Brighton, it is not for the Chair to determine whether a member on their feet is being factual or otherwise. There is no point of order.

Sonya KILKENNY: Those opposite joined in the upper house to seek to overturn our amendments, which were the townhouse code, so those opposite opposed our townhouse code. Those opposite have opposed our reforms to deliver more housing supply and to deliver more affordable and accessible housing. On the townhouse code, the Victorian Liberals’ counterparts in New South Wales have called on the Labor government in New South Wales to introduce the same townhouse code that we have introduced here. Since the code was introduced here, townhouse applications have increased by more than 20 per cent – clear evidence that well-designed reform works.

We are also unlocking housing in the places people want to live – near transport, near services, near schools and near jobs – and our train and tram zone program will create capacity for more than 300,000 ‍additional homes in well-located areas across Melbourne. Today we went out and announced final plans for 25 train and tram zone activity centres right across Melbourne, right across our inner suburban locations. These were picked because they are well-connected, well-located suburbs close to those services, close to jobs. It makes sense to build more homes in these areas because the investment is there. More homes near transport means less congestion, shorter commutes, a stronger local business economy, more vibrant communities and more affordable housing options.

None of this is about forcing change overnight; this is about gradual change. It is about a plan for more homes and it is about planning responsibly for the next 30 years, not opposing and not blocking the delivery of more homes. Without important planning for growth, affordability declines and younger generations will continue to be locked out. That is something we will never stand for on this side of the house. We will always stand up for more homes for more Victorians.

At the same time, we will never ignore our growth areas, which have carried a disproportionate burden of more homes. Just by way of example, in Melton and Wyndham we have seen growth now over the past 30 years increase by 400 and 300 per cent respectively. In the same period we have seen areas like Bayside and Boroondara have increased 24 and 28 per cent. It is not fair that these suburbs have carried that disproportionate burden, and it is not fair that other areas that are well serviced, that have had significant government investment, have not grown and in some cases are actually going backwards. It is why we released this 10-year greenfields plan for Melbourne’s growing suburbs, the first time we have ever released this plan, and that is to ensure that our growth areas grow sustainably ‍– that they expand sustainably with the right infrastructure and with jobs and services delivered alongside their new homes. The plan clearly sets out new horizons out to 2034, and we will deliver more than 180,000 homes over that period, but we will deliver it in a way that is programmed, that is sequenced and that will ensure that they are not going to carry a disproportionate burden and put overdue pressure on already stretched infrastructure in those areas. It means communities will not be built quickly, but they will be built well.

Taken together, our planning reforms, transport-focused growth, social housing investment and greenfield strategy form a really comprehensive approach to housing supply and housing strategy here in Victoria. And it is important. This plan is grounded in evidence, shaped by extensive community consultation and focused squarely on fairness and equity, because at the end of the day housing policy is ultimately about opportunity, whether it is opportunity for a young couple to buy their first home, opportunity for a family to upsize and to get the home that suits their needs, opportunity for older Victorians to downsize while being able to stay in the area that they love, opportunity for workers to live near their jobs or opportunity for regional centres to really thrive. If we want Victoria to remain the state of opportunity, we must keep building. We must keep building homes. We cannot continue to say no to new homes, we cannot continue to block new homes, we cannot allow the status quo to continue and we certainly cannot allow those opposite to push forward their so-called housing strategy, which, frankly, is the status quo – the status quo that has not served Victorians.

We understand that in order to deliver that opportunity you need a housing strategy that is going to work, that works for Victorians and with Victorians, that builds homes in established suburbs that are well connected, that builds homes in our growth areas and that continues to invest significantly in our social housing. We reform our planning rules, we unlock land and we ensure that infrastructure keeps pace with development. We want to make sure that we protect the ability of Victorians to choose where they live and how they live, and we will continue to do that work to plan responsibly to deliver the homes that Victorians need now, in five years, 10 years, 15 years and 20 years, because we know on this side that the Allan Labor government will always build homes, we will never block homes and we will always stand for a Victoria where everyone has the opportunity to find a place to call home.

 David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (11:29):Don’t Believe the Hype – a great song that was written by Public Enemy, and this particular enemy is the Allan Labor government when it comes to housing. It is absolutely the enemy when it comes to housing. This government could not build anything if they tried. Seriously, we have just heard absolute rubbish from the Minister for Planning, who has the hypocrisy to stand up here and say, ‘We’re building more homes. We’re doing so much more,’ at the same time as she blocked housing in her own electorate. What a hypocrite of a minister.

Do not believe the hype. In a February 2021 Facebook post Ms Kilkenny can be seen giving the thumbs down as she stands in front of a proposed residential development in Seaford, opposing a plan not for 14 storeys, not for 20 storeys, but for 14 homes. Now this government wants to take appeal rights from Victorians in 60 activity centres. What a hypocrite, what a contradiction, what a government that does not believe a word that it says. You have got a Minister for Planning that says, ‘Not in my own backyard.’ The biggest NIMBY of the lot, the member for Carrum, opposed 14 homes in Carrum but has the audacity to say they are going to build 60 activity centres, 20 storeys plus, without any appeal rights. Someone in Bentleigh, in Ashwood, in Box Hill, in Mordialloc – in all of the Labor-held seats – can tomorrow wake up with a six-storey building – not 14 homes but six storeys of apartments – without a single chance to object, and that seems to be okay. In a transport corridor the member for Box Hill should not worry, because Box Hill has not got 20 storeys, it has 50.

Do you know what is the big kicker in all of this? The government are not getting these across the line even where they want to. The government I hope will talk about the Grattan Institute today, because they back the Grattan Institute on so many things and what the Grattan Institute has to say when it comes to housing. But what did the Grattan Institute have to say about the activity centres and the Big Build? What they said is five out of six of the projects will not go through because they do not stack up. The member for Box Hill has three towers in his area run by Vicinity where they have said, ‘You know what, not in Victoria.’ Why? Because they do not stack up.

We have got a government that says, ‘Don’t worry, we’re just going to watch them fly, because this is what we’re going to do,’ and the Minister for Planning is saying, ‘We want to build them everywhere we possibly can, and we’ll build the homes, except for Carrum.’ If that was the first time the Minister for Planning had done that, maybe she had a friend that was living there or maybe she had an investment property near there. Who knows why she was objecting to 14 homes – not 14 storeys, but 14 homes. But it gets better, because there was another incident in 2018 where the minister called for the application to be rejected a second time. The minister said in a letter to council:

I indicated previously that the scale, scope and density of the proposed developments is entirely out of context with, and will very likely have negative impacts on, the local amenity and neighbourhood character …

What a blocker, the Minister for Planning – an absolute blocker.

Further, the additional traffic movements associated with the proposed developments will likely have significant impacts on pedestrian and vehicle safety in the area and congestion.

Do you know what, under Labor’s plan the minister could not even write this letter, because council would have no say in this matter. That is the difference between the Liberal–Nationals plan to give locals back the power –

Anthony Cianflone interjected.

David SOUTHWICK: You know what our plan is, member for Pascoe Vale? Our plan is more homes, more choice and better affordability. That is what our plan is. Do you know what, if I can take up the interjection, I went to Pascoe Vale and there is a huge community absolutely appalled that the member for Pascoe Vale is taking people’s third-party rights away from them and not giving them the chance to be able to have their say. This is the example. The member for Pascoe Vale can laugh because he is effectively laughing at his constituents because they are not being able to have a say when it comes to planning. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. So we know Pascoe Vale is going to be dudded. We know Mordialloc is going to be dudded. Again, the likes of Bentleigh – can I say Bentleigh? It is a neighbouring seat to me, so people will say I am worried about Caulfield. Yes, we are getting 20 storeys in Caulfield, if Labor has their way. If Labor has their way, my constituents of Caulfield will have 20 storeys. In each of these activity centres it will be a referendum of a vote come November: if you want 20 storeys, then vote Labor. I know what the people of Caulfield have to say, and the people of Glen Eira. I actually know what the people of Bentleigh have to say, and in Glen Eira as well.

