Wednesday, 18 March 2026

 Daniela DE MARTINO (Monbulk) (14:41): It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Allan Labor government’s record of delivering for Victorians through our suite of housing policies. From planning through to retirement village reforms to strengthening protection for renters, our government has been working diligently to ensure that Victorians can have the dignity of a place that they can call their own and the security to go with it. The best way to ensure that there is enough housing for everyone is to build it so people can either buy or rent where they want to live, not be pushed out to the fringes somewhere else.

Our policies are in stark contrast to the opposition’s Voldemort housing policy – the housing policy that must not be named. To quote our Minister for Planning, it seems that those opposite are a bit more excited about our housing policy than their own. Where is their plan for seniors? Where is their plan for renters? Does it go to that place where – you know when an email is sent to you and it never gets to you? There must be somewhere in the universe where those emails go to die. I am wondering if that is where the policy of the opposition when it comes to housing has actually ended up: in that special black hole.

There is so much that we have been doing. I know the Minister for Planning spoke at length about what we have done in that area, in that space, so I want to actually touch on some other areas. I really want to look at what has happened in the consumer affairs space, because I do think that is actually quite pertinent. These are real reforms that will impact on people and make their lives better for it.

In terms of retirement villages, across my district of Monbulk we do not actually have many retirement villages. We have got a couple but not many because of its nature; the topography of the area does not lend itself to too many of them, but they are there. I know that we have many seniors who are thinking of where they will go next in the autumn of their years. For a long, long time there has been a lot of concern about retirement villages fleecing people, actually taking advantage of people through terrible, terrible contracts that were convoluted. The fine print was too small and too voluminous for people. Even lawyers who had worked all their lives said that they were very difficult to understand and interpret. We have made some real reforms in that area, through the Retirement Villages Amendment Act of last year. It has been the most significant reform to the retirement village sector in decades. I was championing that back at the time, and I will continue to champion that now, because it just helps people make more informed choices about where they enter, how they live there and what happens when they exit, whichever form that may take.

The new principles are focused on dignity, respect and resident choice. There are simpler exit entitlement calculations. We are requiring operators to be more transparent in their reporting. There are annual financial checks of contracts, stronger dispute resolution, a new standard form contract, a code of practice, and enhanced monitoring and enforcement powers for Consumer Affairs Victoria. I know that seniors I have spoken to have long hesitated on whether or not to enter a retirement village, because they feared they would lose what they might have, which they really wanted to hold on to, and not be able to pass on to their children that bit of property wealth for them, especially people who did not have a lot to start with. There was a lot of reluctance for them to enter into retirement village contracts, because they had heard of the nightmare scenarios which had plagued and befallen others. I know that the changes we made last year have created more confidence in the system and more confidence that they are not going to end up being taken advantage of, and that is a wonderful testament to the work of the minister and the department who made that happen.

As I said before, the opposition came out in February and announced a housing policy, and nowhere were seniors or renters mentioned at all. Yet we have made renters a core area for us to focus on because we know not everyone wants to buy a house or is in a position to buy a house, for a whole host of reasons, not always financial. It may be that they are only living here for a few years and they do not want to buy a house with the costs that come with it and they would prefer to rent. Renting can be a choice as well. We have understood that and we have made significant reforms to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997, and the Consumer and Planning Legislation Amendment (Housing Statement Reform) Act 2025 repealed all remaining no-reason notices to vacate. That was incredibly important. I have several friends who rent, and that was always like a sword of Damocles, a threat that loomed over them that they may have been required to vacate their home for absolutely no reason at all.

In Australia for a long, long time we really have lacked good protections for renters. For the longest of times it has definitely been in the landlord’s favour. As you would well know, I have a lot of family living over in Italy, and many of them rented for life because that was just what happened. It was not unusual for that to be the circumstance, as it is not unusual in other parts of the world to actually be a lifelong renter. But they had a security that went with it. They knew that that place was their home, and even though they did not own it, they did not have the title in their name – a landlord did – in their apartment they knew that was their place. My uncle actually just passed away a couple of months ago, and he and his wife, my Zia Maria, had lived in that home for over 60 years, in their apartment. They knew it was theirs until the end.

We are not in that situation here in Australia, because the capacity for people to have bought their house means that things are a bit different here in terms of the framework for housing, but we have recognised that more and more people need greater certainty in renting. That is why we brought in those reforms last year, and that gives greater assurance to people who are renting that they are not just going to be booted out for no reason at all.

We have actually banned all types of rental bidding. It was getting to a point that was just extraordinary at one stage where people were outbidding each other to be able to rent a place, and that has gone now. We extended notice periods for rent increases and certain notices to vacate from 60 days to 90 days. We standardised rental applications and strengthened protections for renters’ personal information, because personal information should remain that way. It should be personal. It should not be able to be shared out or sold. We ensured that when people are in the rental system there is dignity for them in that and they are not there to be exploited.

A home is one of the most important things for all of us, a stable place that we call our own in whatever format it might be: house, apartment, rented or bought. We have understood as a government that people need that assurance that (a) they can afford a home and (b) once they are in it they can feel assured that they have got that security. It has been extraordinary listening at length to a number of the contributions earlier. I was listening to some of the opposition’s contributions, and one would think, if one only heard the contributions from those opposite, that we have done absolutely nothing in this space. There was a figure quoted by the member for Caulfield that we have only built 36 public homes in 10 years, completely ignoring all the social housing but by another name. There has been some disingenuous information bandied about, which is quite disturbing because we are, as a state, leading the nation in both growth of housing supply and housing affordability more generally.

That is not to be sniffed at. Melbourne is now one of the more affordable cities to buy and rent in. We are building and approving and starting building more homes than both New South Wales and Queensland. We are issuing more first home buyer loans in Victoria – 11,900 more than New South Wales and 16,200 more than Queensland. The figures speak for themselves. I know sometimes facts can be a little bit inconvenient for those opposite, especially when they support what we say and they fly in the face of what gets thrown our way.

