Wednesday, 18 March 2026

 Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (18:09): It is great to rise and speak on a critical motion on the housing of people in our state. The member for South-West Coast made reference to it being critical. It is a critical motion, absolutely. The housing of Victorians is so significant. We have like never before a contrast of housing policy in our state and our community. There might be those opposite who are excitable about housing at the moment, because effectively they have got a five-suburb strategy within the Melbourne CBD – or punting people out 60 k’s into the growth corridors, where there is already significant land supply and impact today. No mowing of the lawn or jumping into the pool is going to change the fact that the Liberals have sold out millennials and gen Zs like we have never seen before.

The so-called Leader of the Opposition for millennials basically told all millennials that they have no future – no future in housing unless it is 65 k’s from the CBD or in four suburbs in the CBD. That is literally the policy that has been put forward. So to the gen Zs and millennials in Mordialloc who are looking to stay in their community in the City of Greater Dandenong or the City of Kingston, the Liberals are not on your side. You will have to go well out of your community – no more support for you. How is that a hopeful and aspirational policy for the future, to tell residents in my community, anyone that is a millennial or a gen Z, that they are not valued to stay in the City of Kingston, that we should not build any more homes in their community?

We heard it today when the member for Mildura said, ‘Why would you ever want to be in suburbs along the Suburban Rail Loop? Why would you ever want to live in those communities? No-one wants to go there and no-one wants to be there.’ What an outrageous description of the suburbs and communities that will have the housing for residents in the cities of Kingston, Monash and Greater Dandenong into the future. That is the disdain for housing policy that we had. We got it open. If it was not enough that four suburbs in the CBD was the housing policy of the member for Kew, the Leader of the Opposition, then one of the Nationals members of Parliament said, ‘Why on earth would you want to live in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne? Why would anyone want to go there?’ That is the community that I have loved and cherished and grown up in. That is the community that my friends, my family and my community should have a right to live in in the future – and that is what our policy does. It creates activity centres that do not price people out, that do not say, ‘Go well beyond where you have lived and grown up’. We want to say to people, ‘You get to live in the place that you’re in, and we’ll price you in. You won’t be priced out, you’ll be priced into your community,’ rather than being in Chelsea and seeing your rental price going up or your mortgage going up so you need to chop out and go out further, like the member for Kew would tell my constituents. We are saying that the housing and activity centres along the Frankston train line will support you into the future.

That is the difference here. Any gen Z or millennial living in Brighton, living in Sandringham, living in Kew or living in Malvern – those communities right there – are being told, ‘You don’t have a place in this community anymore,’ because the member for Brighton exposed it all. Which millennials and gen Zs are able to afford the $2.5 million median price in Brighton? Which ones? What communities are there on the Suburban Rail Loop, when the median price in the City of Kingston, up through those communities, is about 1½ mill? The member for Kew says to gen Zs and millennials in her own electorate that they are not valued, that they are not worth living in their community anymore, because fundamentally the numbers do not stack up. Did you see that selfie video in Collingwood after the lawn-mowing of awesomeness? Who wants to live in the CBD? I mean, she was basically telling all of those electorates that over 55 per cent of the constituency that lives there – the millennials and gen ‍Zs – and make up the voting roll do not have a place in the Liberal future.

At least with the member for Bulleen rezoning was just a like a bit of confetti: ‘Fishermans Bend, that’ll be all right. Footscray? Yeah, wherever. Let’s go.’ It was just party time, numbers on a map and playing a bit of Monopoly. At least there was some sort of scale that was delivered. Its strategic intent ‍– well, who knows, Fishermans Bend – a bit of water, maybe some factories and then basically housing; no schools, no health care, no fundamental infrastructure to support communities. Remember that? Remember the Deputy Premier and the Premier at the time having to go to a number of doorstops saying they had to buy back land that they sold to developers just to build a school? That was strategic!

But to the member for Bulleen’s credit, there was at least a little bit of extra housing. Right now there is no plan from them. In Warrandyte, where the median price is well over $1 million, what is the message to those gen Zs and millennials that the member for Warrandyte is defending? The answer is: ‘You don’t have a place in my electorate. You can go to Collingwood or you can go to Pakenham. You can go to Mernda, you can go to Werribee, but you can’t live in Warrandyte.’ That is clearly the message that is put forward here – four suburbs in the CBD put forward right there.