James Newbury: I agree. He’s gone quiet.

David SOUTHWICK: Very, very quiet. Last night I had the opportunity to sit with two people that came over to our place, friends of my wife, great friends, lifelong Labor voters who live in Bentleigh, and let me tell you what they said.

Members interjecting.

David SOUTHWICK: You might call them fake people. I will tell you, member for Ripon, how fake these people are. I will tell you what they are. The first thing is they have kids that go to East Bentleigh Primary School, and at East Bentleigh Primary School there are portables across the playgrounds because the school is outgrown in terms of the numbers, so they do not have enough classrooms for the kids. They do not have enough ability for parking in the neighbourhood. Glen Eira has the lowest amount of open space when it comes to playgrounds and sporting fields in the state. What they are saying is this time the government has ignored them, and the government has also done nothing for heritage protection, which these people are very concerned about as well.

Here is a situation where this government does not care, the member for Bentleigh does not care, and they might laugh at it. But you know what, the biggest laugh will come at election time when people will have a say. If they want to wake up tomorrow and have their neighbourhoods butchered by the Allan Labor government, then so be it; but we know that most people will not want that, because they want livability. The member for Ripon might be happy in terms of saying ‘We are not going to have any housing in Ripon’. What we need is housing across the state, and what we know is even in growth areas, which the government has been silent upon – why are they called growth areas? I will tell you why: because people actually want to live in them. That is why they are called growth areas. But why has the government been silent when it comes to housing in growth areas? Twenty-seven protected settlement boundary (PSB) priority plans have been shelved by this government for years, and why have they been shelved? Do you know why? Because of the lack of infrastructure. Why is there a lack of infrastructure? I will tell you why: because already in those areas –

Members interjecting.

David SOUTHWICK: Like in Point Cook, the member for Point Cook does not want any housing in his area. And do you know why the member for Point Cook does not want any housing in his area? Because his government has not delivered the infrastructure. He has been sitting here on his hands for four years doing nothing, and they have not delivered the infrastructure. Therefore there is $300 million sitting undisclosed in the budget, just sitting there to prop up the budget instead of actually going into roads, hospitals, schools, open space – sitting there. And why has it not been used? Because the government has run out of money. They have run out of money and they are propping up the budget. So what we would do is actually spend that money –

Mathew Hilakari: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member on his feet must be factual. Growth areas infrastructure contribution funding is available online. He just needs to learn to google.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): It is not for the Chair to determine the nature of whether or not a person on their feet is being factual. The member is being relevant. The member to continue.

David SOUTHWICK: Just a reckless, reckless point of order by the member for Point Cook that has done nothing for his constituents. There are a number of PSBs in his area of Point Cook. I met with many of the builders that want to build there, and they want to build the infrastructure that goes with it. But this government of course does not want that because they have not delivered the current infrastructure. So all those people – and many of those people in Point Cook, I have got to say – are very angry at the moment because they are not getting the infrastructure. The member for Point Cook has forgotten that he is actually not in opposition but he is in government. In government you should be able to deliver things, but he is delivering nothing – zero. The member for Point Cook is delivering zero in his electorate and so too are many others, and that is why we will change it.

So what is our plan? Our plan is to ensure, when it comes to building in growth corridors, that we will have infrastructure built at the time of construction. You see, it just makes sense. If you have got builders there, you have got workers there, at the same time as they are building homes they are building roads, they are building schools, they are building infrastructure. But this government does not do it that way. What this government does is say, ‘You know what, developer, come in and build the homes, give us the money, and we’ll take it out of the area to prop up our budget in Spring Street.’ That will not happen under a Jess Wilson government, because what we will do is we will put the infrastructure where it is needed. If you need a school, if you need a road, if you need some open space, we will put it there at the time of the build.

The other issue with all of this is the time it takes to build these things. The time takes so long. Why? Because this government again has its statutory authorities lined up, and it takes years before you get things over the line. Again, talking to a developer who has some property in the western suburbs that they are trying to develop, they have had things sitting there for years, costing $2 million a year just in holding costs because the government have sat on their hands. That is what they have done, they have sat on their hands, and this is what happens. You have a government that does not care about the west. They do not care about the north. They do not care about the east or the south. They just turn around and say they are just going to stack them high in the 60 activity centres, predominantly in Liberal-held seats, although, as I say, Bentleigh, Mordialloc, Ashwood and Box Hill are going to get a fair crack, and we will make sure that their constituents know about it.

I look forward to doorknocking in Bentleigh and telling people like George, who has woken up again in Bentleigh and is running a campaign. If you think I am making up names, you will see George appear a lot in Bentleigh, because he is running a campaign against the activity centres. A number of people are under the name of livability, and they are doing it because it is not livable under Melbourne. In fact it is leavable under Melbourne and it is leavable under Victoria. We have all heard people say that when it comes to building housing, it is anywhere but Victoria. And why anywhere but Victoria? Because this government have failed to deliver, and they have said, ‘You know what, here is our Big Build, and we’re going to build all of these permits and then away you go.’ Well, news to the Allan Labor government: you cannot live in a permit. And what do we have right now? We have 120,000 ‍permits that are sitting on the shelf doing nothing. Why aren’t homes being built for the 120,000 permits that sit there? I will tell you why: because the numbers do not stack up. Do you know how much it costs to build a house in Victoria? How much? Do you know how much in terms of cost of tax versus the overall home? What would you say – 10 per cent of the house would be tax? Member for Point Cook, would you be happy with that – 10 per cent of building a house would be tax? Member for Point Cook, 43 per cent of the cost of building a house in Victoria is tax.

Ros Spence interjected.

David SOUTHWICK: The minister at the table just called it a bullshit figure. That is what the minister at the table just called it. That is what the minister just said. I am repeating what the minister at the table just said, and she is just nodding.

Michaela Settle: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, ‘bullshit’ is not parliamentary language.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): That is correct. It is unparliamentary language.

David SOUTHWICK: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, the Minister for Community Sport called it a bullshit figure and nodded and is still nodding now when I am saying that, so I am just quoting the Minister for Community Sport.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Member for Caulfield, I will also caution and remind everyone in the chamber that repeating an unparliamentary term is also unparliamentary. There is no need to repeat the term. I am now aware of the term. It is an unparliamentary term, and I would ask everyone to desist from using it in the chamber.

David SOUTHWICK: We know that according to the Housing Industry Association and the Property Council of Australia – it is a figure that has been used by a number of people – 43 per cent of the cost of building a house is tax. And why is that? If you break it down, it is very, very simple. In Melbourne you have got nearly 70 new state taxes, and 32 of those are property taxes. Thirty-two of those 70 taxes are property taxes. We have seen property revenue projected to grow from $6.2 billion in 2014 to $20.5 billion in 2028 – from $6 billion to $20 billion in tax. What we are seeing is property tax literally holding our budget together. Forty-seven per cent of our budget is in relation to property tax – that is what is propping things up. We know land tax per person is expected to reach over $1047 in 2025–26, the highest in the country. We have the highest property taxes in the nation, and more than $11,000 on top of that will go to the new housing build for these new houses that the government are acquiring. So what we are seeing is this government – on top of the taxes we already have, the highest taxes in the nation – will now have $11,000 per additional residence in tax as part of these activity centres to pay for them.

That is why people like the Grattan Institute are saying the numbers do not stack up. Five out of six will not be built. Why won’t they be built? We have got taxes already: land tax, stamp duty, windfall gains tax and the vacant homes tax. We now are going to have this additional contribution levy value capture of $11,000 a home, and of course they will not be built. We will have this hotchpotch of a solution where some will be built and some will not be, instead of actually dealing with costs and dealing with the supply issue and getting the costs down. In terms of what is being built, I think it was pretty rich for the Minister for Planning to get on her feet and say, ‘More homes are being built in Victoria,’ because when the government announced their big plan for more housing they said we were going to have 80,000 homes a year. And what number did we just come off? Do you reckon we got 75,000 – 90,000? 56,000 homes is exactly what we got – 56,000 out of 80,000. What is this government doing? Giving itself a pat on the back: ‘Look how good that is.’ If you extrapolate that – because the government is saying 800,000 homes to meet the population growth of 10 million by 2050 ‍– they are saying 80,000 homes a year or 800,000 homes, so that means it is actually 550,000 homes.

