Wednesday, 23 February 2022

Production of documents

Social and affordable housing

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (10:24): I am pleased to move:

That this house:

(1) expresses concern at the negative impact of the Andrews Labor government’s social housing tax on residential developments and housing affordability in metropolitan Melbourne, Geelong, Bendigo and Ballarat; and

(2) in accordance with standing order 11.01, requires the Leader of the Government to table in the Council, within 14 calendar days of the house agreeing to this resolution, all modelling, business case documents and other assessments or examinations relating to the impact of the new tax on housing affordability and the consequent capacity of young families to purchase a home.

This is a motion that has two parts. It first expresses a concern, and I indicate that we have still not seen this bill. We have seen the reports of it, we have seen information about it that the government has released, and we have seen the work that has been done by the Property Council of Australia and the Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA) in looking at the impact of the tax and how it is likely to impact in the city. They argue that on average on a city property it will be around a $20 000 additional cost and it will be around a $12 000 additional cost in the country. They have gone to some effort in looking at the median house price and what that is likely to mean in terms of additional cost. So we know that it is going to have a very serious effect and we also know that the part of the package which seems to say to social housing ‘You won’t pay any rates’ will actually have a significant effect on the rates that are paid by others, and that is a very significant impact of itself that will force councils either to raise their rates or cut their services. There are only two prospects that are likely to apply here. It might be a combination of both cutting services and raising rates.

So that is the tax we are talking about. It is the one announced on Friday by the state government—the Minister for Planning and the Treasurer. But clearly this will have a major impact on young families, a major impact on those who are seeking to buy their first home, and it will also affect others. It will affect those people who are downsizing. They will need to sell their house to buy a new one. They buy into a group of apartments and all of those apartments will have this tax applied across the top of them. That will mean the cost of those apartments will be greater.

The Premier today at his press conference was trying to argue that this was all about a fairer arrangement because the developers are all rich and famous. Well, the reality is that many developments are more marginal, and some developments may actually stop with this new tax put on top. This government has already put a windfall gains tax on top and this is actually on top of the new tax that the government has recently passed.

But the second part of the motion and in many respects the key aspect of the motion is a request for the modelling and documents on which the government has based much of this. It is reasonable that the community see the modelling, the business case documents and other assessments or examinations relating to the impact of the new tax on housing affordability and, as I say, the consequent ability of young families to purchase a home. The government has either modelled this closely or they have not. If the government comes back and says there are no documents, that will tell a story in itself. If the government comes back and says, ‘Yes, here are the documents’, I think the community are entitled to see those documents—the material on which the government relied when it was making these decisions—and understand what the modelling means in terms of the impact on the cost of homes and the affordability of homes.

The Premier, in an extraordinary about face today at his press conference, seemed to be retreating from the tax. He seemed to be saying at about 9 o’clock out the front here that in fact the government has not yet introduced the tax and it may not introduce the tax. I say in that circumstance we have every right still to see these documents and understand how the government has so spectacularly misfired. The truth of course is that the government has been stung by the nasty reaction, and people are saying, ‘Enough is enough’—enough of these new taxes. There have already been 40 new taxes; this is the 41st new tax under this government, a massive sweep and slew of new taxes being put in place by this government. The purpose of these new taxes, let us be clear, is to actually fund the huge blowouts on projects, the waste and mismanagement on broad fronts that this government has indulged in.

The incompetence on all these major projects is profound. The Premier, as I just said to the press conference then, was down at the Metro Tunnel yesterday. Well, that project the government has admitted is $3 billion over budget. All the information I hear within the sector and from those close to the project is it is actually closer to $4 billion already and climbing. A project that begins at $11 billion and is now officially at $14 billion, actually climbing nearer $15 billion—these are eye-watering amounts of money.

This tax that the government has proposed to put in place would collect $800 million a year from 2024. It would add directly to the cost of housing. Families would feel it, and we know how stretched and troubled family budgets are at the moment. We know that they are doing it tough. So many families are doing it very, very tough indeed, and one key reason for that is the new taxes—layer upon layer upon layer of new state government taxes that hit families and hit families hard. I mean, we heard the government jack up the cost of land tax on high-voltage electricity wires the other day. A week ago the announcement came that they are going to do that. Well, that is a straight feed through into electricity costs for households and for businesses. It is a straight slug on the bottom line for those families. And this is another one of those taxes that is a straight hit onto the bottom line for families. Those families are trying to save, trying to get themselves into their first home, struggling, struggling and struggling trying to save, and the government’s approach to this is to slap a new tax on the end and make the dream of a home ownership opportunity for those families recede further into the distance. So this is a bad tax. It is a nasty new tax that the government wants to put in place.

If it is true that the Premier is going to pull the tax today—and as I said to the press, I am due to be briefed at 5 o’clock, and I thank the minister for that briefing—I will be interested to see whether the briefing goes ahead if the tax is actually being pulled, if the new charges and new arrangements are to be pulled by the government. I say that the government has miscalculated on this, I say that the community has every right to be very angry on these matters and I think that the community as per this motion has every right to see these business case documents and the modelling. Did they model this properly or didn’t they? Did they make some real, honest assessment?

And I should say one other thing: the property council, the UDIA, the Housing Industry Association and the Master Builders Association have all been very concerned about these matters. The Premier is around pushing the line that they had all agreed to this. Well, no, they had not. There were discussions around some of the planning changes and some of those were agreed by government with the sector, but that is not the same as a brand spanking new tax, a slap on top of the cost of every new property that is built, every property where a subdivision happens. Just so the community understands, everything over three is where that is going to go. A lot development where three units are built—bang, the new tax lands. An apartment complex—bang, the new tax lands. A development with many units or many properties out on the edge of the city or in the country which is split up for new land opportunities for families—that is where that tax lands. So I say we need to see that modelling. We need to see what is going on here, and I think it is entirely reasonable.

Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (10:34): As I rise to speak on this motion I would like to note that it has been disappointing to see a scare campaign from those opposite on this announcement. The government has been working with the property development sector for some time on a package of reforms that is intended to slash approval times for projects and ensure that some of the extra profit that would be made as a result is returned to the community through affordable and low-cost housing. This package as announced will cut red tape, boost approvals for major projects, speed up planning processes, create jobs and bolster construction, delivering $7 billion in benefits and 27 500 jobs over the next 10 years.

The development sector is now saying that they are no longer interested in that reform package, although they think it is reasonable that developers pocket 100 per cent of that extra profit. We are not in the business of creating super profits for the development sector. In fact—I am just so astounded that I have to say this—those opposite oppose sharing some of those profits with Victorians that desperately need affordable housing, which is in line entirely with community expectations.

Can I also today acknowledge my friend and colleague in the other place Richard Wynne, Minister for Housing and Minister for Planning. He has been a consistent, hardworking and indeed effective advocate for public and social housing residents in this state.

Mr GEPP: Especially when you compare him to the previous planning minister from the Libs.