Nicole Werner: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I think there is misrepresentation from the member opposite. You cannot characterise people and just make things up.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): That is not a point of order. It is a matter of debate.

Nicole Werner: It must be factual. The member for Mordialloc must be factual.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): I expect everybody to be factual.

Tim RICHARDSON: Facts – you know, Ferraris, machete bins. Turn it up; we have had a few lectures. If it is not scripted from the member for Warrandyte, it does not happen. Those opposite know that they are vulnerable here. They are vulnerable here because they do not have a plan to support 55 ‍per cent of the electorate. But they tussle, because everything is about an over-55s demographic. Gen Xs have walked so thunderously away from the Liberal Party, it is absolutely carnage on their voting prospects. This is only about the electoral fortune of the Liberal members that live in that seat. Let us call it for what it is.

When the member for Brighton interjected before, what did he say? ‘Let’s see what happens on election night.’ Guess what, he belled the cat there. Acting Speaker, I know you are a close observer of politics here. This is exactly what it is about. It has never been about housing anyone. It has never been about supporting more houses for people who need them most. It has never been about housing being a fundamental right for people to keep them safe and secure and give them a pathway. It is not about that at all. It is about their election fortunes on 28 November. We have known that all along, but at least the member for Brighton was kind enough to interject and say the quiet bit out loud.

The housing policy of shadow cabinet and the member for Kew is defined by political fortunes, not by doing the right thing for the state. It is defined by those opposite trying to lock down their council areas and ensure that no-one in their area has that opportunity to live where they have grown up. Remember those aspirants over there – aspiration for the people working their way up, getting ahead, trying on their own. They have lost it. They do not have a values compass anymore. It is whatever Pauline Hanson does or Matt Canavan does. They sort of shudder. They rock in awe. They look then to what Angus Taylor might say if he retweets himself or comments to himself, and then they take their lead. That is basically their policy offering. It is an astonishing betrayal.

In comes the member for Brighton. We are just commentating, member for Brighton, on your belling the cat that it is about election fortunes – let us see what happens on election night. Rather than building the houses for gen Zs and millennials, it is about what happens on election night. What will happen in building in Hawthorn? We want to see what happens with housing policy through those communities. We see the price go up and up, and that is a significant impact; it means that people cannot even get ahead. The federal Labor government is supporting people with deposits. But the 5 per cent deposit will not get you anywhere near some of the areas where people are now living with their parents in these communities. They are wanting to see the hope and aspiration right there.

People are being forced to live in their family homes up to the age of 30 and beyond. That is just the nature of it now more and more. There are real haves and have-nots. The parents might be the bank of mum and dad that we hear about; they might be able to provide a guarantee and might be able to support family, their children, to find their way into the housing market. But for so many, the majority, in the community that is not their story. They are either renting or have a 5 per cent deposit that sends them well out into growth corridors, 60 to 70 k’s beyond where they have grown up. That cannot be the policy offering. That is not our offering with our activity centres, our housing and our townhouse policies. Those opposite are abandoning Victorians like we have never seen before, and it will be a clear choice: more houses in the communities you have grown up and lived in to be priced in, or to be priced out by those opposite and told that your future is well beyond reach.

 Matthew GUY (Bulleen) (18:19): I have got to give the member for Mordialloc credit. I mean, if you told him to come in and argue that the world is flat and that Mars is about to careen into Jupiter, he would do it, and he would do it with his own self-conviction unwavering. I have got to give him that credit. He comes in and just says what he says, and he seems to believe every word of it no matter how much factual ridiculousness comes out of his mouth. I have got to give him credit – he sounds like it. But I have to say, through you, Acting Speaker, that my old Ukrainian grandmother would have said, ‘Yak po mokrii kurkiy’. He is just like being hit with a wet chook, that guy. He just gets so far and then you have to soak it. You have to get the hose out and spray that chook to calm it down because it is just going wild into the henhouse and back out. Anyway, that is what would happen in Ukraine.