As I say, our housing policies – there is no one way to solve a housing issue at all. Housing issues are multilayered. They are complex. It is really, really easy to be in opposition and to simply decry everything that is done. It is really easy to be negative and it is really easy to oppose. It is very hard to govern. It is very hard to look at a complex situation and go ‘We have to tackle this in so many various ways to achieve good outcomes.’ But we have done the work. Our government, through a whole host of different ministers and different portfolios that all intersect, have been doing the work, and we know there is more to do. We have a vision for this state and we are enacting that vision for this state, unlike those opposite, who, as I say, produced a housing policy that can only be called the Voldemort of policies – the one that must not be named.

 Brad BATTIN (Berwick) (14:51): I rise to speak on this motion. Obviously, being a person who represents a growth area in Victoria, and one of the rare ones who lives in the growth area in Victoria in the area that he represents, I have been very proud to grow up and see the changes through the Berwick area. At the moment in this house I think I have the second-fastest growing by electors electorate across the entire state, so we are taking our fair degree of numbers of people moving in. Where I am going to focus on this is particularly around where Victorians live, work and access transport.

I note that in the growth areas out our way history is something that we can look at on how we ended up where we are today and why we are trying to fix some of these problems. If you look down through the areas of Berwick South, through Clyde North and Clyde, that used to be some of the best farming land. We had studs down there. We have Ramlegh estate, which was Ramlegh stud –

Members interjecting.

Brad BATTIN: I will not refer to myself there, thank you very much, member for Frankston. Some may or may not know, but we had a Melbourne Cup winner come from down that way with the Ramlegh stud. Some of the land down there has been developed, and some of it is still market gardens, so there is still plenty of it down there that is still going to be developed moving forward. All of this area, if you want to talk about livability and protecting the future, the quality of the soil was known and is still known in some of those areas because of the fruit and vegetables that it can supply for all Victorians.

I know I have got the Shadow Minister for Agriculture at the table, who lives in an area that does produce a lot of food and fibre for Victoria. This used to be produced through many of these communities. In 2002, under the then Labor government, at the stroke of midnight, with the stroke of a pen, we all of a sudden moved the urban growth boundary and we took away all these areas that were the farm areas of Clyde, Clyde North et cetera. The farmers thought this was not bad because the value of their land increased dramatically, and a lot of them have onsold since then. But we have lost that land forever. We will never get that opportunity again. When the plan came out, the part the government failed to do was to plan for what happens as we get the growth. We see history repeating itself right now, where the government talks about putting in new houses, but they have failed to put the infrastructure in for those new houses so people can continue to live that lifestyle that we have come to know and love here in Australia.

If you live in Clyde North at the moment and you want to get to work, your choices are very, very limited. I know there will be some occasional bus services, but those bus services do not go where you need to go at the times you need to get there, and every single person down there just knows the simple fact that it would take too long to get from Clyde North to a job, whether it was in Dandenong or all the way in the city, if you had to use public transport. It is just not viable. The amount of hours away from home would not be viable for each person that lives within that community. The only alternative then is to drive. The government promised back in 1999 that they were going to bring the railway back to Clyde. That was in 1999. Just to put it in perspective, I have just celebrated my 27th wedding anniversary – I got married in 1999 – and the railway station is still not there. Twenty-seven years on, it has been committed to four or five times by the Labor government and it still has not been delivered. What that means is the people there have to then buy another car, so we have got more cars in the community, more cars on the roads, and the government are not delivering the roads.

Gabrielle Williams interjected.

Brad BATTIN: I note the minister sitting at the table said, ‘Why didn’t you commit to it? Why didn’t you do it?’ In four years since 1999, are the government honestly going to turn around and try to pass the buck? Wait till we get to the other parts of the issues down there. But this is an issue of this government. Nothing is their fault – nothing. They are the ones that promised this railway, and they have never delivered it. So each household now buys more cars. With more cars comes more traffic, and yet they have not put the funding into roads, like Thompsons Road. They have not properly invested in Clyde Road. This is the third tranche where we are upgrading Clyde Road, because it is already at capacity, because on three separate occasions the government has failed to plan properly when they were putting housing out in the southern end of Berwick and all the way through to Clyde and Clyde North. So if you are in a car, you have got to go onto Clyde Road to get onto the freeway. That travel in itself in the morning can be around about 40 minutes just to get to the freeway before you get stuck on what is known as the Monash car park, and anyone out in our area knows what the Monash car park is. That is the one that you get on in the morning, you get all excited you are going to get into work, and then you have got to stop, and you want to hope you have got a pretty long podcast, because there is going to be plenty of time sitting in that car doing 5 and 10 k’s an hour until you get into the city. That is the planning failure of this government.

But it goes further than just the infrastructure of what they have delivered when it comes to the roads and the rail – or failed to deliver. It means that families out there now are missing out on the services that protect them. Clyde North, just this week in Orana estate, was on the news again. A father had to come out of his house because of young kids running around in the street with bats at the time. He confronted them and more came back with machetes. The amount of crime – violent crime, aggravated burglaries, stolen cars – happening through Clyde and Clyde North at the moment is horrendous, and it is because the crooks know two things: they know that, one, if they get caught, they are probably going to get away with it, but two, only this government, in their failure to plan, could build a police station and fail to put police in it. We have actually approached the government now and asked, ‘Can you guarantee you’re not going to try and take services away from Cranbourne to fill in those positions?’, because the reality is all that does is make Cranbourne less safe. In Clyde North itself, too many residents are speaking to us each and every day about the safety issues, because the government is more than happy to put the houses in and take the taxes on all of the buildings, but they do not supply the services that keep the community safe.

We have also seen in recent years a unit fire in Clyde North that was attached to a garage and ended up going through multiple garages pretty quickly. One of the biggest issues around that – and the career firefighters and the volunteer firefighters came out in equal force on this – is that they have not got the funding for the Clyde North fire station. Moving a truck from Clyde to Clyde North is not what you would call service delivery for that community. The Clyde North community has paid their taxes each and every year to ensure that they get the services that they deserve, like each and every other Victorian, yet a block of land was bought, a promise for a Fire Rescue Victoria station was put in place, and again it failed to be delivered. If it was there, the truck could have responded within 90 ‍seconds from that station and been out to that fire, and it may have prevented it going through other homes. That is what happens when you fail to plan here in the community.