Ms WATT: Well, that is too right. Long before he entered Parliament and long before he became a minister he was a fierce advocate for public and social housing. Minister Wynne has overseen some major reforms in our housing system, and as he prepares to finish up his tenure at the end of this Parliament I think it is only right and proper that I thank him for his work in this area.

And yet those opposite come into this place armed with nothing but an outright—well, it is just too hard to indeed even consider it. It is a bag of tricks, and it is shameful that the social and affordable housing contribution will be a cost to homebuyers. The bill has not even landed yet—we have not even seen it—but the Liberals are keen to run their scare campaign against affordable housing, a scare campaign with lines fed by the property developer mates of those opposite. I must say that there were indeed some strong lines delivered just one moment ago; I am sure that they play well to some, but for me they are all conjecture, smear and desperately misleading commentary about housing affordability in our state. All I heard indeed was desperation, and I am sure that Mr Davis is probably reading the same opinion polls that I am. But in all seriousness—

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): Order! Mr Davis, you are not in your usual spot, and Mr Finn—I would appreciate it if both of you would stop interjecting. I recall, Mr Davis, when you made your contribution there was not much interjection at all. Ms Watt, in silence, thank you.

Ms WATT: Thank you, Acting President. But in all seriousness, social and affordable housing reform is needed, and that is the kind of thing that this government have continued to push throughout our time in government. It is an extremely exciting and important reform—one that is so desperately needed—and an important reason why I spoke with such esteem for the minister. This policy of reform will build thousands of social and affordable houses every year. This reform will help the 54 952 people currently waiting for social housing. Of these, more than 7000 are aged over 55, almost 13 000 are experiencing homelessness and over 3000 are fleeing family violence. Others are living in insecure and unaffordable housing and have an urgent medical condition—men like my friend Sam. He has a critical cardiac condition but is now safely living in my neighbourhood and finally getting the care he needs, not desperately focused on his safety at the rooming home that he lived in for far too long. Many of these are in the Northern Metropolitan Region.

I have talked to and visited so many people both before and since I entered this place about the importance of increasing our social and affordable housing stock. Indeed my last job before entering this place included seeking and supporting employment for people in public and social housing. The ambition of children in public housing is inspired, and I can only imagine what it will be like when their friends and their loved ones who are also looking for safe and affordable housing can have the comfort and security of a home, and a safe home at that. That is why I am so enormously proud to have been asked to chair the North Melbourne community consultative committee on the development of some much-needed revitalisation and renewal of public, affordable and social housing right here in our neighbourhood in North Melbourne, not too far up the road.

Working hand in hand with the community, I have talked through all the various issues, whether they be about public schools, about medical access, about social and community services, and what I know time and time again from those meetings—and that has been something I have done pretty much since I started here—is that that community welcomes public and social housing. So thank you to the North Melbourne community for getting behind social and affordable housing. But you know what? We are not the only ones lucky enough; there are these projects all across our state.

There are indeed just too many people on the waitlist. It is not an easy issue to fix. But the project in North Melbourne is just part of the incredible investment that is being made by the Andrews Labor government, more than any other state in Australia, through the Big Housing Build. I am enormously proud to say that the Big Housing Build will build more than 12 000 new social and affordable homes, increase our social housing stock by 10 per cent, create an average of 10 000 jobs a year over four years and spend $1.25 billion in regional Victoria—and I am sure my colleague Mr Gepp will be very happy to hear that—indeed boosting regional economies. This is on top of our commitment to build 1000 new public homes, the public housing renewal program, the family violence housing blitz and our groundbreaking lease model development.

This is an exciting time for those that have been sitting waiting for a home for far too long. Thanks to the Andrews Labor government investments, there are now over 6000 homes under construction. Anyone who spends any time out in our community can see those big signs around the developments for Homes Victoria. I know that there are plenty around my part of the world. This will create over 20 000 jobs through the development of these 6000 homes. That is a contract value of $2.2 billion. This is real and substantial change. This is the change that some in this place talk about. Some get a good Facebook post out there all about it but never actually have the opportunity to act on it.

Just in December at the end of 2021 this government opened a brand new 48-apartment complex in the heart of Melbourne’s Queen Victoria Market, offering modern social housing to Victorians most in need. The $26.55 million project was funded by the Labor government, creating 176 jobs and contributing to Victoria’s economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic. This investment means Victorians living with a disability, people aged over 55 and people experiencing homelessness or domestic violence—victim-survivors—now have the security and safety of long-term housing. This development includes 47 one-bedroom apartments and one two-bedroom apartment, including six apartments designed to platinum level Livable Housing Australia standards, making them livable and adaptable for people with a range of disabilities. All of the apartments meet the Better Apartments Design Standards and achieve a minimal Livable Housing Australia silver rating, including a 5-star Green Star rating—look at that!—and an 8-star national Australian built environment rating system rating. My goodness—making it 8-star, who knew. This is making them more comfortable during summer and winter and saving renters money on their power bills, something we know is incredibly important to Victorian families.

This is just one of the many social and affordable housing investments this government has made since being elected in 2014. The Andrews Labor government has made a series of interventions across our state to make housing more affordable. In July 2017 the Andrews Labor government announced the Homes for Victorians strategy, and under this strategy stamp duty for first home buyer purchases under $600 000 was abolished and concessions were made available for purchases up to $750 000, a strategy that has made it easier for many to buy their own homes. Indeed before entering Parliament, and I have said this before, I benefited from this strategy and purchased my own home. As a sole purchaser and a charity worker who did it by myself, buying my first home remains one of my proudest achievements, and I have this government to thank for it. There is so much we should be proud of.

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (10:44): I rise to speak on Mr Davis’s motion 707, which is essentially about another new tax in Victoria—another new tax that will attack young people trying to buy their first home, trying to establish. I think about my own electorate, in places like Kalkallo, Wollert, Donnybrook, Craigieburn, Mickleham and Epping North, where there are brand new housing estates where people are struggling to get their first home and move into that market, and what is the first thing that Daniel Andrews does? He whacks a tax on them to make it harder for them to afford a new home. He wants this tax because he says he needs to increase the social housing aspect of Victoria’s offering. We understand that, but people who are trying to buy a new home have said to me, ‘Don’t we already pay taxes for that sort of thing?’.

The problem with this government is that when they run out of money they come after yours. We have got $24.5 billion worth of project blowouts in this state. The government cannot manage money. Rather than look at the cost line, the first thing they do is look at the revenue line: ‘How can we tax people more?’. This is the same bloke who said on the night before the state election in 2010, ‘There will be no new taxes or increased taxes under a government I lead’.

Mr Finn: In 2014.

Mr ONDARCHIE: In 2014. You corrected me; thank you, Mr Finn. In 2014 he said that to Peter Mitchell, looking down the lens of the Channel 7 camera, and gave every Victorian an assurance that there would be no new or increased taxes under a government that he leads. Now, here we are: I think we are up to 30-something new or increased taxes.