But not speaking of Ukraine, how about speaking of Melbourne? I find it quizzical. I find it really quizzical, you know, of the Australian Labor Party – I have got a good memory on all of this. I have been here a lot longer than most, quite stunningly. But I find it amazing to hear from people – some of the galahs opposite. I can hear some squawking now. They come in like a multicoloured bird, squawking away, saying what they do about planning – you know, ‘We’ve got this great idea and plan.’ These are the people that opposed high-rise development in activities areas going into 2014. These are the people who opposed zone reform going into 2014, which would see greater density than what is being proposed by the current government at this point in time. These people opposed it and fundamentally did nothing for the best part of a decade. And as a consequence, when you flush no supply into a market that is growing at 150,000 for that decade each and every year, lo and behold, you get to what? It is called a housing crisis, because we are short on supply.

The government can say, ‘Oh, we’re going to fix supply,’ as most members in the Labor Party have got up and said – ‘Oh, we’re going to deal with supply in existing urban areas.’ But there are multiple markets to metropolitan Melbourne and to Victoria as a whole. The government is talking about one market, but they are not talking about growth areas. They are not talking about urban renewal. They are not talking about CBD supply. They are talking about one politicised market in Liberal-held seats in the eastern and southern suburbs in order to create some kind of clash before the election because their Premier is the most unpopular Premier in the country. Their own members are in the bar talking about her future, right as we have this debate now, right?

Members interjecting.

Matthew GUY: Laugh as you like. You are in here, buddy. And what I find stunning is that the government ignored councils, who could have given twice the supply on their own structure plans in inner Melbourne. The coalition’s policy is to take councils and their structure plans and work with them to get supply through existing structure plans – 400,000 in the inner suburbs of Melbourne versus 200,000 with the current government. It was the current government, the Labor Party, who criticised me as a minister for intervening when we could not get supply. Remember when Daniel Andrews ran around with that guy – what was his name? – Martin Foley, saying, ‘There’ll be a forest of towers, and no-one will live in them.’ A forest of towers – this is the guy who then went away and approved taller buildings than I had ever approved. I mean, you cannot buy this kind of hypocrisy. You just could not make it up. The current member for Broadmeadows, who sat on the council, said there would be vertical slums because we wanted to put high rise in central Broadmeadows – vertical slums. The current member for Bentleigh, who literally was elected against the then Liberal government’s new residential zones, which would – wait for it – get ‘medium range density’ through parts of his electorate, is now advocating for high density. I mean, you cannot buy this stuff. The Minister for Planning launched a 30-minute motion earlier today and failed to mention she blocked developments at Cape Paterson and in her own seat. I mean, you have got to have some level of credibility. You have got to have some –

David Southwick interjected.

Matthew GUY: Well, the Minister for Police is here, but I do not mind him today. He has helped me out on one thing. But you have got to come into the chamber with some level of credibility. If you are going to come in on a sledge motion, yes, all right, give it your best shot. We are here to have a go back at you, and you want to find that. But actually have some level of credibility, particularly from the person who is launching the motion, the Minister for Planning. She runs in with this term ‘blocker’.

David Southwick interjected.

Matthew GUY: Then, as the member for Caulfield says, the biggest NIMBY on the block blocked I think it was three storeys in her own seat. People like me have said you are welcome to come into central Doncaster and take off the mandatory height controls that exist in Doncaster to get supply in central Doncaster if, as Liberal policy advocates, it takes pressure off existing areas through neighbourhood residential and schedules in general residential that have a lower density aspect to them. We are happy to accommodate that growth through the central Doncaster region. That is sensible policy. That is the policy we are putting forward, as opposed to the government with a blunt force instrument saying – wait for it – ‘Oh, we’re going to take powers off councils.’ Oh, my God, remember that? That was the evil Mr Skyscraper’s policy – ‘He’s going to take it off councils and approve a forest of towers’ – which the government now wants to do in literally every suburb.