The government is failing right now, so why would you believe this tired old government that has been here for over a decade – nearly 12 years? Why would you believe them when they say that they are going to fix it now when they could not fix it before? They are not delivering homes now, so why would they be able to deliver homes in the future? They will not, because this government are so addicted to tax, they cannot manage the budget and we have got debt blown out. We will be close to $200 billion before we know it; it is $1 million an hour just to pay the debt interest. How do you pay the debt interest? It is very, very simple: you tax people. Who do you tax? This government would call them the rich property owners. So on one hand they say, ‘Issue another permit.’ Even though we have got 120,000 permits sitting on a shelf and no-one wants to build, ‘We’ll issue more’ – and they will not be built either – ‘and then we’ve done our job.’ Well, the government have not done their job.

If you forgave them for a moment and said, ‘Okay, they’re not really interested in building more homes in the private sector, but the Allan Labor government are interested in the public sector, in social housing’ – if you forgave them for at least doing that – then maybe you would give them a pass. They would have done half their job. How much public housing do you think this government has built in a decade? How many additional homes have this government built in a decade? If they are claiming they are building 50,000 homes a year generally, how many is that in public housing? Thousands? It has been 36 homes in a decade. Across the board it has been 36 homes, according to the Productivity Commission, in 10 years.

That is not a fail; that is a disgrace. It is a disgrace when people are on waiting lists – and we get them coming into our electorates – for two, three or four years for public housing. You can say there are three being built across the state – three. You know what, you would get better odds in TattsLotto than you would of getting one of those. You would get better odds of winning TattsLotto than getting a public house; that is what you would get. This is a hopeless, hopeless government when it comes to housing. They should not be patting themselves on the back. They should be hiding their heads in shame. It is not about affordability, not about home ownership and not about building right across the state; it is a government that does quite the opposite.

One of the other things that I think is really important – and the government will run this argument about our side and they will say, ‘They’re just a bunch of NIMBYs,’ even though the member for Carrum, the Minister for Planning, did not want any housing in her electorate. It is good enough for the member for Carrum, but it is not good enough for everybody else. But let us leave that aside for a moment and let us talk about the middle ring, the 60 activity centres. How does our plan differ from Labor’s plan? I will tell you how our plan differs. Our plan differs by saying that under a Jess Wilson government we will allow councils, through their structure plans, to build the housing, informed by community voice. What does that mean?

Michaela Settle: On a point of order, Acting Speaker: using correct titles in the Parliament.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Member for Caulfield, please use correct titles.

David SOUTHWICK: The member for Kew, the Leader of the Opposition –

Members interjecting.

David SOUTHWICK: No, they are correct. The member for Ballarat says ‘For now’. That is right, because we will be in government very shortly.

Michaela Settle: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, Ballarat is represented by the wonderful member for Wendouree and the wonderful member for Ripon.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Correcting the record, that was the member for Eureka.

David SOUTHWICK: The member for Eureka quite rightly points out that the Leader of the Opposition will be in that position temporarily, because she will be in government, with a fresh start to ensure that Victorians get what they want and, most importantly, that they will not be silenced, as they are by this Labor government, but will have a say when it comes to everything, including housing. And that is the difference: we will build with people, not over people, like this government does. We will not run roughshod over people’s electorates, but we will build with them. How will we do that? We will work with councils, which have structure plans. That is $100 million worth of structure plans that the Allan Labor government wants to rip up and say, ‘This is what you’re now doing. It will be planning through Spring Street, not planning through the community’ – very, very different – ‘and you either take it or leave it, and no right of appeal.’ What does that mean? I will tell you what it means. In the likes of places like Glen Eira, you will have 55,000 homes built in 2036 and 63,000 by 2051. If you extrapolate these numbers, we are going to build more homes. We will get close to 400,000 homes in Glen Eira, Stonnington, Boroondara and Bayside compared to Labor’s 209,000 ‍homes. So we will get close to double what the government is actually proposing in the 24 ‍activity centres in just these areas by applying a local, community-driven housing strategy, which is not NIMBY but is actually informed by community voice. We will not silence people, but we will ensure that people have a voice and a choice when it comes to housing.

That is the difference. I say to all voters today: if you want the government to determine where you live, what is built next door to you and how high people build, with absolutely no say when it comes to housing in the future, vote Labor. Simple: vote Labor. If you want a choice and you want your voice to be heard if you are unhappy with what someone is proposing next door, vote Liberal–National – very simple. There is a very distinct difference: under the Liberal–Nationals we will give you the ability to appeal something if you do not like it. When it comes to Labor, you have no say in what they are going to do for you. It is a really big difference, and I think in every single electorate people need to understand that the government has stopped listening. The Allan Labor government are so desperate now because they have failed on their housing strategy. We are down to 55,000 homes instead of 80,000. They have failed.

Michaela Settle: On a point of order, Acting Speaker: correct titles – Allan Labor government.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): That is not a title of an elected official. But whilst I have the microphone at the moment, member for Caulfield, please refrain from using ‘you’, as it is a reflection on the Chair.

David SOUTHWICK: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, the member for Eureka has been here long enough to know that that is a convention. And again, we do not need to be running a protection racket for the Allan Labor government, which has failed to listen to what Victorians have to say. This government has no transparency. We have seen it with $15 billion worth of corruption. We will continue to call out the Allan Labor government’s failures, because I think it is really important for people to know that this government has failed –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Member for Caulfield, I am not sure what the point of order was. Member for Eureka, is this on the same point of order?

Michaela Settle: No, it is on relevance. He seems to have strayed from –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): A different point of order? I did actually deal with the first one, so we will leave it there in explaining that it is not an elected person.

David SOUTHWICK: As we say, this government cannot handle the truth, and the truth is that this government has stopped listening to Victorians. When they stop listening, I think Victorians need to respond by booting the Allan Labor government out of office. We have seen so much in terms of corruption and waste, which means we cannot build the homes that need to be built. And we have seen the fact that this government is taxing people to be able to keep up.

You know, we have gone from the Big Build – or as many people will call it, the big dirty build when it comes to some of the transport – and now what we are trying to do in some of the projects is trying to pay for them through the value capture around Suburban Rail Loop activity centres. That is going to cost $11,000 per home, so a lot of these houses will not be built. And then we have towers, 20-storey towers being projected into many of these activity centres. Again, who is going to be working on those? Not small mum-and-dad builders but big CFMEU unions – and what does that cost? It costs four times as much. So forget about affordability when the unions have moved off the transport projects onto the housing projects, the 20-storey towers; it is just one and the same.

Why is this government doing it? You must want to ask why, when they are not building more homes and they are not building in more affordability. It is pretty simple: they just want jobs for their CFMEU union mates. That is what this is all about – for their CFMEU union mates. They are absolutely up to their eyeballs in the $15 billion worth of corruption. Instead of actually trying to deal with that, what they are saying is they are going to move them off transport projects and stick them now into our own backyards onto 20-storey towers in people’s neighbourhoods. I think people are a wake-up to the corruption, to the waste and to the mismanagement. They just want more homes.