Mr Finn: 41.

Mr ONDARCHIE: 41 new or increased taxes. He is a liar, this bloke. He is a liar. And he has lied to Victorians. I withdraw. Let me just say—

Mr Gepp: On a point of order, Acting President, the member used a very unparliamentary term in relation to the Premier, and I think it is incumbent upon him to immediately withdraw.

Mr ONDARCHIE: I did, immediately.

Mr Finn: On the point of order, Acting President, certainly Mr Ondarchie in calling the Premier a liar was most unparliamentary, but he did withdraw immediately.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): Mr Finn, that is not a point of order, and I ask you to withdraw.

Mr Finn: The fact of the matter is that Mr Ondarchie did withdraw already.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): No, I ask you to withdraw.

Mr Finn: He has already withdrawn.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): No, I want you to withdraw your comments as well.

Mr Finn: I withdraw. It is obviously a very touchy point, understandably.

Mr ONDARCHIE: Thank you, Acting President. This mendacious Premier continues to mislead Victorians. Forty per cent of a new home will be Daniel Andrews’s taxes—a man who said no new taxes. Now, when this tax eventually gets here we will oppose this crushing new housing tax, disadvantaging people, stopping them buying a new home. It is a kick in the guts for people that are trying to buy a new home in Victoria. I am very hopeful that with the change of dynamic here in the upper house those on the crossbench will see great wisdom in opposing another new tax on Victorians.

When we look at the complete waste of money in Victoria and the way the government continually go back to hit people up for more money, it is just unacceptable. The Premier will fill his office with plenty of advisers and highly paid executives but will not do anything about supporting Victorians struggling to buy a house. But of course the government today will say this is just the Liberal-Nationals coalition opposing social housing. That is what they will say today. But I have got to tell you it is not just us saying this. The councils are furious about what they are doing to councils during this process. I have got to tell you that not only will these new home owners get a whack in the tax, they are going to pay higher rates for this as well. It is a double whammy for these people at the expense of this government.

I pick up Ms Watt’s contribution today when she said we are running a scare campaign and it is the Liberals’ mates that are supporting this. It is the Liberals’ mates that are supporting us, she says. Well, if that is the case, Ms Watt, let me quote from one of your so-called ‘Liberal mates’ today. I have copy of a media release from the Australian Services Union, dated 18 February 2022. Ms Watt might think of them as Liberal mates, but this media release says, ‘Union criticises state government’s rate dodge’. I will read from it:

The Australian Services Union has criticised the Andrews Government for exempting social and affordable housing from paying council rates as a further attack on local government services.

The Victorian Government’s policy will strip millions from council’s rate revenue, making job losses and service cuts inevitable.

Lisa Darmanin, secretary of the Victorian and Tasmanian branch of the union, said social and affordable housing is critically important but must not come at the expense of services residence will rely on.

She said:

Councils are already struggling to maintain services with the Andrews Government’s rate cap and cost-shifting, this rate dodge by the Andrews Government will make that struggle even harder.

She went on to say:

This pulls funds put of essential council services to pay for repairs the government should have started years ago. The poorest Victorians, including social housing residents, will suffer from this.

Ms Darmanin said:

… the state government’s plan to dodge paying rates would exacerbate the squeeze on council budgets, make council work less secure, cost jobs in every community, push up user fees, and hold down council worker’s wages.

She said:

The State Government seems to have decided they didn’t like paying their bills, so they just won’t.

She went on to say:

Councils provide vital services to social housing residents. Youth and community workers, in-home care, libraries—these are the services the State Government has decided to defund because they don’t want to pay their own rates.

This is from the Australian Services Union, a union that I suspect Ms Watt is calling Liberal mates. So it is not just us saying it is a problem, it is the Australians Services Union—a union criticising the government. This mob are in real trouble. When a union is criticising the Labor Party, they are in real trouble. They should pack up the attaché case and head home, because they have no idea how to manage money. The first thing they do is tax hardworking Victorians, and hardworking Victorians will have to pay for government shortfalls.

Let me take you back to the legislation of 2021 when they asked for more money in their debt facility here. They asked for $24.5 billion more money to cover their COVID bills. When we add up the cost overruns of all the major projects in Victoria that they call the Big Build—I call it the ‘big debt’—it adds up to $24.5 billion. So it was never about COVID. It was never about funding a pandemic; it was about funding the mismanagement of money by this government. I have got to tell you, as winter approaches in this state it will be so cold Tim Pallas will have his hands in his own pocket. That is how cold it is going to be. What Tim Pallas does and what Daniel Andrews does in this state when they run out of money is they come after yours. But it is all right. He will be in his limo, driving home to his palatial home, pocketing a huge salary that is almost that of the Prime Minister, and he has more in his office than the Prime Minister has.

Mr Finn: Highest paid Premier in Australia.

Mr ONDARCHIE: He is the highest paid Premier in the country. But if he needs more money or he needs another pay rise, he will just put more tax on Victorians. This is an outrageous money grab by this government. Mayors right across from Yarra to Casey to Moonee Valley to Hume to Maribyrnong to Ballarat are all saying—and I suspect Dr Cumming will talk about Maribyrnong today—that this is a grab on their residents. The government is defunding councils that are expected to pay for this, and the only way they will be able to fund this is by putting the rates up. So it is a double whammy in expenses from Daniel Andrews, but he does not care, because if somebody asks him the direct question—‘Who decided to put this money up? Who decided to put more taxes up?’—he will probably say, ‘I don’t recall. Somebody decided, but I don’t know who it was’. He is the Artful Dodger, this bloke. He is the Artful Dodger, but let me tell you, at the end of November this year Victorians will make their decision about how bad he is and kick him out.

Mr Finn interjected.

Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (10:55): Mr Finn, right off the top you go to interjections. You always accuse the union movement of being in the pocket of Labor, and of course that could not be further from the truth because the reality is that all trade unions in this state are independent. They have their own constituents that they are providing services for, and they should advocate for whatever they think is relevant to their members. That is their right and we absolutely and unequivocally support their right to do that. If that means that on occasions they do not line up with something the government does, that is called democracy. That is the way the system works.

What I am proud of is this government’s track record when it comes to public, social and affordable housing. We have a fantastic track record. Of course there was the announcement during this term of the Big Housing Build—the $5.3 billion, the 12 000 new homes, increasing our social housing stock by 10 per cent, with more than 10 000 jobs a year over four years, with $1.25 billion of that money being spent in regional Victoria. I know when I go up to places like Bendigo, Mildura and Shepparton, places that will be benefiting from this policy, I do not hear those people saying what the opposition is saying. You do not hear those people say that.