I also find this stunning in growth areas, because I heard the member for Tarneit – he comes in and he is very passionate; he has obviously had a few hits on the football field. He comes in and he is very passionate about his area: ‘Matthew Guy approved this and Matthew Guy approved that.’ In fact let me just tell you about land in the member for Tarneit’s area. When I was the minister, I brought 1550 ‍hectares into the urban growth boundary. But he fails to mention that in 2010 the Labor government in the City of Wyndham brought 17,738 hectares into the growth boundary. So the estates he is talking about were actually brought in by his own mob. The only freeway interchange at Sneydes Road that has been built in the last 20 years was built by – wait for it – the Liberal government, me, with funding out of central city development. We did it. What has he done since he has been there? Nothing. Then I heard the member for Yan Yean. She came in and said at one stage that the Liberal government had rezoned land in the green wedge in her area like it was tropical rainforest. It could have been featured on an ad: ‘Put another shrimp on the barbie and look at this tropical rainforest.’ In fact, the Liberal government through the Whittlesea–Mitchell area – I might add, none in the seat of Yan Yean – brought in 1010 hectares. Justin Madden and the Labor Party brought 15,542 hectares of land into the urban growth boundary. If you are going to come in and have a sledge motion, at least have a semblance of believability and accuracy to your argument. Again, I do not mind if you want to have a sledge; go for it. The Liberals brought in, when we were in – I did – 6000 hectares into the growth boundary. 43,000 hectares under the Australian Labor Party –

A member interjected.

Matthew GUY: One of the members opposite – I do not know which galah it is – is interjecting. But what it says is credibility on this argument, because we had policy in growth areas, in central city development, which brought Melbourne’s central city population to 54,900, compared to Sydney’s 16,000, Brisbane’s 12,000, Perth’s 13,000 and Darwin’s 7000. So people could live where they do not need to own a car, where they could walk to open space, where they could walk to the shops, where they could walk to the supermarket and where they could have their life without a motor vehicle necessitating it. That was our policy, and that is why the member for Caulfield is saying we must do more of this to get people off car-based developments.

Sure, we had that policy on activity areas as well, if it was not then criticised by – which Labor member do you want me to mention? Footscray, Carrum, Glen Waverley, Broadmeadows – I mean, they were all bagging it. Yet this is a policy they are now bringing in and trying to argue for, saying, ‘Look, we’re the saviours of gen Zs.’ Well, you are the ones, Labor, who locked out gen Zs for the last decade because the then member for Albert Park sat in his office and did absolutely nothing for a decade. He put in control after control after control to prohibit development in Melbourne’s central city areas and to prohibit development in activities areas. This government unionised development throughout the suburbs, which made it so expensive. Along the Suburban Rail Loop, they are all talking up how they are going to get development. No, you will not, because the cost of land, the cost of construction and the cost of materials is going to blow that through the roof. It will be affordable to only the top end of the market, which is what none of us are trying to seek. So when you come in with a sledge motion, I say to the government, at least have a semblance of believability. Otherwise, like the member for Carrum, your credibility goes down in flames.

 Eden FOSTER (Mulgrave) (18:29): Phew, let us take a deep breath. My heart is racing there with the tone of the speaker that was on his feet just before. I am so proud and happy to speak today on this incredible, important motion and the opportunity to discuss one of the most important issues, not only for my community of Mulgrave but for the whole state of Victoria. We all know how important housing is as a topic right now. We know it has never been harder to put together a deposit and own a small part of this world for oneself. That is why I am so proud to be part of a government that treats this seriously and that has implemented bold reforms to tackle this crisis. I am keenly aware of the risks to Victoria and my community in particular if a Liberal–National, God forbid, One Nation government is elected later this year.

The bold reforms that this government is implementing will make real, material differences for people in my electorate. Our train and tram activity centres are giving more people the ability to live where they want to, near jobs, near services and close to loved ones. I am very lucky to have two train and tram activity centres in my electorate at Springvale and Noble Park. I am also very lucky to have a cooperative council in Greater Dandenong when it comes to welcoming investment and improving housing. There are many areas in our city, however, where councils block housing at every turn, turning entire suburbs into de facto gated communities that do not allow new residents. As someone who has been on council before, I know that sometimes there might be one voice in the community that opposes a housing development, and sometimes this puts fear into councillors about supporting or not supporting a particular planning permit. We need to avoid this nimbyism because it is costing our communities significantly. Our train and tram activity centres deal with this challenge. It stops privileged Liberal councils from preventing any new developments.