We want more homes, and certainly under a Liberal–National government we will deliver them right across the state, whether it be in the inner city or in areas like Fishermans Bend, North Melbourne and Fitzroy, around the areas that desperately need more homes. We will build them, and we will give people that opportunity to live in apartments. We will build in the middle ring to give councils the opportunity to build more homes than the government will currently offer, not in towers but right across the municipality. And we will build in the growth corridors – not like the government is currently doing, putting the handbrake to housing in the growth corridors – and we will put in the infrastructure that goes with it to ensure people already living in the growth corridors get the infrastructure that was once promised. Like in Greenvale: they will get the separation of their roads, they will get their schools, they will get that infrastructure, but also where new homes are built in the growth corridors we will build the infrastructure as well – and in the regions. When it comes to Ballarat, Bendigo, Geelong and then the regions alongside them, we will ensure that there is also the opportunity for people to live there and get the infrastructure that they deserve as well. You see, under the Liberal–Nationals we will deliver a choice, we will deliver a voice and we will deliver more homes to all Victorians.

 Katie HALL (Footscray) (11:59): I cannot believe that young Victorians and indeed everyone in this place was just subjected to a half-hour lecture on affordability and social housing by someone who has declared an interest in 17 properties. It is pretty paternalistic, pretty patronising, to hear from someone who thinks that they can lecture the young people about where they should live in the great city of Melbourne. My community is one of the activity centres. This disingenuous approach from those opposite that it is just in their electorates, just in the leafy inner east, that there will be activity centres – well, it absolutely is not.

Sometimes I would like to think that the opposition position is a bit nothing, but the status quo is not nothing. The status quo is scary. We need to deliver on a plan for more homes and more opportunities, particularly for young Victorians. It worries me that people that have grown up in my community, in places like Yarraville and Seddon and West Footscray, can no longer afford to live in my community. We do need to build more housing. We do need to build more homes. People in my electorate are supportive of investment into activity centres, into more parks, better schools and so their children can afford to live in the area that they grew up in. The Allan Labor government believes that Victorians should have a choice to live where they want, whether it is out of aspiration or out of necessity. Our housing plan is about ensuring that Victorians have the ability to choose to live near where they grow up, to choose to live near their friends and families or close to work. Young Victorians deserve access to world-class health care, education, jobs and services that are around the corner in suburbs with well-established infrastructure, like the suburbs that have been designated as activity centres.

The member for Caulfield started his contribution by referring to Public Enemy, which was not on my bingo card for this year. But there is another Public Enemy song that he is probably aware of, which is Prophets of Rage. I think that what we heard over the last half an hour is a lot of fear and a lot of fearmongering, because part of our plan is not only to ensure that we have more houses but that they are well built, well designed and that they contribute positively to the public realm – that is what we have done. We have done the hard work to make sure that the best city in the world continues to be the best city in the world. That will not happen if the Liberal Party succeed in their plan to continue to expand the urban growth boundary out forever and ever to places where we do not have the infrastructure and lock up the suburbs in the city where young people in particular want to live or where older Victorians might want to downsize.

This is all about choice. It is about designing a city properly and having a courageous conversation with Victorians about how we do that, not kicking the can down the road and saying we are just going to have more of the same. We are just going to have the status quo where people, particularly older generations, have the housing that they like in the suburbs they want to live in, but their kids are locked out forever. Their kids are told, ‘I’m sorry, we can’t build housing for people like you in the community you grew up in. You need to move somewhere else that’s far away from your family, your friends, your work, your community, your connections.’

When I hear members opposite saying ‘not in my backyard’, I am going to say ‘yes in my backyard’. Yes in my backyard. Yes in my community where I want the young people of Melbourne’s inner west to be able to afford a townhouse or an apartment close to our amazing Metro Tunnel, which has added an extra 60 per cent capacity, or near our amazing new Footscray Hospital – a $1.5 billion contribution to health care in Melbourne’s west. This is exactly where we should be accommodating more housing, and we should be doing it in a well-planned way, not like a previous Minister for Planning, the member for Bulleen, who approved things like Fishermans Bend and Joseph Road without any thought about the public realm or how things are designed – without even developer contributions making a contribution back to the urban infrastructure that we rely on.

We now have to retrofit infrastructure into those communities. That is not the way this government is going to do it, because we care about well-designed communities, we care that Melbourne is the best city in the world and we want it to stay that way. The way that we are going to maintain that is by making sure that our young Victorians have high-quality homes in places that they want to live. Not only have we delivered this ambitious reform to our planning scheme, where the status quo is not okay ‍– the status quo is locking young people out – but we are going to remind the young people of Victoria every single day until the election that it is the Liberal Party that wants to make sure that you cannot have the aspiration to live in the community that you grew up in. That is what the Liberal Party stands for, because, consistent with your party membership, the policy is designed for 80-year-olds. The Liberal Party, the opposition, have no plan except the status quo.

What we have come up with is a policy that not only are things going to be built properly, because confidence in the market is absolutely crucial, but we are going to make sure that apartments are designed properly too. We have introduced ambitious design standards that set a minimum standard. We know that some of the greatest cities in the world – of course, Melbourne being number one, as announced last week – cities like Barcelona, have consistent seven-storey and 10-storey buildings across their inner and middle rings. That is what has made them successful cities, not forever going out and out and out so people have to drive hours to work, so people do not have connections to the infrastructure that they rely on. We are better than that; we are smarter than that, and we have a plan to make sure that Melbourne continues to be the best city in the world but also a place where young people can buy a home.

We have introduced the Building and Plumbing Commission, because we are cracking down on dodgy builders as well. I believe that was opposed by those opposite. We have introduced the train and tram activity centres, which of course those opposite have said that they will rip up. We want to make sure that people can live close to a train station, whether it is in Footscray or Brighton. We do not have double standards here. The member for Brighton keeps saying, ‘It’s only in Liberal Party seats’ – what nonsense. It is in activity centres across Melbourne, including in my own community of Footscray, the minister at the table, the Minister for Public and Active Transport’s, community of Dandenong, Box Hill, Bentleigh and Oakleigh – seats that used to be held by the Liberal Party before they abandoned the young people that live there. We are proud to continue to represent those communities, to fight for them and to fight for millennials and young people to have a fair go. That is what this is about: this is about fairness and equity and breaking down that intergenerational wealth problem we have in Australia where some people have access to housing and other people do not. It is not fair, it is not right and our government is going to change it.

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (12:09): The government today has confirmed a plan we know they have had all along, and that is for radical change. That is what this Premier is about: radical change. The Premier said, when she announced her activity centre policy – the first thing she said – ‘We are announcing this policy because we are going to grow Melbourne to the size of London by 2050.’ That is what the Premier said; that is a direct quote. Let me start by saying, setting aside what the number is, no Victorian has ever been asked whether that is the size they want their city. As soon as I started raising this issue, as soon as this was discussed publicly, guess what happened. The Premier never started talking about the growth to 9 million people, because she realised there was no community mandate. When Victorians understood the only way for the Premier to achieve it was by packing in 20-storey towers in suburbs she does not like, Victorians understood what the Premier’s plan really was about. The Premier’s plan is about doubling the size of Melbourne.

Every Victorian, not just Melburnians, knows that the basics are not being done in this state by this state government. Setting aside the budget for a moment, which is appalling, in terms of basic service delivery we have never seen our state in the level of decay – because of this government’s lack of service provision – that we are seeing now. We are seeing people die on the street and then a Premier come out crying crocodile tears about it. People are dying on the street. The Premier is changing this state in a way that is disgraceful, because she is a radical. She is absolutely a radical, and you can see it today. The Premier has come out today to announce a radical change to our city that no-one ever asked for, no-one ever voted for, because she wants to double the size of Melbourne. What is even more insulting is she did it by driving 250 kilometres into the city to announce it and then driving all the way back out again – never in the suburb where she is from. Are there any 20-storey towers in Bendigo? There are none in Bendigo – no 20-storey towers in Bendigo – and neither will there be. What is happening in Bendigo is very interesting –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): Order! There are a number of members, who are not in their seats, interjecting.