Indeed isn’t it interesting listening to the opposition? What they would have you do is believe that they are actually interested in growing public and social housing. But in my time here I cannot recall that they have ever voted in favour of any proposition that has come before the Parliament—never. I cannot recall any occasion. What they have not done so far in this debate is talk about the needs of the people who will benefit from increased public and social housing here in this state. Why? Because they do not know, they do not understand those issues. They do not connect with those people. They do not make the connection that Ms Watt talked about, as she is chairing that very important task force that is looking into these very important matters in North Melbourne. She is eminently qualified to come into this chamber and talk on these matters, because she knows. She comes from those communities, she talks to those communities and they give her a very, very clear picture of the needs that they have. But of course this motion today is a stunt. This is another stunt by those opposite—

Members interjecting.

Mr GEPP: On a point of order, Acting President, I cannot hear myself, and I am not a softly spoken person.

Mr Ondarchie: On the point of order, Acting President, I think it is the first time in my time in this chamber I have seen a member take a point of order against themselves. I suggest you might want to just rule it out.

Mr GEPP: Well, it is about the chatter in the house.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): Thank you, Mr Gepp. I ask Mr Gepp to continue in silence without any further chatting. It is a bit loud.

Mr GEPP: This is a documents motion, and it is a stunt by those opposite. I want to contrast what we have done in my time in this place, in the 58th and 59th parliaments, in responding to documents motions with the opposition’s time in office back in the 57th Parliament. The two positions could not be more stark. During the 57th Parliament the Liberal-National parties left 1174 questions without notice unanswered; they just did not bother to respond. That is nearly double the amount of questions without notice that were unanswered by Labor during the 58th Parliament. 3282 individual FOI requests were denied in full by the Liberal-National government during 2010–14.

It repeatedly refused departmental briefings with Labor members on the FOI commissioner bill. It underfunded and understaffed the FOI commissioner and refused to grant them the powers they needed to hold the government of the day to account, and then it cut their budget by almost 25 per cent a year. And it continued to use advisers to oversee FOI processes to deny access to information. And yet they come in here with yet another stunt, and we see this Wednesday after Wednesday after Wednesday in this place from Mr Davis—yet another documents motion—trying to create the impression that he is all about transparency, that he is all about putting everything before the people of Victoria.

Mr Leane interjected.

Mr GEPP: I think, Mr Leane, that never a truer word has been spoken. I think he is mendacious. And if you could look up what that means so that we could be clear—

Mr Leane: It means ‘full of something’.

Mr GEPP: ‘Full of something’—right, okay. Well, he is mendacious in spades then, can I say that. They come in here and they want to create the illusion that what they are about is transparency and openness and that there is something to hide. Contrast their behaviour when they were in office with what the Andrews Labor government has done during the 58th and 59th parliaments. The government has responded in full or in part to all 31 documents motions moved in the 58th Parliament, and the government has responded in full or in part—except for two documents—to all motions passed by the Parliament this term. Those two are still under consideration, and responses will be sent to the Council in due course.

What do we take into account when we are considering the release of documents? Mind you, we are talking about something that is not even before the Parliament—there is not a bill—so we are talking about something that is in the ether. Mr Davis walks in and says, ‘It’s shocking’, but of course it is his mendacious behaviour.

Members interjecting.

Mr GEPP: He is incorrigible. When we get a documents motion before us we do consider a range of factors. We consider: will the documents reveal directly or indirectly the deliberative processes of cabinet; will they reveal high-level confidential deliberative processes of the executive government or otherwise genuinely jeopardise the necessary relationship of trust and confidence between a minister and public officials; will they reveal confidential legal advice to the executive government; will they prejudice national security or public safety; and will they prejudice law enforcement investigations, materially damage the state’s financial or commercial interests, prejudice intergovernmental and diplomatic relations or prejudice legal proceedings. That is just to name a few things that come under consideration when we are asked by the Parliament to provide documents through a documents motion.

I talked about the statistics and what we have done in the 58th and 59th parliaments—all but two documents, and those two are still under active consideration—about the release of information. So our track record stacks up very, very neatly against that of the Liberal and National parties, who again are trying to create some sort of ruse out there in the electorate to suggest that there is something untoward going on. I mean, heaven forbid, soon enough we will have a federal election. And, guess what, we will have terrorist threats and those sorts of things suddenly come back on the agenda—because that is what these people do. They like to spook the horses. They like to say there is a whole bunch of activity out there. They can never actually find any evidence to support it, but that does not matter to this mob. If they can start some rumour, some innuendo, notwithstanding that there may be genuine issues that the people of Victoria want to hear about, that does not matter for this mob. It is about cheap political pointscoring.

Our runs are on the board. Whenever we bring a bill to this place we will absolutely be transparent, we will be open and we will be honest with the people of Victoria, as we have been and as is the hallmark of the Andrews Labor government. I reject the proposition before the house today.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (11:05): It is great to get up after the government, because they are robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is exactly that, isn’t it, Mr Finn?

Mr Finn interjected.

Dr CUMMING: Absolutely. I rise today to speak to the opposition’s motion, which is that this house expresses concern at the negative impact of the Andrew Labor government’s social housing tax on—

Mr Gepp: ‘Andrews’. It’s got an ‘s’ on the end.

Dr CUMMING: Really? Who cares, Mr Gepp?

Members interjecting.

Dr CUMMING: Doughnut Dan? I will take that. It refers to the impact on residential developments and housing affordability in metropolitan Melbourne, Geelong, Bendigo and—

Mr Gepp: On a point of order, Acting President, the member used a term to describe the Premier which is unparliamentary. The standing orders require people when they are referring to a member in this place to use their full title, and to do otherwise is disrespectful. I would ask you to ensure that in future, throughout the rest of this debate, if referring to a member, she refers to the member with their correct title.

Mr Ondarchie: On the point of order, Acting President, I am not sure where it states that a culinary delight and the Premier, being doughnuts, is unparliamentary.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): I know members have been a bit excited this morning about this motion and about calling the Premier various names. Can I just remind members that when they are referring to another member, whether it is the Premier or a minister or just a member, they refer to them by their title and their surname. I will ask members to actually adhere to that so we can take the emotion out of it and we can focus on the motion itself.

Dr CUMMING: Thank you, Acting President. Yes, I am speaking about this government, the Daniel Andrews government—

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): Dr Cumming, I just made a ruling. It is ‘Premier’, not ‘Daniel Andrews’. You refer to them by their title.

Dr CUMMING: So can I say ‘Mr Andrews’?

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): You can.

Dr CUMMING: Thank you, I will call him Mr Andrews. Mr Andrews has decided with his government that they are going to tax and collect money that they believe they are going to be spending on social housing. I am going to read some quotes today. Firstly, from the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV), who have said that:

The significant community investment in social housing that is required for Victoria will come from a narrow and often under pressure sector of the community, being new home buyers, as well as through rate increases for all Victorian ratepayers.

That’s the message delivered to the … MAV … metropolitan and regional councils, who today saw for the first time—

and this is 18 February this year—

the Victorian Government’s two-pronged approach to funding social and affordable housing.

From July 2024 new residential developments of three or more lots will contribute 1.75% of their build cost to a social and affordable housing fund. The MAV and Victorian councils support the use of mandatory contributions to provide for social and affordable housing, however such contributions are best sought across broad sectors of the State economy.