We also know that these communities are paying their fair share in tax. The GAIC funding here in Victoria, the growth area infrastructure contribution, currently holds nearly half a billion dollars. Half a billion dollars is sitting in an account holding up the coffers for the Victorian government, the Victorian Labor Party, probably sitting there just to hold off against some debt that they have got backing up at the moment. One of the biggest concerns about that is it should have been invested in infrastructure, and this government is now using it to deliver services like buses through these communities and not for the infrastructure that the government had promised those communities for such a long period of time.

I wish I had a lot more time on this. I was not planning to speak on it, but I did not even get to the precinct structure plan delays that have been delaying our community for so long. There is no better example than the Officer town centre, which, 10 years on, sits empty. The PSP that was originally put in place prior to 2010 took so long to get through. They were arguing over some grass that did not exist but that some university students said may exist. They never actually found it, but it delayed the entire project and housing projects through that area. It took a Liberal government – in 2010 to 2014 ‍– to come in and go, ‘Seriously, just pull your head in and get these things going,’ because we wanted to make sure the development in Officer could happen.

Since then the government changed in 2014, and nothing has happened when it comes to the Officer town centre. Communities have moved to Officer after all these promises about services that will be supplied and guarantees of things that will be in place, and none of them have been delivered. The problem is the failure of the Labor government to ensure that these PSPs are delivered and that funding goes to the projects that were promised to those communities. These communities pay exceptional amounts in tax. The taxes on property here have gone up so much in the last 10 years. But the problem we have got is our growth areas, where I proudly live, are the ones that continue to be neglected by the Allan Labor government, and they will continue to be neglected as this government racks up debt and tries to find money for its pet projects in the city.

 Chris COUZENS (Geelong) (15:01): I am delighted to rise to speak on the housing motion. On this side of the house we know how important safe and secure housing is to people in our communities right across Victoria, but in particular in my community of Geelong. As someone that grew up in public housing, I know how important secure and affordable housing is and what a difference it makes particularly for families with children, not having to take them out of schools because they are forced to move for a whole range of reasons. That secure and affordable housing that we see in our social housing sector now is so important to so many individuals but also to families. As I said, it provides that security that enables you to continue and settle into your community. You are not having to move around, take kids out of school or travel long distances to employment – all those things that are impacted by the insecure housing issue that we know is a problem in our state. It is a problem everywhere, and we need to continue to build on the investments that we already have made. We have worked hard on building more social housing and building housing where people can afford to buy. There are so many different aspects to our housing agenda that I am really proud that this government has initiated, and it has continued that major investment.

We know housing affordability and supply are critical issues for Victoria and for my community as well. As I said, with social housing the investment that we have put into Geelong has been significant. We have three major apartment developments underway right now – in fact one is already complete, and tenants are starting to move in – around central Geelong. I was so excited to hear that we were actually building housing where people need it. People live in the city and want to live in the city because they work in the city. They should not have to be forced out to the suburbs because of housing availability or affordability and needing to find something that is suitable for their budgets. For this social housing we have three major developments, which equates to around 250 new apartments. That is extraordinary for Geelong. We have never seen such a big investment, and that is not to mention other opportunities for housing being built across Geelong through infill and within new developments. So this is really significant for Geelong. We are seeing 250 families and individuals moving or having the opportunity to move into these incredible new apartments that are providing the environmentally sustainable housing that is very much needed. Geelong’s population is growing rapidly, and we are having people move into our community every single day.

When I talk to people who have moved into Geelong, whether it be from Melbourne or other parts of the state, they are amazed at just how incredible Geelong is. But also, having access to affordable and secure housing makes a huge difference to them and their families. Once families are settled in that secure and affordable housing, the kids are attending school. They are not being pulled out of school because they have to move. The cost-of-living factors come into play when they are not travelling some distance to go to work and for a whole range of things.

The exciting thing about these major developments around the CBD area of Geelong is it means that they have access to all the services. The services are there. The infrastructure is there for people to live in our beautiful city of Geelong, but the housing has to be there as well. For these 250 units or apartments – as I said, almost half of them are available right now – tenants have started to move in and are expressing how excited they are that they are actually moving into the city area because they either work in that area or study in that area and they have networks in that area. To me it is so exciting that we are actually getting people where they want to live, which is a really important part of providing housing to our community. As I said, not everybody wants to live out in the suburbs. The Geelong region is growing. We have huge new estates and areas right across the region. But to have people living where they want to live is really important. The huge growth in Geelong is having an impact on housing availability and affordability, and we have been working right across Geelong to ensure that that housing is being delivered. We know that within the CBD area the more people we get living in that area, the more revitalised our inner-city area will be. This government has really focused on revitalising the City of Greater Geelong.

Our $5.3 billion Big Housing Build is delivering more than 12,000 social and affordable houses across metropolitan and regional Victoria. As I said, in regional Victoria we have just the same demands as metro Melbourne does, and we are very focused on making sure our regions are getting the housing that they need. I know that other regions are experiencing the same input from the delivery of more social and affordable housing in their areas. More than 7600 homes have been completed or are underway, with more than 2800 homes already completed and welcoming renters. What is really exciting about our housing agenda is that we are making sure we are building the houses and that people are moving into them and enjoying peace of mind and consistency, enabling them to make themselves a home that they know is secure and affordable.

Every new social and affordable home built through government investment is a home that is taking pressure out of the housing market. Like in many regional areas, private rental is not easily available, so having this influx of, for example, 250 homes into central Geelong is taking pressure off the private rental market. It means that people are living in more affordable and secure housing, which is what our government agenda is. As well as providing a home to a family in need, this investment puts downward pressure on overall rental prices in the private rental market and improves housing affordability. Focusing on more homes in Geelong’s CBD, again, is really important in terms of providing that security of tenure. We have seen so much in our rental reforms that is really supporting people in the private rental market. We know there have been issues out there. The Minister for Consumer Affairs has done an enormous amount of work on improving the rights of private tenants and making sure that they are getting a fair deal.