James NEWBURY: Thank you, Acting Speaker; I very much appreciate your protection. There are no towers in Bendigo and no towers in Carrum, where the Minister for Planning is from. In fact the Minister for Planning has had a career of blocking any development in her own suburbs and then saying that other people are blockers when they have called for amenity to be protected. What a hypocrite. The idea that you simply pack in towers in suburbs that the Premier does not like is disgraceful, and the community can see it. The great thing is the community can see it.

On Saturday the Premier thought she was clever to post her little meme about me again – I mean, find a new meme. What I would say is I made one point, and this is the point: the thing that surprises me – set aside the substance of her tweet and the issue – is after two years of driving Labor into an abyss she has never looked up and worked out if she is driving in the right direction. So for two years –

A member interjected.

James NEWBURY: Twenty-five primary – mate, it is a historic abyss. I tell you what, the Victorian community has a very clear choice at this election and on this policy and more broadly on other policies a very clear choice at the election. We have made it very, very clear. We have said it today again: if you vote Labor at the next election you get 20-storey towers and if you vote Liberal and you are in a community that does not want them you will not have them – they will be ripped up. I will go further, and I will be saying this very, very, very loudly: do not just vote Liberal and National in the lower house; you now need to start targeting your upper house vote. I think people like the Minister for Housing and Building ain’t gonna be here after the next election. Wouldn’t it be sweet to see someone like the minister for housing, who has been championing these outrageous policies, be the first to lose their seat in the upper house on election night? I would say to Victorians: you have a very, very clear choice –

A member interjected.

James NEWBURY: She is gone. Victorians have a very, very clear choice at the next election: if you want 20-storey towers, you vote Labor, and if you want to see the end of these towers and you are in a community that does not want them, you say ‘Liberal and National’. That is what you say and that is how you vote. It is a very clear choice, just like on crime. If you want a government that puts criminals first, vote Labor. If you want a government that puts victims first, vote Liberal. These choices are now so clear. And you can see, it has not been said clearly enough, but it is so clear: the reason we have a crime crisis is because the government puts criminals first. That is why. If you look at all the policies they have brought in over time to weaken the laws, it has always been about putting criminals first, always putting criminals first over victims. So the Victorian community has a very clear choice at this election when it comes to housing, with a housing policy that was announced today, a housing policy no-one asked for. There is no mandate for it. And it is based on a government that is doubling the size of Melbourne. That is what the Premier said on the first day after announcing her activity centre policy. Anyone can go and look it up. She said it on morning television.

Her first line was that she wants to grow the size of Melbourne to the size of London, which is 9 ‍million to 10 million people – a doubling of the size of this city by 2050. It is what she said. She is on TV saying it, and Victorians can look at that and ask themselves whether anyone asked us if we want this city doubled. Did anyone ask? What does it mean? Set aside the final figure – what does it mean? How do you plan for that type of growth without putting out a proper plan of how you intend to do it? What does it mean for services – services which cannot even be delivered now? Everyone knows the services at the moment are atrocious. This government taxes more than any other state, and this state gets the worst services. We say this all the time because it is true. Can you imagine being a state that pays the worst level of taxes and gets the worst services as a result? How can that possibly be? It is only incompetence. When you are paying for $15 billion of corruption you can understand why – at least $15 billion of corruption. When Victorians are being forced to pay $15 billion because of corruption that has occurred under the government’s watch you can understand why.

Victorians are going to have a very, very clear choice. The government will say whatever they say, but this government is led by a radical, and the plans of this Premier are radical. Radical change is the Premier’s plan. So I would say to Victorians: use your vote wisely. Use your vote wisely in the lower house and use your vote wisely in the upper house, because this is the time for change. This is the time to stop the government’s radicalism, including on this outrageous housing policy, which is nothing more than the Premier sticking her middle finger up to the suburbs she does not like.

 Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (12:19): I am going to pose a question: Victoria is now leading the nation in both growth of housing supply and housing affordability more generally – is that too radical? Is that radical or is that just sensible policy? On a rolling 12-month basis we are building, approving and commencing more homes than both New South Wales and Queensland. Boy, that is radical. I mean, what are we doing that for? Why would we want to deliver more housing for Victorians? When it comes to buying or renting a home, the work we are doing is delivering outcomes for Victorian households. We are issuing more first home buyer loans in Victoria: 11,900 more than New South Wales and 16,200 more than Queensland. Obviously the Liberal–National parties are opposed to this. They do not want us to deliver more homes and more first home buyer loans here than, for example, New South Wales and Queensland. What are they talking about?

According to the most recent Domain house price report, whether you want to buy a house or an apartment in Melbourne, it will be more affordable than in Sydney or Brisbane – you see? – because we have a plan for Victoria, not a plan for one or two suburbs, to lock them up – same, same – which basically locks millennials out of the market in perpetuity. But also it means that – and this is a point that my learned colleague from Footscray made – people who may have lived in a particular area all their lives cannot age there, and that is just not fair. I am pleased to say, though, that in the seat of Albert Park there are more and more residential properties being built so people can age in that area and be close to their families, but under the Liberal–National proposals that is just not going to happen. They do not want to deliver on that. They think it is too radical, increasing housing supply and making homes more affordable. It is a bit of a weird narrative. I am not sure why they are going down that track, but it is up to them. If that is the way they want to go, they can, but I know Victorians are going to judge this carefully.

I heard something about 20-storey towers. They were saying in Labor suburbs we do not have towers, et cetera. I live in a 37-storey building in Southbank. That is a Labor seat. There are lots of families in my building and many of the other buildings, and they are choosing to live there because people like the convenience. They love being in that arts precinct. They love being close to the CBD. They do not necessarily want to have cars. They like being able to use public transport. And, guess what, we are delivering as part of the Melbourne arts precinct project 18,000 square metres of public parkland, because we get amenities. That is why I thought it was laughable when they were talking about all this stuff they are going to deliver – we are already delivering it.

The Pick My Park project is so popular because we are giving choice to the community. They pick the projects that they want and they need. This is not just for the seat of Albert Park but I think more broadly across the state of Victoria. People love their pets, don’t they? We have been able to announce recently new dog parks for both the St Kilda botanic gardens and Fennell Reserve near Fishermans Bend. These are much loved, but it is the community who picked them. I think lecturing us about amenity is a bit laughable, particularly because I think it was the member for Caulfield who was talking about all these things that they are going to do. There is no plan; they are just sort of sprouting them off.

Past behaviour is often the best predictor of future behaviour. We know that when they were last in government community infrastructure was not really a priority. They expanded the urban growth boundary without a plan for infrastructure. They allowed skyscrapers to be built at the Joseph Road precinct in Footscray without any way of funding the infrastructure people would need to live there. They did the same thing in Fishermans Bend, and people have long memories of this. But don’t you worry about that – we have set up the development contributions scheme. We have delivered Port Melbourne Secondary College, we have delivered Narrarrang Primary School, and there will be a kindergarten there in 2027. We are also delivering a fantastic community space. There will be a futsal court, and it is going to be much loved by the community.

There is also lots of housing going in at Fishermans Bend. I heard the member for Caulfield talking about how we should put housing in Fishermans Bend. Guess what, it is already happening. There are already houses being built there – who knew? And road safety upgrades are being facilitated – yes, I have advocated hard for them; I will concede that – through the development contributions program. This is helping all those things, increasing amenity and safety for the area, to be delivered. Also, we have the beautiful South Melbourne Primary School, delivered by the Labor government. I will say it is also going to be expanded because there are so many people moving into that Southbank, Docklands area, families and otherwise. I know those opposite think people could not possibly live in high-density housing, but they are making those choices. I live among these families, and not only families but households of all sorts of different sizes and shapes, as they should be. People are consciously making these choices, even if people in the handful of suburbs that the Liberals want to protect may think that they are above that or whatever it is. I do not know why there is such judgement.

I will concede change can be uncomfortable. The member for Caulfield also said Labor just does not want to face the truth. The truth is that the population is growing and we need a plan for Victoria, not a plan to lock down three suburbs because it is uncomfortable to go through change. We have to make these decisions, because otherwise where are millennials going to live? What are they going to do? Are we just shoving them out to the edge?