I have had many conversations with community groups, locals and businesses in my community on their views on the allocation of train and tram activity centres. Thoughts are overwhelmingly positive, to the extent that when the initial list of activity centres was announced the Springvale Asian Business Association reached out to me and asked me to encourage the minister in my discussions with her to include Springvale in the second tranche. We all know the moment we start talking about changes to planning or zoning we kind of lose people. It is a very dry topic and sometimes can be hard to understand. I want to put things really simply: these changes mean more housing for people in my community. It means more investment into public spaces and businesses in my electorate. It means more jobs in my community, and it means that more people who grew up in my community, just like me, have the opportunity to purchase a home of their own. No longer are people in my community going to have to make the wicked choice between renting far longer than they want to and being forced to move to the outermost fringes of Melbourne, where housing is more plentiful and affordable but it takes them longer to get to work, it takes them longer to see their family and it takes them longer to get to places they are familiar with.

Victoria is building and approving thousands more homes than any other state. We are pulling every lever to build more homes. Victoria continues to be number one in home approvals, number one in home starts and number one in home completions, and that is thanks to policies that have been implemented under this government. Making housing affordable is not just about making the purchase of a home realistic; it is about also ensuring that renters have the opportunity to save money to build up a deposit. 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. This means that a renter in Melbourne is going to be able to put aside more of their pay cheque towards a deposit than a renter in other capital cities. To quote Brendan Coates of the Grattan Institute:

Melbourne’s got some of the most affordable housing in the country now … And that is in large part a success of building more homes.

I would also just like to shout out a specific development in my electorate. As part of the social housing accelerator, an eight-storey social housing project has been approved in Springvale within walking distance of schools, doctors, buses and trains. This is the exact kind of housing we need that supports communities that are in need the most.

It is really important that we discuss alternative policies and what will happen to communities like mine in the event of a coalition government. We know that those opposite have always been against building more homes in communities where people want to live. Their solution is to build up even more in the CBD and to sprawl out even further in the outer suburbs. I will put it really simply: if you want to live in the CBD, you can. There is an existing glut of apartments available in the CBD, which is a good thing. It is very important that people have the option available to them to live that lifestyle if they want to. In the same way, housing supply is not anywhere near as much of a concern in the fringes of Melbourne. New greenfield sites are being developed, and we know housing is more affordable in the outer suburbs compared to communities like mine that are a bit closer to the city. Also, how far are we really going to go? How far are people going to move out to purchase their own home? Of course, if a family wants to make that choice and they understand the trade-offs, they should have the option available to them, but the main problem is that right now if you want to own your own home, that is one of your only options.

I want to also mention what those opposite plan to do to my community if they get their way at the end of this year. I mentioned earlier the immense community support for the train and tram activity zone designation for Springvale and Noble Park. If those opposite get elected, they will scrap these zones and my community will suffer. There are really, really big consequences if this happens. It means stripping investment from my community. It means fewer houses in my community. It means it will be more difficult for families to remain in my community and to perhaps live close to their family. Those opposite literally want to break up families in my community. They like to call themselves the party of business, but the reality is that they want to do the complete opposite of what businesses in my community want. They are saying to my business community that their views do not matter and that they do not want to see my community grow and prosper. I would think that this would trigger some deep reflection by the Liberal Party in particular and the whole coalition about what they stand for. Clearly they would rather spend their time appealing to the base of One Nation and NIMBYs in their communities.

I also want to finally touch on a very sad reality that my community would be heading towards if those opposite got their way. There was a good article recently in the Age that discussed councils and suburbs that have had big declines in school-aged children over the last few decades. We know that if we are not providing young people opportunities to move into communities, then those areas age and there are fewer and fewer families that live there. If housing is unaffordable, then young people that are putting together what they can for a deposit will not be able to live in communities like mine, which are comparatively closer to the city. I do not want those opposite to make my community an area that has zero kids or families. I want my community to be a hub for all kinds of people to live and thrive, in particular my multicultural community, who traditionally live next to family members. They will break up families by taking away these tram and train activity zones if they were to get in, but we will prevent that. I will fight hard for my community because my community deserves it. My community deserves housing in the tram and train activity centre; Springvale deserves it; Noble Park deserves it. My community is my family. My community deserves to stay with their families and to stay in places where they feel comfortable and where they feel they know their neighbours, they know the shop owners and they know the services. I support this motion, and I am just – well, no, I know what to say. I am speechless because I love my community. When I speak from the heart I speak for my community. I do not want this thing taken away.