But we know that more public and social housing is what we need in our communities and what this government has been doing for quite some years now. Our affordable housing rental scheme will deliver 2400 affordable homes across metro and regional Victoria. The first development, which is in Kensington, has welcomed renters, and renters are moving into Markham Avenue in Ashburton and Dunlop Avenue in Ascot Vale. Additionally the $1 billion regional fund will deliver more than 1300 ‍social and affordable homes to Victoria’s regions. It is really important to understand just how significant and important these housing additions to regional Victoria are to our communities. Having spoken to many people that have moved into these apartments, which are brand new, environmentally sound and sustainable and have air conditioning – all those things that you would expect, and some even have bay views, I have to say – they are so excited at the opportunity of having access to this secure and affordable housing. The work that we are doing as a government has been unprecedented, particularly in my region of Geelong, and I commend this to the house.

 Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (15:11): I also rise to address the government’s motion relating to the government’s housing strategy, as moved by the member for Carrum. I note that there are some of our next generation home owners in the chamber gallery today from St Patrick’s, Stawell, represented by the incredibly wonderful member for Lowan, and of course everyone is welcome in the people’s house.

This is an important motion. It is an important motion because it gives everyone the opportunity to speak about something that should be a fundamental. Every person, every Victorian, deserves the opportunity, should they wish, to own their own home. It is a fundamental to have a roof over your head, four walls around you and a solid footing, a solid base. The opportunity for people to have the independence of home ownership, to have the security of home ownership and to have the security of housing is not just something that should be spoken about in the abstract; it actually makes a real difference in the lives of people. It enables them to be their very best. It enables them to have the opportunity to contribute back to their community, to consider the possibility of employment and to consider the possibility of having fruitful relationships, life-giving relationships. It enables them the opportunity to have the stability that every human deserves. So I think that whether you are a member of the government, a member of the opposition or a member who sits in this part of the chamber, whoever you are, we should agree that housing is an important human fundamental.

My critique, though, is this: the government has been here for 11, almost 12, years, and the cost of housing in that time has increased. It has not decreased and it has not stabilised; it has increased. The amount of state government taxes, fees and charges that are being applied to housing has increased, yet the members of the government have the cheek to come in here and lecture the opposition about the fact that we need more affordable housing and that we need greater options for housing. They seek to characterise us in a way that is simply untrue, false and most certainly misleading. We will not stand for that. We will stand on our own two feet, and we will argue the case ourselves.

The cost of building a new home is made up of Victorian government taxes, fees and charges totalling 43 per cent of the cost of a new home. Property taxes in Victoria under this government are the highest property taxes of any state in the country. There are 32 property-based taxes and charges that have been introduced or increased since this government was first elected in 2014. This is something which is impacting the lives of Victorians and their ability – or inability, as the case may be – to own their own home. Yet they stand here as if snow would not melt in their mouths after the taxes, the fees and the charges that they have overseen or enabled by their actions as members of the ministry or their passive consent as members of the backbench. They stand here purer than snow. They are responsible. They have had an opportunity. They have been in government. They have been elected to high office. And what have they done? Gone backwards. They have made home ownership further out of reach than it has ever been before for Victorians.

I think Victorians know the truth of this, because the Victorians who are on the receiving end of it do not look at what this government say, they look at what they do. They look at what they have done. By contrast, this side of the house, the Liberals and the Nationals, have thought about this. We have not just thought about it, we have listened. We do not just think about things in an isolated room and then seek to impose it on a community like this government does. No, we have listened. We have sought advice from our communities, we have engaged with our communities, we have engaged with our local councils and we have engaged with those in the sector, and we have put together what we believe to be a credible alternative, an alternative that will deliver and restore the dream of home ownership for Victorians. We will do a number of things, including fast-tracking home building.

Dylan Wight interjected.

Brad ROWSWELL: If the member for Tarneit wishes to sleep, he can. That is not a worry. He just suggested that this was a yawn fest. Well, if he is not interested in restoring the dream of home ownership in Victoria, then that is on him, and he will be accountable for that. Where are you? There you are. He will be accountable for that to the people in his electorate who wish to own their own home and who cannot own their own home because of the actions and inactions of this government. I mean, if this is a yawn –

Dylan Wight interjected.

Brad ROWSWELL: If a credible plan for restoring the dream of home ownership is something that the member for Tarneit considers a yawn fest, then that is on him. That is on him, and he will be judged for that. He will be judged for that by the response of those people in his electorate that do wish to own their own home and that by his action, or inaction, are not able to.

Our plan is quite simple. We will fast-track home building in existing identified growth areas, clearing Labor’s backlog of 27 precinct structure plans to get more homes built sooner. We will rejuvenate Melbourne’s CBD as a place to live and to work, expanding the capital city zone to enable more development, housing and economic opportunity. We will focus on livable middle and outer suburbs by restoring the local voice to planning and supporting the local voice to guide the future of neighbourhoods through community-led structure plans.

In relation to building new homes, we will do so in our regional centres, working directly with local councils to support sustainable growth across regional Victoria. If you listen to members of the Labor government, they will have you believe that we are against home ownership. Well, that is not right. In fact that is an untruth. That is misleading. We are very much for home ownership. We want Victorians to own their own piece of this great state, and we will restore that dream for Victorians. That is our hope, that is our aspiration and that is our plan. By contrast – after 11, almost 12, years of this Labor government, who have had an opportunity to do this time and time and time again – they have failed. Victorians know that because they are on the receiving end of it. We want our communities to be respected. We want the voice of our communities to be respected.

We have more faith in local government than this government does. Local government, as the closest level of government to the people, has done a lot more work in engaging with local communities than this mob, this Labor government, has. They have engaged with their local communities. They understand the need to have more housing and to have choice in housing, not just apartments but townhouses and family homes. They have already undertaken that work. In many cases those local government areas have identified more housing opportunities than the government have in the plans that they have introduced. We want to restore the ability for Victorians to be engaged in this process and to have a say in what their suburbs and communities look like in the future.

This government is investing in the Suburban Rail Loop, without any thought about the infrastructure that is needed in terms of roads, hospitals, policing and housing in those communities, at a time when regional communities are crying out for infrastructure, are crying out for more housing and are crying out for more certainty. Unlike this Labor government, which has had an opportunity and has simply failed, a Wilson and O’Brien led government in this state will govern not just for some but for every Victorian.