A member interjected.

Nina TAYLOR: Yes, off to Berwick. Every time you push that urban growth boundary further and further out you are not doing our environment any favours either. There is only so far you can push it out. We still need land: (1) we need agricultural land, but (2) we also need our bush. Heaven forbid we might need beautiful forests and other plants – flora and fauna more broadly – and we need to sustain them into the future. So you cannot just indefinitely keep pushing out those growth boundaries. It is also a lot more expensive when you have to build infrastructure the further out you go. I do not think they have done the math on that; I think it is just ‘Don’t worry. We’ll protect these three suburbs. You’ll be right, Jack. We won’t change anything, and we’ll just chuck everyone out to the edge and hope for the best.’ That is about as convincing and as compelling as the argument has been from the opposition to date.

A member interjected.

Nina TAYLOR: Yes, it would absolutely be. What about renters as well? We know the median sale price of a home in Melbourne over the last five years has stayed steady while it has skyrocketed in Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide. Talking about renters, the latest Domain rental report showed that Melbourne’s house rentals are the most affordable of all Australian capital cities, and our apartment rentals remain more affordable than the other large east coast states. I will say that that is not a fluke, that is through our strategic implementation of our Plan for Victoria and also really increasing the supply of homes. We are working hard to build more and better homes for Victorians right across Melbourne and Victoria. Our landmark $6.3 billion Big Housing Build and Regional Housing Fund investment, announced in 2020, has been a major boost to housing delivery in Victoria. So where are we at? Through these programs over 11,900 homes are complete or underway. Each of those dwellings represents a home that a vulnerable household can call their own.

Barak Beacon is a place where we will have over 400 new homes. The site is topped out, so it is well underway. Let me tell you, they are energy efficient and have double glazing, induction cookers and nice wide open accessible spaces for the bathrooms – really pleasant places to live. They are in a beautiful location right near the ocean. They are tenure blind – the only difference will be the benchtop. If we are talking about fairness and equity, whether it is social or affordable or a market rental, the only difference will be the benchtops. In fact they have got the social housing at the front of the site, which has the views of the ocean as well. It is going to be even nicer once they get all the landscaping in there. That is about making sure that people have housing where they want to live but also have the dignity of that housing.

There was a further announcement as a result of state Labor collaborating with federal Labor, and that was at Emerald Hill. There were a whole lot of walk-ups there and, let me tell you, they were not in good condition. Certainly people who lived in those properties were fairly comfortable about going out of them – they were safely relocated, I must say – until the new ones have been built. I am really pleased that the announcement is going ahead. We will be building 131 social homes there. It is a fantastic location right near Clarendon Street. You have got your trams. You have got Metro Tunnel just down the road. It is really an accessible place, a nice place to live, and it has had decades of public housing in that location as well, so it makes good sense. This is all part of our plan to support Victorians to get, one, the dignity of housing but also to have choice and to make sure that they are close to trams, trains and buses and all the things that they need to live a good life.

 Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (12:29): I think members opposite must think that this side of the house and the public have got the memories of goldfish. Do they really think that we do not recall what happened days, weeks, months and even in recent years gone past? To hear the nonsense and the cant coming from members opposite – from the member for Albert Park, from the Minister for Planning – suggesting that only Labor builds and only this side of the house blocks is arrant nonsense. I think every member of Parliament has got the right to stand up for their constituents. I would like to quote from one such member of Parliament, and this is a member of Parliament who wrote to the CEO of their local council. They said, ‘I ask that council reject the application in relation to the application cited. They comprise a total of 236 dwellings on land zoned comprehensive development zone.’

I interpolate to note 236 dwellings. I would have thought that a Labor government that talks about wanting to build new homes would be all in favour of the development of 236 new dwellings, but apparently not.

This member also complained that, as opposed to what the normal processes are, this application provided for ‘a reduction of car parking spaces from 708 car spaces to 391 car spaces’. Again, I note that as part of this government’s activity centre plans it is going to scrap the minimum requirements for car parks, so we can have 20-storey towers and nowhere to park your car. There is absolute –

Tim Richardson interjected.

Michael O’BRIEN: ‘Take the train,’ said the genius opposite. Guess what, we are Australians. We like to have cars, we like our cars and it is un-Australian, member for Mordialloc, to try and take our cars away from Australians. Labor pretends that Australians and Victorians do not want to have cars, but we all know that they will continue to have cars. What is going to happen is we are going to see clogged suburban side streets. We are going to see side streets with no car parking available for visitors, no car parking available for tradies, no car parking available for small businesses trying to get out there and make a living, because they are all going to be filled up with the cars of the residents of these 20-storey towers that Labor wants to impose.

This member is concerned about 236 new homes and concerned about a lack of car spaces. The member then went on to say, ‘It is submitted that there is no precedent for ten storey developments in the local area.’ Oh my goodness, can you imagine, a member of this Parliament complaining about 10-storey developments in their own backyard? I thought we were debating a motion about how great this Labor government’s planning policies are, which include 20-storey developments. We have a member of Parliament, the Minister for Planning, who is all in favour of 20-storey developments in places like Coburg and 16-storey developments in places like Malvern in my backyard. It is quite extreme. This member of Parliament urged council to reject the application. They have rejected 236 ‍new homes. They have rejected a reduction in car parking spaces, and they have rejected 10 ‍storeys in their suburb.

Who was the member of Parliament who wrote this letter? The state member for Carrum district Sonya Kilkenny – none other than the Minister for Planning herself. The same minister who wants to be a bulldozer in Malvern was a blocker in Carrum. A blocker in Carrum, a bulldozer in Malvern – that is the Minister for Planning. That is the hypocrisy of the Minister for Planning. That is the hypocrisy of the Andrews Labor government. I think this letter is so important because it lays bare the absolute hypocrisy of members opposite and particularly the Minister for Planning, that I will make this letter available to the house because I think every member should read it. Every member should have a good look at it and think very carefully about what they are arguing for now, because, as I said, we are not political goldfish over here. We have memories. We know what has been said, we know what has been done, and we will call out the hypocrisy and the dishonesty where we see it.

My little electorate of Malvern – geographically it is very small – is one of the smaller electorates out of the 88 in this place. Out of the 60 activity centres, do you know how many are being imposed on my Malvern electorate? Fourteen out of 60 – nearly 25 per cent of the entire number of activity centres in Victoria – are being imposed on one electorate alone: Toorak Village, Hawksburn station, Toorak station, Armadale station, Malvern station, Caulfield station, Carnegie station, Chadstone, Holmesglen station, East Malvern station, Darling station, Glen Iris station, Gardiner station and Tooronga. It is a shame I have only got 10 minutes, because just listing all those takes up half my time. Why on earth should one electorate have such a burden of activity centres? Members opposite might say it is because we have some train stations. Guess what, there are train stations in the Carrum electorate. There is Carrum station, there is Bonbeach station and there is Seaford station. How many of those stations in the Minister for Planning’s electorate are activity centres? Absolutely none – not one single one. So the Minister for Planning has got train stations and she says, ‘No activity centres in my backyard, but I’m going to impose 14 of them on the member for Malvern’s electorate.’ It is outrageous, it is manipulative, it is disingenuous and it is wrong. That is why the Liberals and Nationals will not stand for it. It is why a Wilson-led government will scrap Labor’s unfair burdens of activity centres and actually work to create housing with councils.

I have heard the nonsense from members saying you cannot trust councils. With all the 14 activity centres that Labor wants to impose on the Malvern electorate, they say this will lead to 50,000 new homes by I think it is 2051 – 50,000 new homes. Unfortunately for Labor, Stonnington council has already done the work. They have already done the homework.

Dylan Wight interjected.

Michael O’BRIEN: Well, I am sure you deserved it. Do not break the law in my patch, member for Tarneit. Do not come into my patch with your law-breaking ways.