 John PESUTTO (Hawthorn) (18:39): I rise tonight wanting to start by assuring the people of my electorate of Hawthorn that the reason I am standing to speak on this motion tonight is because the Allan Labor government is apparently turning this chamber into the equivalent of improv at the comedy club. It wants to be congratulated for a housing policy that is delivering less homes this year by way of completions than it did last year. Let us go back a step in history to when the then Premier announced the housing statement in late 2023. The government was in a panic. Everybody was talking about the housing crisis but this government, so they needed to put something out. As we will all remember, they issued this statement. There had been no consultation. There had been no background work. They just issued a statement with a target of 80,000 homes a year and a target of 800,000 over the decade, out to 2034.

We were all surprised, thinking, ‘Where has all of this come from?’ There had been no process leading up to this; they just announced it. When you break it down, the housing statement and everything that has followed since have been nothing less than a fugazi. Remember the fugazi that the famous Matthew McConaughey character talked about in Wolf of Wall Street? It is just a fugazi: it just looks like a housing statement and it looks like it is delivering housing, but it is not. Those opposite say that in Victoria we are completing more homes than the rest of the country. But here is the kicker. When you compare the data in other jurisdictions, here is the difference: they are growing; we are going backwards. There are reasons for that, and I will come to those.

Let me begin. There is not enough time to talk about all of the shortcomings of the housing statement and everything that has followed since, but here is the top line for people: when the government announced the housing statement and everything it has done since, there has never, ever been a cent extra for infrastructure. As I told the good people who turned up to a community forum in Ashburton just the other day, if you look at budget paper 4 and look, say, in my area of Boroondara, for all of the infrastructure that the government under this Premier Jacinta Allan is going to deliver to support the extra housing that she and her colleagues want to impose on the people of Boroondara – do you know how much money this government has committed to the extra infrastructure we all know must accompany the extra tens of thousands of houses? Zero, not a cent. I look at all of the Labor members around this chamber and I say: I bet if you go through budget paper 4 and look for all the money that this government is going to commit to support the housing in your municipalities and in your towns and communities you will find zero, because that is the reality. They want all of this delivered, but apparently, like a fugazi, it is going to come out of nowhere – not a cent for infrastructure.

The government was so panicked back in 2023 when it issued the housing statement that it did not even complete the better apartment design guidelines. It wants tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of apartments being built from now not just till 2034 but right out to 2051 with no commitments to ensure good quality outcomes for people. When it made the housing statement in late 2023 and in everything since, have you heard the government talk about reforms to owners corporations? As a lot of members in this place will know, there are more and more problems that more and more owner-occupiers and tenants are finding in these large complexes. When they released the housing statement, was there a step taken by this government to reduce the costs of construction? It costs about 30 per cent more to deliver new stock to the market in this state than in other states. The government has done nothing to reduce the costs of construction; it just came along and it said it was going to impose these targets.

These targets are really just generic precinct typology assessments. That is all they are. Somebody behind a desk in Spring Street somewhere in one of the departmental offices simply said they want that much for that precinct and that much for that precinct over there – no consultation, no local context, no place-based consideration of any of these targets. As the member for Bulleen and others have pointed out, the reality is, when you actually sit down and collaboratively work through with councils their aspirations for their local communities, along with our own, it is clear that there is more than enough zoned land to deliver more than the targets this government is trying to impose. But what local councils and local communities are saying is, ‘Let us work together.’ We can deliver better outcomes that will protect amenity, protect livability, protect character and ensure that we deliver more housing in a way which does not destroy our standards of living across the state.

But the biggest offence by this government and the biggest insult to the people of my electorate and the people of Victoria with the government wanting to move such a completely self-congratulatory and insulting motion as this one is that the government fails to understand, and it never will understand, that the only way to address the housing crisis in this state is to have a vision for the state, one that recognises that there are parts of our state – parts represented by many of those opposite – that have to deal with the inequities, and I go as far as to say the injustices, of not having basic facilities.

I will never forget the day I was in Yan Yean and I saw what appeared to me to be a young mum walking through a field of long grass – no footpath – on a busy road, carrying two bags of shopping. Many times I have been to communities that talk about their grievances at not having basic public transport and having no community facilities, yet this government pretends that we can go on ignoring that. There is a burning requirement to ensure that we deliver housing right across – that is in the capital city zone and in areas like the one I represent, but also in the growth suburbs and the corridors right around metropolitan Melbourne. According to the government’s own numbers, which members opposite continue to ignore, the population in those growth suburbs is between three and four times greater than the population growth in established suburbs.