 John LISTER (Werribee) (15:21): I want to pick up on what the member for Sandringham said about listening to some of those voices that they have been consulting with, those voices from those middle suburbs, those long and oft green leafy, protected species that they have been for so long when it comes to planning. One of those colleagues of theirs, Ms Lovell in the other place, had a sentiment around the plan that we have around building more homes in those middle-ring suburbs: that there is no point putting a very low-income, probably welfare-dependent, family in the best street in Brighton, where the children cannot mix with others. What kinds of sentiments are you listening to? I beg your pardon, Acting Speaker. What are they listening to? It is absolutely abhorrent.

I have ripped into the Liberals since they made this announcement around whatever semi-plan they had three weeks ago when they decided that their leader needed some kind of announcement for a Herald Sun conference and they put out this thought bubble, this back to the future ‘housing plan’, as they call it, which essentially does what they did back in 2014. My learned colleague for Tarneit went into great detail on that, and I will also touch on it. Back to the future, in 2014 precinct structure plans were put out en masse with no planning for infrastructure. They talk and complain, ‘You’ve had all these years to do it.’ We have been doing it. We have been removing the level crossings in the areas where these precinct plans were afforded. We had to order trains to run the regional rail link because they forgot to order trains to stop at Tarneit, where they approved all these precinct structure plans. These people do not understand how to plan for growth.

We have a plan for growth. It is our greenfields plan. Our greenfields plan makes it clear that in my communities of Wyndham Vale, Manor Lakes and Werribee there will be no new precinct structure plans until 2029–30. My community has embraced this timeframe. That timeframe means three or so years of infrastructure delivery: finishing the Wyndham ring-road and building that link between Wyndham Vale and Tarneit, which is so important for all those people in the Manor Lakes North precinct structure plan and the Westbrook precinct structure plan – all those ones that were signed off by the previous Liberal Minister for Planning. We are going to finish Ison Road and the extension this year. We are going to have an uplift to our train services. We are going to have more train services on the regional rail link. We are going to have that infrastructure come online in these next two or three years so that when we get to 2029–30, as per our greenfields plan, we will have infrastructure ready to meet the demand.

That is something that those opposite cannot offer. They have had two election cycles in the western suburbs to offer any idea about how they will plan for growth and infrastructure in the western suburbs and offered nothing. There was literally a by-election where they had no policies. The person was told he was not even allowed to have a policy. Because it was a by-election, ‘What’s the point?’ There is a point. It is setting out an alternative to the people of the western suburbs. At the moment the alternative is that they are going to fast-track more houses. What does fast-tracking more houses mean? The City of Wyndham issued building permits in the last financial year for 4295 dwellings. When we look at some of the places where this government has proposed building that density – in places like the City of Stonnington, out in those leafy green suburbs – you could count on your hand the amount of approvals that they have done. It is absurd to think that they can fast-track more development in the outer suburbs when other suburbs are not doing their fair share.

Those opposite are blockers when it comes to good housing options, particularly for people in my generation who want to live in a townhouse in the same suburbs where they grew up, in places like Kew, Brighton and Malvern. A few weeks ago this so-called plan that was announced sounded alarm bells out in my community. If they actually came and spoke to the people in Wyndham, they would know that having that timeframe of 2029–30 for those future precinct structure plans is welcomed. They do not necessarily want more precinct structure plans in our area, because we are still trying to finish the ones that they stuffed up all those years ago.

I will give you one really good example. There is a road called Ison Road. At the northern end at the intersection of Ison Road and Greens Road there is literally 300 metres of road that is missing because the developers cannot agree who will build it. To their credit, Wyndham City Council have been working hard to try and get everyone to the table and get this intersection delivered, because at the moment you get to one end of Ison Road and it stops. You have got a paddock and you have got to go all the way around through poor Rondo Drive – I had a conversation with people in Rondo Drive about this last week – to get back onto Ison Road again. This is because developers have not been able to get it together and deliver what is an important gap in our infrastructure. We cannot run our bus through Ison Road because of this.

This is because of planning decisions made by those opposite when they somehow fast-tracked all these different precinct structure plans in the dying hours of their government. I will read out a couple of examples of these precinct structure plans. Those different ones were Westbrook in July 2014; Ballan Road, July 2014; Tarneit North, November 2014; Truganina, November 2014; and Riverdale, which is where we are looking to build our new bridge, November 2014. How can we have five precinct structure plans approved in six months with no plan for infrastructure? Meanwhile they have the gall to say there are all these taxes on houses. What they do not realise is a lot of that cost is for developer contributions – for our growth area infrastructure contributions, through the prices of those houses – so that we can build the bus routes and so we can build the community centres. I have been to so many ceremonies to open community centres these last 12 months. I have only been here for a short time, but we have been delivering these things.

But it is made even harder with poor planning decisions. That is because there is this legacy of nimbyism that has crept into the way that our planning system has worked, where it is okay to throw thousands and thousands of people into central Melbourne, it is okay to throw them all the way out in my patch, out into paddocks towards Little River, but it is not okay to build in the leafy green suburbs that prop up the Liberal Party. It is disgraceful. They want to build more estates in communities that are already doing their part of growing housing. We know that we need to have a sustainable way of growing housing in our community. These tram and train activity zones are so important. They give people options. They give younger people options to live in places where they want to be.

What is worse is that they then start dancing and flirting with the idea of working with One Nation. There is a reason why I raise One Nation. We are talking about housing. One of the most frequently commented things in the diatribes of some of these Facebook groups that seem to be taken over by One Nation trolls from Queensland, basically, is equating housing with immigration. The people who have moved to our community of Wyndham – whether they be from India, whether they be from Karen State, whether they be from the Philippines or whether they be from all around the world – have made our community the beautiful place it is. In fact the services that we need are being delivered by people from these backgrounds.