Combined with the investment of Victoria’s Big Housing Build, this will go a long way towards providing a roof over Victorians’ heads.

But MAV say:

Disappointingly, the Victorian Government has walked away from its long partnership with—

local councils and—

Local Government to provide services to the residents of social and affordable housing, by exempting itself from paying council rates and charges on almost 70,000 social housing dwellings across metropolitan Melbourne and the regional cities of Ballarat, Bendigo and Geelong. On the high level numbers provided by the State Government this morning, over ten years this will divert upwards of $540 million away from vital council services such as parks, waste management, kindergartens, active transport and maternal and child health.

“Increased access to social housing dwellings is vital to relieving homelessness and having housing options for those in critical need—every Victorian agrees on that …

That is a quote from MAV president Cr David Clark. He also said:

But providing local services to these residents—the families and individuals living in these dwellings—is also critical. Social housing should be supported and subsidised by the Victorian Government, not just by the ratepayers of each municipality.

The cumulative impact of this reversal on rates and charges, of other cost-shifting measures, as well as the financial constraints of the rate cap, once again places Council budgets in a no win position when it comes to just maintaining, let alone enhancing, much needed community services.

Communities are asking councils to do more than ever in their local areas while the State actively works to undermine their financial sustainability.

Social housing is clearly a State responsibility. Yet once again the State is using the ratepayer as its means to money for its own purposes, like the fire services or parks levies. Rates are 3 per cent of the national tax take, or one sixth of the taxes paid to the State each year. Yet the State continues to “mine” our already small tax base for its own service delivery.

That is from the MAV. I would also quote the mayors of the local area, from the Herald Sun. The quote, which is from 23 February 2020, is saying:

Millions of homeowners—

will—

… be slugged with higher council rates to offset the state government’s proposed new social housing policy.

According to the Herald Sun—and these are quotes from my local mayors:

… Moonee Valley face paying an extra $51 … Darebin and Hume could be hit with added fees of $50 and $32 respectively.

…

Hume City Mayor Carly Moore said her community would “unfairly bear the brunt of this decision”.

Moonee Valley Mayor Samantha Byrne said—

these are all ALP mayors, mind you—

“After an extremely difficult past two years of the pandemic, this decision will have significant impacts on many of the services and programs we offer our community, including those who live in public housing.”

…

Maribyrnong City Council is expected to lose $26 million—

according to the Herald Sun—

over 10 years, with Mayor Anthony Tran saying the council was “disappointed and concerned”.

I can tell you that I had a meeting with all the mayors of the west on Friday and they said this to my face. Maribyrnong City Council will lose $2.6 million in one year.

According to the Herald Sun councils have the most to lose, and they have made a top-10 list of ‘Local government areas with the greatest number of social housing properties’. Number 6 is Moonee Valley. They have 2937 social houses. Hume has 2491 social houses. Maribyrnong—top 10—has 2488. These areas in my Western Metropolitan Region are the most vulnerable communities in Victoria. Then it goes into others that you are going to take money away from in those areas where they are providing services for those social houses. I have said it before: the state government is the slum lord of social housing here in Victoria. How very dare you think that you are actually going to somehow redeem yourselves by taking council rates—$154 million, MAV believes, in just one year—and only spending $54 million on social housing. You are putting in your pocket $70 million—3 per cent-plus, council rates will go up across Victoria.

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (11:15): Far be it from me to say that sometimes when it comes to these motions people may go on a tangent. Basically, this is a call for paperwork, and I think the government has put our regular position around calls for paperwork. But I think in fairness I should actually make commentary about some of the main issues that were brought up.

When it comes to public, social, affordable housing, it is an actual fact that this particular government is embarking on a historic, record spend. It is a fact that this is delivered by and is a passion of a lot of members of this government. I know Mr Gepp has spoken to me about this a number of times. We heard Ms Watt. It is actually a real-life experience and a passion that they have around the availability of public, affordable social housing. It is a passion obviously that has come from the Premier and also in particular from the Minister for Housing, Minister Wynne. This is a consuming, important priority that he has had and continues to have. I think he will leave an amazing legacy in this area—as I said, a record, historic spend—whereas previous governments have not had the interest or ability to go to these ends. So I think if we are talking about public, social, affordable housing, as I said, this government has a proud position, which we are seeing come to fruition as we speak.

There has been some commentary about local government—a few things that people say about local government—and it is incumbent on me as Minister for Local Government to say that, as a government we get called dictators and we get called all these things.

A member interjected.

Mr LEANE: Well, that was really unfair, because I think the tenants of a lot of those properties are actually proud of their environment. What they have done is personally take ownership of what they have developed. We get called all sorts of names. I have said this to peak bodies, and I have said this to a number of stakeholders in the local government sector: we respect that from time to time there will be stakeholders in that sector that are not happy with some of our ideas, policies and initiatives. Getting back to what Mr Gepp said: there is no bill yet, but we respect it if they have differences of opinion. That is their right, as Mr Gepp said in his contribution. That is their right.

Getting back to what this is actually about, it is a call for paperwork. We have a call for paperwork in this chamber nearly every Wednesday. Mr Davis, when he receives it, likes to use it for mendacious reasons.

A member: We learned a new word today.

Mr LEANE: I think it is a red-letter day today. I do not usually in my contributions give Mr Ondarchie a shout-out, but that was pretty spectacular—‘mendacious’. It kind of reminds me of when Mr Davis one day just plucked out the word ‘happenstance’, and I thought, ‘That’s a beauty’. I am an old, old man. There used to be this show called ‘HR Happenstance’ or something like that. It used to have a puppet and all that—life-sized puppets.

I was wondering if Mr Davis might have been that in a previous role that he may have filled. It reminds me of a red-letter day with one of Dr Ratnam’s predecessors, Mr Barber. Seriously, whenever I spoke after Mr Barber I used to say, ‘Mr Barber, you are the smartest person in this room by a mile, and I believe that you actually counted to infinity twice’. He always liked to think he was the smartest person in the room. One day he made up a word—I cannot even remember it. During his contribution I said, ‘That’s not even a word’. He was very upset with me during this contribution, so after it there used to be a dictionary sitting out the front—I would suggest to the clerks maybe we bring it back after Mr Ondarchie’s effort today; maybe we should bring that dictionary back—and Mr Barber opened up the book and we found the word, but it did not match the meaning. It did not match the meaning. So I offered to Mr Barber, ‘Maybe we can go and sit down and I’ll shout you a fruity drink or something to make you feel a lot better’.

As I said, I am not being flippant about the crux of the issues that some people are talking about, but this is a call for paperwork. I say this all the time—Mr Finn and probably Mr Ondarchie too can probably look it up on their iPads now because I say this all the time: if it is not cabinet in confidence, if it is not commercial in confidence, of course we respect the right of this chamber to call for paperwork. And we deliver. We have delivered more paperwork than the previous coalition government. I know that previous government is a long, distant memory—and probably would be a sad, long, distant memory—but when they had 21 members of this chamber out of the 40 there were a lot of calls for paperwork from the opposition. I was in the opposition at the time. I was actually the Opposition Whip, like Mr Finn.