Stonnington council has actually already released its housing plans, which would lead to 67,000 new homes, 17,000 more than the Labor government’s proposals. So here is the choice that the people of Malvern have at the next election: you can vote Labor, get fewer homes, more high-rise, less parking, less choice and no right to object, or you can vote Liberal–Nationals and you can get more homes, more amenity, more heritage protection, more car parking and you do not lose your right to have a say. I am very, very pleased that my successor Amelia Hamer will be going to the election and will be making that choice very, very clear to the good folks of Malvern – very, very clear. I am very keen to make sure that everyone in my electorate knows that is the choice, because it is the choice.

Why would Labor not want to work with councils? What is Labor’s problem? I do not understand it. It goes beyond just Malvern because Stonnington council represents 1 per cent of the land mass of urban Melbourne, yet 33 per cent of the activity centres are being imposed on Stonnington council. It is disproportionate and it is unfair. If it is all about train stations, why isn’t the member for Carrum’s own electorate – Bonbeach station, Chelsea station, Seaford station, Carrum station – why aren’t those stations the subjects of activity centres too? The fact is that this is not about new homes; this is about the minister cosying up to property developers. It is about cosying up to property developers, more high-rise developments, so their mates in the CFMEU can get their snouts in the trough again, because that is the rule – once you get over a certain level, the CFMEU get their claws into the project, and we know that is what this government is all about: protecting the crooks in the CFMEU. The more sites they have, the more they can use them as drug distribution centres. We have seen that happen on the Big Build; we see that is what Labor is into.

This government should not be patting itself on the back over its housing policies; it should be giving itself a kick up the backside for its housing policies, because they are horrid. They are not working. They have failed over 12 years. These ones will fail as well because they are ill-thought-through, they are unfair, they are unwarranted and they do not lead to an increase in housing. They simply demonstrate that this is a morally bankrupt government bereft of ideas and ready to be put out to pasture after 12 long years.

 Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (12:39): It is a great pleasure to rise and make a contribution in favour of this motion today. It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Malvern. He will be missed next term. I do not think that champion for renters Ms Hamer will be anywhere near as effective. Watching along in my office on the TV to the hysterical contribution by the member for Caulfield and then coming in here and listening to the member for Malvern – they say they do not have memories like goldfish. Was that right? I think that was the quote. Well, that is good because I am about to take a trip down memory lane, member for Malvern. I am about to take a trip down memory lane and go through some of literally the worst examples of planning policy that this country has ever seen, between 2010 and 2014 when the member for Bulleen – no, do not go anywhere – was the planning minister, here in the state of Victoria.

I will get to that, trust me. I need longer than 10 minutes, but I will get to it. Just recently, I think it must have been Monday, the opposition released their planning and housing policy for Victoria, and it was nothing more than a situation of back to the future. They do not mind about high-density development as long as it is nowhere near their own electorates. They have basically just gone, ‘Okay, we don’t mind about a bit of higher density. We don’t mind a little bit of higher limits, but let’s just get out a map and let’s just figure out where we don’t live, and we can pop them there. Where don’t we live? We don’t live in Fitzroy, Collingwood or Brunswick, so we’ll just pop it all there. And then what we’ll do is we’ll smack a whole bunch of houses in the outer suburbs’ – without any plans for amenity, without any plans for infrastructure. They have actually come in here and in previous contributions argued against the growth areas infrastructure contribution. That is where they are at – ‘We’ll just put hundreds of thousands of people in places like Melton, Tarneit, Wyndham Vale, Point Cook, Werribee; in the south-eastern suburbs in Greenvale; in the northern suburbs in Donnybrook and Craigieburn.’

There was another comment about cosying up to developer mates, which is the funniest thing that I have ever heard. Have you ever heard of a bloke called Intaj Khan? I have. He is in here pretty frequently meeting with your mate. So you have got a plan to put high density in electorates that are not yours.

Nicole Werner: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, there have been a number of references to ‘you’ and to the member for Malvern. It needs to be addressed through the Chair.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): There is no point of order.

Dylan WIGHT: I wish I could talk to the member for Malvern. He is in the chamber. Talk about cosying up to developers; it is just back to the future. ‘We’ll just pump a whole bunch of houses into the outer suburbs,’ which are already at breaking point in terms of infrastructure because of the ridiculous precinct structure plans that were signed by the member for Bulleen when they were last in government, ‘and we will do so without any plan to take infrastructure contributions off developers and provide the amenity, the services and the infrastructure that the people in those areas need.’ It is one of the worst housing policies I have ever seen. But it is no different to the housing policy they had between 2010 and 2014, which is the root of so many of the problems that we see in Victoria’s outer suburbs, because we had an exploding population and the position and plan of the government at the time was just to put a whole bunch of houses in empty paddocks with no amenity and no infrastructure and not hold developers to account, or even councils to account, to deliver that infrastructure.

I am going to touch on a specific issue in my electorate of Tarneit, in essentially a suburb of Tarneit. There is a PSP, a precinct structure plan, called Tarneit North. It sits to the north of the rail line just to the north of the existing Tarneit station. It is the Tarneit North PSP. That PSP was signed during caretaker in 2014 by the former planning minister. It is the worst example of a precinct structure plan that I have ever seen anywhere in Australia, and I would think anywhere in the world it would stack up to how bad it is. I have spoken in this chamber before about the lack of amenity that is there and about the fact that it is planned so poorly that we cannot fit a bus route through it. We cannot get buses in there. That is why we had to do FlexiRide in the area.

Members interjecting.

Dylan WIGHT: Correct. That is the legacy of those opposite. But it does not stop there. The developer contribution plan that was put into this PSP was done so poorly and was done to favour developers, like Intaj Khan, so much so that there are provisions in there that intersections and infrastructure have to be built at the time of subdivision but they have broken the subdivisions up into such small little bits that it is an estate with dead-end roads where residents are landlocked. They cannot get out of their estate because there is no incumbency on the developer to build the infrastructure to allow the residents to get out of their own estate. Now one developer is land banking and will not do the subdivision, so the people that live there will not be able to get out of their estate for some time to come. It is incumbent on the state government to step in, where it should not have to, to fix it. That is the legacy of those opposite, and from the announcement they have made with their housing plan, that is exactly what will happen again. It will happen in the northern suburbs, it will happen in the western suburbs and it will happen in the south-eastern suburbs. The exact same thing will happen again. Developers will get to line their pockets whilst residents are sold a dream that turns into a nightmare, and then it will be incumbent, I have got absolutely no doubt, on a future Labor government to go and fix it.

That is what is happening right now. Those frauds opposite – and frauds are exactly what they are – have the audacity to come in here and try and lecture us on housing because their leafy suburbs are going to get some higher density. I mean, give me a spell. That is the legacy of those opposite when it comes to planning. Those frauds come in here or go out to the outer suburbs and say, ‘Labor hasn’t had your back. Labor hasn’t looked after you. You don’t have the things that you need, because of Labor.’ Why don’t we trace it back to the planning decisions that were made that created the mess that we are in? They are all sitting there with their heads down now. Why don’t you go out to the outer suburbs and tell them why this is happening?

Members interjecting.

Dylan WIGHT: I will tell you what we are doing. We are building new train stations. We are building bus routes where we can. We are doing the western roads upgrade to try and help these residents get around the estates that you guys planned so poorly. The funniest part about this is only a few months after this debacle occurred they elected the bloke leader. Then it went on for four years of articles in the Age and in the Guardian – Mr Skyscraper he was called. They come in here and talk about higher density and higher height limits. The guy was called Mr Skyscraper. There is the Fishermans Bend issue. There is the Phillip Island issue, where there was a secret, out-of-court settlement that had to happen. This was four years –

Members interjecting.