In fact one of the gentlemen who lives in one of the estates that has problems with not getting a bus route in – an estate approved by the member for Bulleen – literally helped switch on the Metro Tunnel. He is helping to build our city, and I cannot tell you the countless people who have moved from overseas to build their lives in Wyndham that are helping to build Wyndham itself. So to go and flirt with One Nation like they have on the other side and then put out this housing – not even a plan – thought bubble is just absurd, and the people of Wyndham understand this. For them to say that they have been listening – they have not gone out to our part of the world and listened, because they would know that the idea of fast-tracking precinct structure plans is absurd.

A member interjected.

John LISTER: They are able to get there a lot more easily. I will take that interjection. They are able to get to the western suburbs a lot more easily because they can choose to use the West Gate Tunnel, which is helping people in the outer suburbs – all that sort of delivery. Last time those precinct structure plans were shocking. The member for Tarneit mentioned those gaps on his side of the river. I know I have many gaps on my side of the river, which were formed out of poor planning. We have our plan. It is the greenfields plan and Plan for Victoria. It is about building that middle ring while having sustainable growth in the outer suburbs. Because do not get me wrong, it is a beautiful place to live. You get a beautiful view of the You Yangs. We have got the sunsets in the afternoon. I love my side of the river. But the thing is we need to make sure growth is sustainable, and it will not be sustainable if those opposite get their hands on it again.

 Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (15:31): I rise to speak on the Labor government’s motion where they are boasting about how successful they have been building houses in Victoria. This is actually laughable, because we have got people who cannot afford to buy homes. We have got rental properties that are non-existent; people are desperate for houses and cannot find a rental property. We have got people on the street. This is an absolute debacle, what we are finding in Victoria, because of the poor management of a government for the last 11, nearly 12, years. I have been listening to those on the other side of the house who put this motion forward because they wanted to boast about how successful they have been with their housing strategy. What I keep hearing from them is ‘We have a plan.’ Well, as I said, for the last 11 years, nearly 12, what have they been doing? We have got people on waitlists for houses; public housing waitlists have blown out enormously. We have homeless people on the street, women fleeing family violence living in their cars, young people desperate for home ownership feeling like they will never be able to achieve that, and people wanting to rent whilst rental providers are fleeing the state due to all the taxes that this government has introduced. Making a home now is just so not affordable.

So this government – let us go back a bit and see what they were doing. They realised after 10 years that they probably should have set a goal, so they set a goal of 800,000 homes over the next 10 years. They had already been in for 10, but I have said that. In the first year they failed to reach their target – so the very first year, not enough planning to reach their target. They only got 62,000 homes instead of the 80,000. But then they said, ‘Oh no, we didn’t mean that. We meant over 10 years we’ll get 800,000.’ So they moved the goalposts. But let me take you back even further. The Victorian government began with its Big Housing Build announcement in 2020, with a grand promise of 12,000 ‍new public or community houses. However, the Auditor-General reported that as of March 2024 the government had already spent $2.9 billion of the planned $5.6 billion only to see – wait for it – a net decrease in the amount of homes available, and that was by 446 homes. It is extraordinary how anyone could set out to spend $2.9 billion and actually end up with less than they started with in the way of public or community houses. In this last decade we have seen a government that has actually only built 36 new public housing homes. You might think I just made a mistake and I meant to say 36,000. Nope, I did not. I meant 36, like one street full of houses. That is it.

Michaela Settle interjected.

Roma BRITNELL: I just talked about social housing prior to that. You might have misheard, but I talked about your big build strategy. If you have missed that, that is because you probably do not know how to do maths and cannot figure out how you ended up in a net decrease position. I will move on from the interjection from the member for Eureka, who is trying to claim that she thinks they have done a great job.

In 2023, with the promise of $25 million for social housing in Warrnambool, I said that with the increase in the number of homeless people that will not have an impact and would not touch the sides. Here we are three years later in 2026, and that prediction was profoundly and sadly very correct. There are so many more people who are homeless and so many people on the waiting list. In fact we are seeing people on the waiting list for six years, and that is a disgrace. Thirty-six homes in the public housing sector is a disgrace.

Not only are the waitlists long but the public houses are very poorly managed. I get complaints all the time that there is rubbish everywhere and that there are people who are abusive. Women in particular are very frightened in some of the situations where the government is providing public housing, and there is nothing we can do. The police have not got any tools they can use to help. But do not take my word for it, listen to the email I got last night from a woman who lives in a public housing complex. She said:

I can’t live here, it’s unsafe and the stress levels are affecting my own health.

… the system is broken. Intermingling known drug users, especially with the emergence of chemically damaged drug users with aggressive mental health problems in amongst elderly people with health issues is akin to Elder Abuse.

There needs to be DFFS officer liaisons between Police, Social … workers for some people.

To house them in the right place.

Bring back a modern day form of institutionalised living where people can get help for addictions and mental health issues.

DFFS is being used as a dumping ground for people who need assisted living or institutionalised living.

The Housing Officers aren’t Social or Mental health professionals. They’re Government real estate agents.

The pressure they are being put under having to deal with the emergence of chemically damaged and dangerous behaviours in their tenants is unfair.

The system is broken

The housing officers need to have more vetting powers over housing placements.

Yearly Inspections need to be made along the lines of rentals.

They dont do that by the way.

That is a poor woman that I have been dealing with for some time who is terrified in her own home and whose life is drastically affected by living in a situation where it is simply dangerous, and there is nothing she can do. That is just disgraceful.

Here we have, as I said, a government which has changed so many rental laws and continues to boast that it has done good for the rental market, yet what we are seeing is the introduction of land taxes. One of the 60 taxes that this government has introduced, for example, has seen rental providers flee – flee to Queensland, flee to New South Wales. We have seen 24,000 rental properties in a single year lost from the stockpile. In South-West Coast you have got Buckley’s and none of being able to rent a house. Less than 1 per cent of properties are vacant and able to be rented. This is what this government’s housing policy that they talk about has achieved: zilch, nothing.

The Grattan Institute pointed out to the government that because of all the taxes, because of all the changes that this government has made, of the 600,000 homes planned by this government, only 18 ‍per cent, or around 110,000, are economically feasible to build. This is typical of a government which does not understand economics – ‘Oh, surely people will build them, even if it’s not affordable to build them. Why wouldn’t they?’ It is mind-numbingly stupid economics. This government continues to spit out these ideas which are just not ever going to happen, because the economics do not stack up.