Mr Finn interjected.

Mr LEANE: Yes, I know how you feel every morning. I kind of remember how you felt when you woke up every morning: you could not wait to get in here and be an important part of democracy. I remember the hot topic at the time was the east–west link business case, which the opposition called for. Premier Napthine at the time was running around saying, ‘Don’t worry about the business case; this project’s a game changer’. He was going, ‘Game changer, game changer, game changer’. You would ask, ‘Can you make a comment about the east–west link?’, and he would go, ‘It’s a game changer’. But what does that even mean? So how about you hand over the business case and we would have a better understanding? So the business case was handed over. It was about 14 tiled pages. It was called a short-term business case. It had a very nice cover—very colourful, very shiny.

Mr Gepp: Was it?

Mr LEANE: You could shave your face in the morning, Mr Gepp, looking at the cover of the east–west link business case.

Mr Gepp: That’s a game changer.

Mr LEANE: Well, that must have been the game changer. Anyway, half a page had a picture of a tram, and I could not work out what a tram had to do with a tunnel for cars. There was another quarter of a page with someone walking across a pedestrian crossing. I would have thought a pedestrian crossing in the middle of one of those tunnels—

Mr Gepp: It’s a bit dangerous, isn’t it?

Mr LEANE: There are a few problems with that. Why is someone walking in a road tunnel and needing a pedestrian crossing?

Mr Finn: On a point of order, Acting President, I am loath to interrupt Minister Leane because he is clearly working on his routine for the comedy festival coming up in the not-too-distant future—and he is doing a very nice job too, I might say. I might even go and see his show. But it is far, far removed from the subject of the motion, and I ask you to bring him back to the subject at hand.

Mr Gepp: Further to the point of order, Acting President, I in my contribution drew the comparison between this government’s record in handing over documents as a result of decisions in this Parliament and that of the opposition, and there was no point of order taken. Mr Leane is entitled, I think, under the standing orders to draw reference to those former contributions, particularly if it is about people walking across highways—I do not know how you do that.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): I think Mr Leane has got 10 seconds, so do we want to take further points of order?

Mr Ondarchie interjected.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): Mr Leane, we can give you a few more seconds because you have lost them.

Mr LEANE: If you do not mind me taking the licence, Acting President, I will uphold the point of order.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (11:25): I rise to speak in reference to Mr Davis’s motion. I think it is really important from the outset to set the context in which this motion is being debated, because if you have followed what those opposite have proffered throughout this debate you might not understand the really important and urgent context in which this motion is being brought before us today.

Victoria is experiencing a housing crisis. There is no doubt about it; it is the biggest social justice issue we face. We have over 100 000 people and rising every day on Victoria’s urgent public housing waiting list, and on any given night 25 000 Victorians experience homelessness. This is completely unacceptable. This motion is being debated today in the context of the crisis this state is facing and an urgency that everyone in this place thinks and acts urgently to solve housing affordability and end homelessness.

But once again we have the Liberal Party doing the bidding of the property industry rather than standing up for everyday Victorians and the thousands of Victorians who are experiencing homelessness, are in housing stress or are unsure whether they will have a safe, secure and affordable roof over their head in the weeks and months to come. They seem intent on regurgitating the spin from the industry to protect their profits and keep housing out of the reach of many Victorians. When developers are already making millions in profits from the sale of housing and benefiting from the completely ridiculous housing prices we are seeing in Victoria—an 18 per cent rise just in the last year alone—it only seems fair that they should have to contribute to creating more affordable housing, and it is really disappointing to see the opposition peddling the misinformation that these kinds of levies and charges only add to house prices.

I think it is worth noting that on many occasions in this place and on our parliamentary committees we have heard those opposite, at opportune times for them—and it seems very opportunistic for them—talk about caring about housing affordability and homelessness, but when the rubber hits the road and they are asked to support something that would actually create more affordable housing and address the housing crisis that we are experiencing, they do the bidding of their mates in the development industry. I think that must be noted.

Developers who turn millions of dollars in profits each year are more than capable of absorbing a small percentage of their profit in a new levy or charge. What really pushes house prices up is government inaction on housing affordability and years and years of encouraging rampant investment in the housing market to the point that it becomes a market for investors with little room for anyone else. We have commodified housing when it should be a right. That being said, while the social housing levy announced by the government is an important step, it is still a minor levy and a small step in the scale of action that we need to take if we are to solve housing affordability and homelessness in Victoria.

It is also a really worrying glimpse into the future of housing in this state as, like many government policies, once you scratch the surface it is not so shiny after all. This is the kind of policy we often see from the government, where they take a good idea or a progressive policy, like a big housing build, and then water it down by, for example, privatising all the new housing. In fact the Premier noted today that the levy is the result of a compromise between the government and the property industry and insinuated that it has been the product of discussions. With this new contribution the government has taken the concept of inclusionary zoning, where developers have to set aside a portion of housing and developments for affordable housing, but it has stripped it back to simply the monetary contribution element we see in some inclusionary zoning programs, where instead of providing the housing themselves the developers just contribute part of the profits to an affordable housing fund.

We know that the government was considering introducing their own mandatory inclusionary zoning policy. In fact they have been speaking to the community and promising the community that they would move on inclusionary zoning. We have international precedents and examples that it is a policy that works to create more affordable housing. And it was one of the recommendations of the Legal and Social Issues Committee’s homelessness inquiry recently, which I was a participating member in. It is disappointing that this is the version that the government has settled on, a compromise it reached with the development industry rather than the real reform we need to actually address housing affordability.

The new contribution would only create 1700 new homes a year. Imagine how many more homes we could create if this policy also required developers to actually build new affordable housing in their developments themselves, or if, instead of a 1.75 per cent contribution, we charged developers 3 or 6 per cent of the market value of the final development. However, what is really concerning is the confirmation that with this policy the government has officially turned its back on public housing in Victoria, because the contribution will be funding more social housing, the government’s preferred term for its privatised model of housing.

The contribution will be funnelled to the Social Housing Growth Fund, which is a bucket of money the government doles out in small grants to community housing providers. Housing associations use their grant funding to expand their own housing portfolios, usually partnering with property developers to do so. I think it is important to know that community housing has a really important place in the continuum of providing more affordable housing options across this state. However, it cannot come at the cost of public housing, which is a core and fundamental responsibility of state governments to provide to their citizens.

This fund will collect revenue from private developers and then give much of it back to them. While community housing has a really important role to play, as I mentioned, in our housing system, especially for specialist housing services, it cannot replace public housing. It is not governed by the same protections that public housing residents have, and ultimately houses are owned by non-government agencies. This government is completely walking away from its responsibility to provide public housing. It will not even speak the term anymore. Just look at the language it is using. It will not talk about public housing, and it must, because public housing is a public service. Just like our hospitals and schools, it should be proudly funded and managed by government.