Dylan WIGHT: I told you I would take you down history lane. You have been pretty quiet until now, and I know why: because you spent four years completely destroying Victoria with poor planning decisions. That is exactly what they will do again; the biggest group of NIMBYs of all time. You have got the member for Brighton strutting down the street with some Liberal branch members. They are the biggest NIMBYs of all time: ‘We are happy for higher density, just not near us.’ They are Greens electorates at the moment, but they will pop them into Collingwood and Brunswick and Fitzroy because they are pretty sure no Liberal voters live there. It is mainly hipsters now, but it used to be working-class people. Then they will expand the outer suburbs like they did four years ago and repeat the mistakes of the past. They could not plan a suburb if their lives depended on it. There is nobody in their caucus that would have an utter clue how to do so, so they will repeat the mistakes of the past. It will be Tarneit North all over again where people are landlocked and cannot move around the community, where you cannot get public transport and where you cannot get amenity. You cannot trust those opposite when it comes to planning or housing, and I commend the motion to the house.

 Nicole WERNER (Warrandyte) (12:49): Today, here we are, and the government has put on the government business program and seen fit to spend time in the Parliament and time in the chamber to laud themselves, to pat themselves on the back, to talk about how great they are and to talk about all the things they are allegedly doing right, when there are many things that they are doing wrong and many other things that we should be legislating on. But that is by the by today. Today we are being asked to commend the government’s housing strategy. We are being asked to congratulate them on their record. But if you step outside this chamber and actually speak to Victorians, which members opposite really do not seem to do, when you speak to renters, when you speak to young Victorians and when you stop wagging your finger and telling your own story, you will hear a very different story.

You will hear the story in the Berwick electorate of young people who cannot afford to buy a home. You will hear from people in my electorate of Warrandyte, where families cannot find a rental. You will hear of builders who are walking away from projects. Yet the government want Parliament to congratulate them for solving the housing crisis, allegedly. They are patting themselves on the back so hard they are dislocating their shoulders when they are simply gaslighting Victorians who actually know the truth. The gap between what the government says and what Victorians are experiencing has never been wider. The truth is simple: the housing crisis in Victoria is getting worse. If the government strategy were actually working, we would see more homes being built, we would see rent stabilising and we would see home ownership becoming easier. But instead we are seeing the very opposite.

Let me debunk what Labor would have you believe. Let me debunk the gaslighting. Let me debunk the PR. Let me debunk the fake stuff that they are putting out there and present the truth here today in the chamber, which is that in the year to September 2025 just 54,323 new homes were completed in Victoria. What is that? It is the lowest annual result since 2014, 12 years ago. After more than a decade of this government being in power, home building has not gone forwards, it has not improved; it has gone backwards and not just gone backwards but gone backwards by 10 years. I do not know what you were doing 12 years ago, Acting Speaker, but that was a long time ago. I do not know what Victorians were doing 12 years ago, but I was 22 years old. It was a long time ago.

The gall of those opposite, standing up and lecturing and wagging their fingers, talking to us about all young people, all the youths, and what they are thinking. No. Standing here as a young person who speaks to young people every single day, who also knows the truth, it was your former Premier that said publicly, ‘I’ve been speaking to young people. I’ve been speaking to my kids and their friends. They actually don’t want to own their own home.’ That was the former Premier of the Labor government that said young people do not want to own. That is not the truth. That is simply untrue. While the government set a target of 80,000 homes per year, across the two years since that announcement only 116,025 homes have actually been delivered. That is 43,975 homes short of their own promise, and the future pipeline is collapsing.

Talk about how wonderful your housing strategy is. Talk about this motion, just patting yourselves on the back. But the truth is that they are well short. The truth is that they are behind. The truth is that, year on year, they are well short of delivering on their own promise. In the last year alone approvals for new builds in Victoria have decreased by 26.1 per cent. That means there are going to be less homes starting now, meaning less homes built in the next 12 to 18 months time. Builders are losing confidence. Projects are not stacking up. Developments are being shelved. When all these things happen, homes do not get built for Victorians.

One of the reasons why these projects are not stacking up is because of the sheer weight of taxes and charges being piled onto housing in Victoria. The truth of it is this: you cannot tax your way into more affordable housing. You cannot tax your way into building more homes. You cannot tax your way into making it more affordable for young Victorians to rent or to buy. That is the truth of it. Since 2014, 32 different property taxes and charges have been introduced or increased. Property tax revenue is projected to rise to from $6.2 billion in 2014–15 to $20.5 billion in 2028–29. When the government piles taxes onto housing, it should be a surprise to no-one that fewer homes are being built. That is the truth of it. To this point, the truth of the matter is that housing affordability in this state is now at its lowest level in 30 years. More than 24,000 rental properties disappeared from the market in just one year. Renters know this. Aspiring home owners know this.

They are feeling this in a real way. Vacancy rates remain below 2 per cent, meaning many renters cannot even find a home or a property to apply for. And public confidence in the government’s housing strategy is collapsing. Recent polling shows that 62 per cent of Victorians do not trust this government to deliver solutions to the housing crisis – 62 per cent. A 21-year-old young woman in my community wrote to me recently about the housing challenges that she was facing and that she and her generation were facing – at 21 years of age. She said:

The idea of owning a home in the future is something that may have sounded possible years ago but honestly now, it feels like a distant dream. The reality is that getting into the rental market is hard enough on its own, let alone buying a house and affording a mortgage … at this rate it feels impossible.

The standard amongst my peers is either a sharehouse rental, or staying at our parents place until home ownership feels feasible. Whenever that might be, I’m not sure – But at this rate my hopes aren’t high.

I actually remember joking with co-workers at my old job who said “haha well you should have invested back in 2008” when I was literally 3 years old … So I guess the system is majorly disadvantaging young people who don’t really know how to get their foot in the door.

Every young person that I speak to knows this as a lived experience. Every young person of my generation and the generation below knows this as a lived experience – that it is impossible to get into a rental and that the dream of home ownership is so far fetched and beyond their reach. They say it feels impossible. They feel like they are going to be renting forever. That is why I am standing in this place fighting for these young people, fighting for their opportunity to own their own home, fighting for their opportunity to have a go in the rental market. That is why we are standing here, and that is why our plan is simple. It is more homes and more choice, because housing affordability improves when it becomes easier to build homes.

The first part of our plan is to fast-track new housing and growth areas where families want to live. The system that plans new suburbs is badly broken. To break it down, the precinct structure plan, or PSP, is simply the master plan for new suburbs. It sets out where roads will go, where schools will be built and where homes, parks, drains and shops will be located. In other words, it is the blueprint that turns empty land into a new community. But under this government these plans can take up to 10 years to approve when it should be taking two. It used to be that it took two. In normal terms it takes two. But this government has halted and it has delayed, and it is taking up to 10 years. Families wanting to build a home are now told they have to wait until 2030 before land becomes available. That is absolutely absurd.

So here we are with this government. Do you know what else they have done? The second part of our plan is to make sure infrastructure keeps up with housing growth. When developers build in new areas, they pay a charge called a growth areas infrastructure contribution, or GAIC. Put simply, this is a tax paid when land is developed so the government can fund the infrastructure that new communities need ‍– things like roads, schools, drainage and public transport. And, guess what, this government has been sitting on $400 million of it, and it has been unspent. Where is that $400 million? Is it tied up in your CFMEU $15 billion corruption scandal? Is it tied up in the settlement that you had to pay to settle a court case instead of fronting up? No. You just want to spend it on cover-ups, don’t you.

These are the places like where my brother lives with his young family, places like Kalkallo, where it takes 45 minutes for him to get out of his estate. These are the people in the growth suburbs that we are fighting for and that we are standing with.

Members interjecting.

Nicole WERNER: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I would just like to raise for your attention that when the minister was at the table she used unparliamentary language, calling me a disgrace. I would just like to raise that for your attention.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): I do not believe there is any point of order. The member can raise it with the Speaker separately should she wish.

Sitting suspended 1:00 pm until 2:02 pm.

Business interrupted under standing orders.