Housing affordability is at its lowest level for 30 years, driven by supply shortages and rising costs. Planning processes can take up to a decade. I hear that all the time in South-West Coast, how much bureaucracy and red tape there is. That is in our plan exactly what we will do. We talk about fast-tracking, and the member for Tarneit had no idea what fast-tracking meant. It means getting bureaucracy out of the way. It means making sure that it does not take up to a decade to get permits approved. There were 120,000 unactioned permits in 2025. That is because they cannot get through the process and it is too expensive to build. That is because of the failures of this government. At a system level, approvals are slowing. Dwelling approvals fell by 26.1 per cent in one year. Even small-scale projects are facing delays, with planning applications sitting unresolved for months and years.

This is a government who has not planned properly, but our plan is: we will get rid of the government by telling the community of Victoria that we will make it better, get more families and young Victorians into homes, reduce red tape, reduce the cost of building, give people the hope they need, support regions, work with communities and help them with the fast-tracking process by delivering infrastructure for these precincts, with roads, schools, utilities and community facilities, which is something this government has completely missed the boat on. It has left facilities to become tired and not kept up. So fast-tracking permits and ensuring infrastructure is delivered are in the plan that we released last week and that the Property Council of Australia have endorsed, because many of the things they have suggested on their wish list fit quite in line with what our planned proposal is. We know how to do business. We know how to make sure that the economy thrives and that people have hope again of being able to afford housing. That is why a Liberal–National government will actually lead Victoria back into a housing affordability situation where the rental properties will flow and homelessness will become less of a feature, when we have people able to get into homes and be given the supports they need in the precincts that have the utilities and the infrastructure to support families.

 Paul HAMER (Box Hill) (15:41): I too rise to speak on this important motion. When I think about housing, I think of it as not just about housing; it is about access, and it is about how people of all generations are going to access the services and the jobs that they need in the future. I was having a look at some of the data in the census. The census is an enormously rich source of data, particularly in terms of analysing where people live, where people work and how they travel to work. Obviously the 2021 census was a little bit different, having taken place during COVID, but their place of work was still their place of work at the time. I was having a look at those figures, as I was saying. We know the City of Melbourne is a huge economic hub, an economic generator, and as at the 2021 census it accounted for about half a million jobs in terms of people’s places of work. Also accounting for about half a million jobs was that big swathe of eastern and south-eastern suburbs pretty much correlating with where the Suburban Rail Loop is going to go. So if you think of the suburbs, you think of the municipalities stretching from places like Bayside – the member for Brighton’s and the member for Sandringham’s electorates – right through those middle suburbs, between 10 and 20 kilometres from the city going through Monash and then ending in Whitehorse in the electorate of Box Hill. That accounts for about another half a million jobs – so the same number of jobs as are in the City of Melbourne we have in those eastern and south-eastern suburbs.

In my 20s, after I left home, I did live in the inner suburbs of Melbourne, and for me it was very convenient to do that because I was working in the city. Many of my friends had moved into similar locations. It was not too far from family but close to friends, and most importantly, close to work. It was convenient; I could walk home from work. But many people are not working in the city. Whether it is professional services jobs, whether it is retail, whether it is education or whether it is health, we have all of those facilities which require workers, and many of those workers want to live not only close to where they grew up but close to where they can access their jobs. They do not want to spend hours commuting to their jobs.

This is also borne out when you look at each particular electorate and where people in the electorate actually work. In my electorate, for example, 20 per cent work in the City of Melbourne, and a greater bulk than that actually work within the City of Whitehorse. Some of those would be working from home; they might have a home-based business. But many of the others would work elsewhere in Box Hill or in the City of Whitehorse. It might be at Deakin University. It might be at Box Hill Institute. It might be at Box Hill hospital. And this is replicated across almost every electorate. If any member were to look at their electorate, they would see how many of their electors are working relatively close to home, either in their home municipality or in the immediately adjacent municipality. It far outstrips the number that are actually working in the inner city. The irony of the policy that the coalition are proposing is they want the status quo to exist in the middle suburbs and are pushing for turbocharging ‍– I think those were the words that they used; the member for Sandringham used those words – the development in the inner suburbs as well as turbocharging the development in the outer suburbs, in the fringe areas of Melbourne. But that is not where the jobs are. We should have a conversation more broadly, particularly about the outer suburbs and making sure that we have good, well-paying jobs in the outer suburbs. But as I said, there are a huge number of jobs in the eastern and south-eastern corridor. If you look at the projections under the Suburban Rail Loop, those jobs are going to multiply over time.

In 2021 Monash had just over 100,000 jobs in the municipality. I think that Monash cluster is predicted to have about 250,000 jobs by 2050–51, driven in large part by access through the Suburban Rail Loop. Where there is access to jobs and where there are jobs, that means that people want to live in close proximity and with easy access to those jobs. People are not going to want to be living in Fitzroy and Collingwood, notwithstanding what zoning the coalition might put in there, if they are trying to get to places like Monash and places like Whitehorse to their jobs. And it is the same for the residents of the outer suburbs. Currently many residents of the outer suburbs are doing a longer commute because there is that mismatch of jobs with where the housing is. But the answer is not just to put all of the housing into those two areas and just return to the status quo in our existing suburbs. Obviously in the electorate of Box Hill we have sustained quite a large amount of housing in recent years, particularly in the centre of Box Hill. It is probably the one centre of Melbourne that you can see from the Melbourne CBD. It does stand out quite a lot. That has brought in a whole different range of cultures and environments over the years, but it has also brought with it better access, and we are going to see that through investment in infrastructure such as the Suburban Rail Loop.

I also want to touch on another point that was raised by the member for Caulfield in his initial response. He made the point that as part of this turbocharging of outer suburban growth the coalition would be investing in infrastructure first. That is a very noble idea, but the proof is in the pudding in this respect. If we look at the history of coalition investment in the outer suburbs, it has been non-existent. If you look at the history of infrastructure investment across the whole metropolitan area, I would say it is non-existent as well.