They can talk about urban sprawl all they like, but I say to those opposite: that ship has sailed. Many more people are moving and trying to live in the growth suburbs, and you can ignore it by leaving these precinct structure plans in the freezer or you can take them out and bring them to completion, which is what we will do, because we recognise that. Our plan recognises that the whole state needs to be developed and that we need to see the capital portfolio spread more evenly across the state, with important productivity-enhancing investments – whether it is portside infrastructure, landside infrastructure or the many overpasses and interchanges that need to be constructed and delivered right across metropolitan Melbourne and in particular in those growth corridors – to unlock not only the opportunities for more housing but, importantly, the opportunities to grow our state’s economy. Without that our state’s growth will be stymied and we will see a tale of two cities where some suburbs will continue to enjoy relatively good services in public transport, access to community infrastructure, health and education and a huge swathe, particularly of outer metropolitan Melbourne, where so many new and emerging communities are struggling with the dearth of facilities and support and people are continuing to suffer. It is not fair, and it is not right, and the government is taking us all for a ride.

There is a way through this housing crisis, but this government is not up to the task of leading this state out of that. Our plan would see the entire economy develop and housing spread evenly across established suburbs, the capital city zone, growth corridors and the regions. As many on our side have talked about, it would be a state of cities supported by growing communities around them, not a state which sees more than 90 per cent of people who come here cram into the metropolitan zones when there are so many great opportunities – and should be great opportunities – for those who want to live elsewhere in the state. This motion is a sham, and it is an insult to the people of Victoria.

 Bronwyn HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (18:49): I am shocked at the ignorance displayed by the opposition when talking about housing policy in this state. The fact is that the Allan Labor government does have a vision. It has a policy on housing and how to develop further the infrastructure and the housing that we need for young Victorians and coming generations. When we talk about why it is that the inner and middle suburbs have a lower population, it is not because people are leaving there because they want to go, necessarily, to the outer suburbs; it is because they cannot afford to live there, which is exactly what the Allan Labor government’s policies are designed to change – and they are working. Yes, it is slow. Yes, it is not happening overnight, but all the data and many of the commentators who are the experts in housing are telling us that the Victorian government and the policies being used are creating more affordable housing. In fact we are building more homes in the state of Victoria than in any other state, including Queensland and New South Wales, which are of course the states that we look at in terms of the east coast. The policies are working. Yes, we would all like to see them work much faster, much quicker, but if the idea of the government is to use policy levers to support the coming generations to ensure that they can own their own home or rent in a stable and comfortable place, then these are the policies that the government is putting together. Rather than go on with all the fake news and the fake facts and the denial of facts that the opposition always seems to think that we are gullible enough to listen to, I am just going to talk a bit about what it is that this motion is all about and what levers and plans and strategies we have in Victoria to ensure that we open up the housing market.

This motion encapsulates a strategy that the Allan Labor government is implementing to ensure that first home buyers and coming generations can have good-quality, secure and stable housing. We are doing this in both the rental market and in home ownership. We continue to undertake rental reform designed to protect renters against unfair evictions and substandard facilities, because you do have a right to have a working stove and proper water pressure and timely repairs and a dog or a cat if you want to. We have already introduced limits on rent increases to once a year and banned rental bidding. To make housing more affordable and give more choices about where to live, we are undertaking housing and planning reform to make it quicker to build a home with more streamlined planning processes and less red tape, while also providing that bit of extra support for first home buyers. In fact, as another indication of the policies in Victoria compared to New South Wales and I think Queensland, we have also provided many more first home buyer grants than any of those other states that also provide such programs, thus ensuring that first home buyers are doing better here than in those other states.