The government’s announcement last week, including its proposal to shift the cost of public housing maintenance onto local councils, was actually a major signal that it is abandoning public housing altogether. To this Labor government public housing is simply another essential service it can privatise. It has completely outsourced the provision of public housing to non-government agencies, has taken public housing land and given it to property developers and is neglecting our existing public housing and many people who live in it.

We urge the government to recommit to public housing. There are so many residents of public housing who cannot get their basic maintenance issues resolved, and now we have the government saying it is outsourcing and cost shifting its responsibility to fund the maintenance of public housing assets to local councils, which in a rate-capped environment will not be able to absorb this incredible cost shift from the state government to local councils.

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (11:33): I rise to support the motion moved by Mr Davis, and in doing so I speak on behalf of many, many thousands of my constituents, particularly in the outer suburbs—Truganina, Tarneit, those areas around Caroline Springs that are about to explode and Sunbury, which indeed is about to explode, particularly around the toxic soil dump. That is just going to be wonderful for people’s health in future, and we thank the Andrews government for that carcinogenic toxic soil dump that it has given us right opposite residential housing in Sunbury Road! No doubt when the Premier and the Treasurer are enjoying their superannuation somewhere sunny they will not worry too much at all about those who are suffering from cancer as a result of this appalling decision to put toxic soil in a residential area. But I speak on behalf of a whole range of people who are hoping—hoping—to buy a home.

I know for me, thinking back some years ago, the challenges that were involved even back then in buying a home. Given the increased prices of housing now, it is an almost impossible dream for many people to own their own home. I have to say that it should not be. I think that we should aim to give everybody the opportunity to own their own home.

I think that is a fair and reasonable thing. What the government is attempting to do with this new tax is slam another $20 000 on top of prices that are already through the roof. Now, how is that going to go down particularly amongst younger people perhaps in their 20s—early 20s, late 20s—who have perhaps just got married or are about to get married and perhaps have a child or two, a young baby? How is that going to go down with them? Well, I have got news for the government: it is not going to go down well. Now, I am not knocking social housing, not at all. In fact I have called for more social housing. But the fact is that Victorians are already paying more tax than they ever have before. This is the highest taxing government in the history of Victoria. People should not have to pay more. We should not have to pay more.

But as Mr Ondarchie has pointed out, the fact is that this government, the Andrews government, has blown the budget to the scheissenhausen. That is the simple fact of the matter: they have blown the budget. Just on major projects alone we have blowouts of $24.5 billion. That is not the cost of the project, that is just the blowouts. You just have to have a look at the West Gate Tunnel Project. What a sad joke on the people of Victoria that is. Not only is it costing us an arm and a leg, the thing is a worthless project, as we discovered when I was chairman of the Economy and Infrastructure Committee. We examined it very, very closely. Mr Ondarchie was on that committee at the time. We looked at it very closely, and of course we discovered that it was not really going to do anything for anyone—except Transurban of course, who were going to make an absolute killing and indeed will make an absolute killing on it. In terms of actually helping traffic from the west, it will not do a damn thing. But we have that there. There is a blowout of almost $4 billion already on the West Gate Tunnel Project. It is years—

Mr Ondarchie: We’re paying for it already.

Mr FINN: And indeed, as Mr Ondarchie points out, we are paying for it already. Those of us who use CityLink—I use CityLink on almost a daily basis—are already paying higher tolls for this road that many of us might never use. It is quite extraordinary. And even if we do use it, it is years away. It was supposed to be open in time for the election. That was the time frame. It was supposed to be open so that the Premier—Mr Andrews, Sir, grovel, grovel—would be able to get up before the election and cut the ribbon. Well, that has been blown out by—well, is it two, is it three, is it four years? We do not know. It might not even be finished by the next election in 2026. Maybe they will just close it down, fill in the hole and forget the whole thing ever happened, and that might not be a bad option either.

What we are seeing in this state is a government that has wasted money hand over fist, thrown billions of dollars away and completely stuffed up the budget—absolutely made a hash of the budget—and they are now turning to Victorians and saying, ‘We want you to pay more tax’. This of course is the Labor way. This is what happens when you have a Labor government. They always blow the budget, they always spend more than they intend to, and when they have done that, when the budget is in tatters, they turn to the poor, long-suffering taxpayers and slug them again. And that is what this tax is about. The social housing component should be funded from the taxes that we already pay. As I say, we are more highly taxed than we have ever been before, and we should expect the government to pay for a whole range of things out of the taxes that we already pay. But because they have blown the budget, because they are economically incompetent, because they are fiscally challenged, to understate things, and because of a whole range of blowouts and stuff-ups that this government is now renowned for right throughout Australia and indeed through various parts of the world—because of all of that—they are now saying not just to the general community but to young couples in particular who are saving furiously to buy their own homes, ‘We are going to hit you again. We are going to hit you with another $20 000. Remember that $300 000 house or $400 000 house that you were saving for? Well, you can add another $20 000 or $25 000 to it’.

That is what they are going to do to people who are working hard and trying desperately to save up to buy their home. As a result of that, there are going to be a lot of people who give up, so there is going to be even more need for social housing. It is incredible when you have a socialist government—the logic is just not there. It just does not make sense. This is what we see happening in 2022. It is quite extraordinary, and I think, given the many, many other stuff-ups that the Premier has been responsible for, this just might be the last straw. This just could be the last straw, because many of those people—they are young people in particular, as I say, who live in places like Truganina and Tarneit and Point Cook and Sunbury—will explode over this, and I know many already have. Many have already contacted me, and they are furious. There are two reactions: one, fury; and the other one, despair. There is nothing worse than when you are speaking to a young person who was really looking forward to their future with their new husband or their new wife and their new family and they have given up on their hopes. What the government has done is to smash the hopes of many thousands of people.

Mr Ondarchie: And their dreams.

Mr FINN: Well, their hopes and their dreams—absolutely destroyed their dreams. Their dream in fact, Mr Ondarchie, has become a nightmare, and this is Daniel Andrews’s nightmare. In fact Daniel Andrews is the nightmare that every Victorian is suffering at the moment, and that is something that I have to say I find incredibly sad. I speak today more in sadness than anger, but there is a degree—a fair bit—of anger about what they are doing. It is a disgraceful tax that they are imposing on the people of Victoria, but they cannot help themselves. Despite what the Premier has said in the past about no new taxes, this is the 41st new tax that they will have imposed, and they are going after people who can least afford it. They are going after first home buyers, they are going after young families, and that is a disgrace and a decision that they should be ashamed of.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (11:43): Wow—it has been spicy, hasn’t it? I think there is also a little bit of amnesia and perhaps a little bit of confusion, so I hope that we can clear up some of the misunderstandings that are sort of floating around at the moment. I do think it is interesting—I want to pick up a point there: ‘We really support social housing’. The opposition always say they do, and yet every time we bring forward these tremendous reforms and we actually deliver on social housing, guess who is right there at the door to say, ‘Stop, no, don’t do it’? You find every mechanism under the sun to put it down, to undermine it, to slow it up. But we still deliver. We still fight through and we still deliver, because we care about Victorians and making sure that they are appropriately housed. Anyway, I am just getting that on the table.