I think we had a very sound contribution from the member for Werribee, who outlined the complete lack of interest in infrastructure investment in suburbs such as Werribee over multiple election cycles. If you are not investing in that infrastructure, how can you be turbocharging the housing in those areas? Then when we look at the middle suburbs, they talk about removing the infrastructure contribution. They say ‘We need the infrastructure. We’re still going to have more homes, but we’re not going to get the developers to make the contributions that are needed to make the infrastructure.’ It is all a magic pudding. Somehow the housing will be just created. They are going to restrict it with one hand, but somehow they will magically be able to also provide all the infrastructure. It just does not make sense. What this government has always realised is that if we are going to be accommodating the population growth that is forecast and has been predicted, we need to be looking at the city and at the state as a whole about ‘Where can the houses go? Where can our population be housed so that they do have access to services and jobs in the future?’ I commend the motion to the house.

 Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (15:51): It is pretty amusing that the government has put forward a motion that they are absolutely hopeless at. Something they have absolutely failed at is housing, and this is the motion we are debating, which I am fine with. I am happy to debate this motion because this government has failed in every aspect when it comes to housing. The government’s own commitment was 800,000 over 10 years – ‘No, we had to change that.’ It was 80,000 a year. They failed the first year. Then they changed it to 800,000 over 10 years, and already the government has failed on that target. Well and truly, right out of the gate, they are pretty well about 50,000 short in the first two years, and it is projected that they will fall short by 200,000 homes over the 10-year period. This is the problem with the government. They do not understand housing; they really do not. They do not understand development, and they do not understand housing.

What is humorous about this motion is the Minister for Planning – or ‘I will refer to A, B, C anywhere but Carrum’ – is one of the biggest blockers when it comes to housing. She blocked development in her own electorate. They are happy to stand up there and call us all blockers, but there are a lot of members over that side that have very short memories. The Minister for Planning is one. She blocked development in Carrum. Just last year she blocked a 400-lot subdivision in Cape Paterson – for 200 ‍votes – because they know Bass is a very, very marginal seat, the most marginal seat in the state. What did the planning minister do? She blocked a 400-lot subdivision for a couple of hundred votes. Do not worry about affordable land for first home buyers – for gen Zs, for millennials – ‘No, no, we’re going to block that,’ just so they could try and win Bass.

The problem the government has got now is that there is no way they are winning Bass. I can tell you right now: you lost the MotoGP; you have lost that seat. You might as well write it off now. Do not worry about it. Bass is going to be over. Bass will be a Liberal seat come the next election.

Martha Haylett interjected.

Wayne FARNHAM: Bass will be a Liberal seat come the next election. I am more than happy to debate it all the time. Let us talk about government ministers. The Minister for Local Government, the member for Bentleigh, his whole 2014 campaign was on blocking development. It was his whole campaign. He got elected off the back of that, and now he is ‘Oh, I’m pro development.’ No, he is not. He will not be happy with this in his electorate. This is where the government is so hypocritical. They get up there and they are the white knights of everything. Even the member for Broadmeadows was anti-development when the member for Broadmeadows was on council. The member for Broadmeadows was anti-development.

A member interjected.

Wayne FARNHAM: It is true. I am not going to read the whole transcripts. I do not have to. The member for Broadmeadows knows it. We have had so many over that side be anti-development over the years, and now they are saying, ‘Nah, it’s all good, we’re happy with it.’

But the biggest problem this government is going to have when it comes to housing is that there are some pretty important aspects you need to build houses: you need building surveyors, you need builders and you need tradies. They are three things you need. You cannot build a house without any of those. But the government over the last 12 months has beat the living hell out of the building industry, beat them from pillar to post. We have lost over 21,000 tradies. Only 50 per cent of our apprentices are completing their apprenticeships. We have lost over a thousand builders in 12 months, and you watch that figure keep going up because of the legislation and the regulation that this government has brought into this place. Builders have had enough. The construction industry has had enough. They are leaving in droves because of what the government has put the construction industry through, and this is what you need. I am not going to pre-empt debate, but there is a cladding bill that is going to come into this place, and that is going to shift liability to building surveyors who did nothing wrong, and do you think they are going to sit back and stay in that industry?

Michaela Settle: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, he is discussing a bill before the bill is before the house.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Kim O’Keeffe): I think that is relevant to what we are discussing.

Wayne FARNHAM: When you keep shifting liability sideways, people have enough, and they will leave in droves. The building surveying industry at the moment is already down on numbers. We do not have enough building surveyors in this state. You start putting them under pressure, you start losing building surveyors and you will not be able to build. You lose builders – you will not be able to build. You lose tradies – you will not be able to build. It is that simple, and this is where the government is getting the whole construction industry wrong.

I have heard people lean into the growth areas infrastructure contribution funding today. The government passed legislation just the other month to say that it does not have to stay in the local government area anymore – they can take that funding and put it elsewhere. Their own legislation passed through the other month. So there is no guarantee that the GAIC funding will be in the LGAs where the development or the infrastructure is required. I know where they will probably put it; they will put it all into the SRL because they have got to fill up that black hole of money. No-one knows how much that is going to cost; that is still on a TBC. We do not know how much corruption is going to come out of that. How many more billions of dollars will go to the CFMEU through that project? We have no idea.

This is where the government has failed. I cannot believe we are debating a motion that they have failed on for so long. Even when we talk about social housing – in 2014 there were about 10,000 to 11,000 applications for social housing. Now there are 65,000 – that is a failure. You want to talk about a housing motion – there is a motion. Let us put up something on that. That is an outright failure of this government in the delivery of social housing in this state. And when we get a knock on our door in our electorate offices and people say, ‘I can’t get a rental, I can’t get a house’, every MP in this chamber knows they cannot help. You can ring the providers, you can ring everyone, and there is no stock. So for the government to just stand up here and spruik that they are going to be the saviours of housing in this state is ridiculous. They are not the saviours. They have savaged it. They have savaged the industry, they have savaged housing across the state, and everybody knows it.

So, yes, I am happy to debate this motion. I would love to keep debating this motion, but I am nearly out of time, and I can see the Speaker hopping into the chair. I will keep going. What I am saying is, for the government to put this motion forward on something that they have failed so dismally on is absolutely nuts. And that is about it from me. Cheers.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.