Residents of the Thomastown electorate talk to me about rising rents and poor-quality rentals in the area. They are often young people who sadly have resigned themselves to thinking that they will never be able to buy their own home. They believe it is a pipedream that they will never achieve. Older residents are also concerned for their children and grandchildren and worry that home ownership is out of reach because it just costs too much. This motion supports the many levers and plans we are implementing to support cheaper, good-quality housing and more housing choices: choices such as to buy a house or rent with certainty and comfort; where to live in or out of Melbourne, in the regions or rural; and choices about the type of housing and the trade-offs that need to be made – for example, an apartment or townhouse in the inner or middle-ring suburbs with established amenities and close to family and friends, or the choice to live in the outer suburbs where land values are lower so you can have a house with a bigger backyard. These are the choices our policies and work will provide young Victorians and coming generations – policies to increase housing supply but also to increase density where land values are now prohibitively expensive but where many Victorians want to live.

While looking to the future for the coming generations, we are also looking to support older Victorians and their choices, strengthening the rules and rights of residents in retirement and lifestyle villages. What could be worse than buying into a retirement community to find out that it is not what you thought and the provider had not fully disclosed your obligations or theirs. Right now the opposition and their council mates are doing all they can to block increasing housing supply in established areas with great amenity, opposing more rights for renters and retirees and instead choosing to protect selfish vested interests: the ‘not in my backyard’ movement, who refuse to share with anyone. This is not showing leadership or vision. It is just pandering to a privileged few and really shattering the great Australian dream of owning your own home.

What is the Liberal Party’s answer to the plummeting rates of home ownership in this country? And just remember, it is a national problem, not just in the state of Victoria, and it is also probably a global problem. They are proposing more of the same, which will shut Victorians out of home ownership further on. They even go one step further: not only do they propose to lock up the lovely suburbs of Kew and Malvern and Balwyn and Hawthorn, which all have really great schools and transport and parks and kindergartens, they propose only to open more land for more new suburbs, without the infrastructure that those communities need.

The previous opposition speaker was talking about how we need more infrastructure when we build new suburbs. That is exactly what the Allan Labor government is talking about: making sure that we have a plan, which is the greenfield plan, in order to open new greenfield sites in the new suburbs at the same time that that infrastructure can be laid. This plan is going to be implemented up until 2034, and it ensures that homes and jobs are built alongside the infrastructure that is needed to support them. Yet when we look at the opposition plan, that is a plan to open up more land on the suburban fringe, with no consultation with councils, with no proposal to put in the infrastructure that is needed and just lump people into these outer suburbs without any services or any plan for any services. Particularly when they are talking about huge cuts in budget, they will not have the money to provide that infrastructure.

I believe that residents of Thomastown electorate living in Wollert and Epping will be very happy with our plan, which is to ensure that further growth is accommodated with infrastructure as it is built. But of course they will not be happy with the opposition’s proposal of just opening up more land without any thought about the roads and the schools and the parks that everyone needs in any place that they are going to live. It is also a great area, Wollert and Epping, for local people in Thomastown, because not only can they live out in those outer suburbs that have some of the schools they really like and lots of friends and family; they also can work from home in many instances, thanks to the proposals from, again, the Allan Labor government to ensure and enshrine that right so that families can live in the outer suburbs without having to travel into the city, cutting off lots of hours of their family time in a car rather than at home with their families.

So this motion goes through – and I think previous speakers have spoken about – the many, many levers that we are talking about using, whether it is changes to planning laws or whether it is encouraging social housing, providing funds and providing all the incentives as well as supporting renters and young people into their own homes. These are all things that the Allan Labor government is doing right now to fix the problem of the housing shortage, to ensure that our young people into the future are able to buy a home in a place where they want to buy and are not locked out of the inner and middle suburbs. I know that, for example, a lot of young families are moving into even the Thomastown suburb, which is still probably called the outer ring, and they are really enjoying the amenity they have there with the schools and roads. But of course, this is not what Liberal governments want to do.

 Anthony CIANFLONE (Pascoe Vale) (18:59): I am delighted to be, I believe, the final speaker on this side of the house on this very important motion on housing for this evening, and I am very proud to be rising as a member of the Victorian Labor government, which is absolutely committed to doing everything it can to deliver more housing for first home buyers, for workers, for renters, for families, for downsizers and for those that need a helping hand as well. We are doing that through very clear policies and very clear strategies, in very stark contrast to those opposite and the Greens as well. We have got the Plan for Victoria and the activity centres plan, including for Central Coburg –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am required under sessional orders to interrupt the member. He can continue when the matter comes back to the house.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.