Coming back to the matter at hand, although that is highly relevant in the discussion we are having, when it comes to the issue of social housing and the consultation that we have had to date, our government has had very intense consultation on this issue. We did not just fly in the issue and land it without actually consulting with the relevant parties. Let me make that absolutely clear. I am going to raise specific commentary that has been in the public domain. Danni Hunter, who was with the Urban Development Institute of Australia at the time, asked for this very contribution that we are talking about here today. When the current Victorian executive director of the Property Council of Australia, Danni Hunter, was chief executive of the UDIA, she suggested in 2020 that low-cost housing could be funded through—get this, and I have actually got a copy of the article here:

… a flat-rate affordable housing contribution levied through the planning system across metropolitan Melbourne to avoid skewing of market activity between sectors, precincts or specific sites …

Who knew? Well, we did know, because we consulted. A story published by the Herald Sun on 28 February 2020 says:

A “tax” on new developments to help fund cheaper housing for needy Melburnians has been proposed by the property industry.

The Urban Development Institute of Australia believes a levy charged across the metro planning system is better than compulsory targets and controls imposed by governments and local councils.

…

“What’s concerning is if our leaders shy away from their responsibility to put serious investment into the affordable housing market, and expect the private sector to do that for them,” she—

Ms Hunter—

said. “The system we have now is broken.”

Ms Hunter said that a broadbased levy, similar to the way open space is funded, must be considered.

“It could be a flat-rate affordable housing contribution levied through the planning system across metropolitan Melbourne—

and I am repeating the phrase there, but just to be absolutely clear—

to avoid skewing of market activity between sectors, precincts or specific sites,” she said.

…

It would replace—

and this is where it also can help significantly in what is currently a very challenging environment, particularly for local councils as well—

all other affordable housing requirements with a cost to landowners/developers such as voluntary deals and planning controls.

This is exactly what we are doing, and now the very same person who asked for this is walking it back. So no wonder there has been confusion around the chamber today. I think it is actually good we are having the debate so that we can put some clarity on the issue. It has also been disappointing, may I say, to see the scare campaign from those opposite. Make no mistake, the contribution is only a charge on developers.

Victoria has the strongest performing residential market in the country, with 71 000 building approvals in 2021 compared to 63 000 in New South Wales and 44 000 in Queensland, and that is despite our decreased population growth. Economic modelling by Deloitte has shown that developers will be able to absorb the cost of this, pass it back to land sellers and still reap substantial profits. So I think if we can just take a breath and really look back at history, look back at the facts, look at what has been discussed in the public domain and see that there is a bit of a change, a little bit of amnesia or confusion, people walking back from what was previously said, we can understand why there is some confusion in this debate today. But hopefully we can provide some clarity and maybe move forward in a more logical direction.

One of the things that I did take exception to was discussion about our government with regard to social housing. There were some really odd comments that flew around there. I am really proud of Minister Wynne. It has taken many, many, many years to come to this point and, can I say, for our government to come to this point to be able to actually deliver on what is a desperate need in our community and actually implement it in a way that perhaps, with respect, the Greens cannot do, because they are not in government—so they can say anything. I say this respectfully, but some of the sledging is really below the belt and unwarranted. I think at the end of the day we do have to be able to deliver on what we say, and that is exactly what we are doing when it comes to social housing.

We know that this change that we are talking about currently will build thousands of social and affordable houses every year, not just today but forever. It is sad, really, that the motion is conveniently glossing over who this change will help at the end of the day when we are thinking about those in the community who desperately need safe shelter. It will help the 54 952 people currently waiting on social housing, because at the end of the day that is what this is about. If we drain it back to the core, that is what this is all about. That is the rationale, not the actual motion, but what is driving our government to bring through difficult but significant reforms to get the right outcome for Victorians in desperate need.

We know, and I think one of my colleagues actually mentioned, more than 7000 of the 54 952 people currently waiting on social housing are over the age of 55. Almost 13 000 are experiencing homelessness, and to be precise that is 12 870, just to be respecting each person who is enduring what must be extremely painful. I cannot even imagine what that must be like, to be able to facilitate your life, to be able to go out and find a job—or you may be in a job but then have nowhere safe to go home at night. I mean, it is excruciating. That is, 3265 people are fleeing family violence. Others are living in insecure and unaffordable housing and have urgent medical requirements. So what this means when we look at it is literally implementing specific reforms to meet those requirements. It means more homes for families fleeing domestic violence, more homes for those living with mental illness, more homes for pensioners and those living with a disability and more homes for single-parent families.

The other thing I want to pick up on is a point that was raised by Mr Finn with regard to—

Mr Finn: I bet you it was a good one.

Ms TAYLOR: Well, we might not agree on that, but it was on supporting first home buyers. There was a lot thrown, a few grenades lobbed from over there, and I just want to again put some factual statements on the record. Our Andrews Labor government has a strong record of helping Victorians purchase their first home. We know it can take years to save for a home deposit, and the $500 million Victorian Homebuyer Fund is a practical way to help up to 3000 Victorians get into their own home sooner. More than 440 people have already received the keys to move in. That is a brilliant outcome. Demand has been strongest in the 25 to 44 age group, with most approvals so far in Melbourne and Geelong. We have abolished stamp duty if you are a first home buyer and buying a house for $600 000 or less, and if you are buying a home for between $600 000 and $750 000 we have tapered the stamp duty. It is often obscured, exactly what we actually do, by those opposite. They seek to do that, but when you look at the actual facts and the numbers you can see that we are delivering for first home buyers and have been. In 2021 alone the total value of 51 353 stamp duty concessions and exemptions was $896 million. That is a direct saving to Victorian first home buyers. I did raise that point earlier about the scaremongering, but when you look at the facts you can see that we actually are significantly helping first home buyers, and what this is about at the end of the day is providing a sustainable mechanism for providing homes: homes that are climate friendly, homes that are geared to people with mental illness and with disability and the like—fellow Victorians—into the future.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (11:53): I think this is a very straightforward motion. It is a motion that seeks the documents, the various analyses and assessments by government. We know the government has pulled back from this tax as the morning has developed. The government’s contribution was changing as the debate went forward and as it became aware that the Premier is now pulling back from this step, and I can say that even the briefing I had arranged at 5 o’clock has now been cancelled and the government has said that it will not bring the bill forward this week, despite its statements over the last few days that it would. When asked when that would be brought forward, it was unclear; there is no clear step as to what will occur. Nonetheless we know the government has done assessments, and those assessments should be in the public domain.

Motion agreed to.