Tuesday, 13 May 2025

Select Committee on Victoria Planning Provisions Amendments VC257, VC267 and VC274

Inquiry into Victoria Planning Provisions Amendments VC257, VC267 and VC274

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (13:03): Pursuant to standing order 23.22, I table the select committee’s report on the inquiry into Victoria Planning Provisions amendments VC257, VC267 and VC274, including appendices, extracts of proceedings, minority reports and transcripts of evidence. I move:

That the report be published.

Motion agreed to.

David ETTERSHANK: I move:

That the Council take note of the report.

Housing is one of the truly great policy challenges of our time. It is abundantly clear that Victoria needs many more homes, especially more genuinely affordable homes, in well-located areas near public transport, jobs and services. None of the committee members or indeed any of the witnesses who gave evidence to the inquiry dispute this cruel and pressing reality. This is what the government has sought to address with its Victoria planning provisions amendments VC257, VC267 and VC274. The amendments change statewide planning provisions to enable denser housing and activity centres, including in middle-ring suburbs, while also making the most significant statewide changes to ResCode since 2001. The amendments are made on the promise of certainty and speed, largely at the expense of the rights of the community and their local councils to involvement in the decision-making process. Pragmatically, we must recognise and accept that planning reforms of this magnitude that involve such significant trade-offs will be contested.

I commend the government for seeking for seeking to address Victoria’s housing challenges. However, the committee found widespread support for the government’s objectives of increasing housing supply and affordability in well-located areas and a strong appetite from Victorians to be involved in discussions about the future of their state, their city and their neighbourhoods. A number of witnesses and submissions supported the government’s approach; however, a major problem facing the committee was the absence of requested modelling from the government to demonstrate that the amendments will achieve their objectives. In the absence of such modelling, the committee was encouraged to accept doctrinaire economics – that simply increasing supply will increase the availability of more affordable housing. Unfortunately, this act of act of economic faith was challenged both by experts in the development sector and by documents provided to the committee by the Department of Transport and Planning. So in this context, and without that modelling, the committee was reluctant to downplay the many unintended consequences arising from the new planning provisions that were identified in evidence. Of the many unintended consequences identified by stakeholders, the most concerning for me related to the new townhouse and low-rise code, the removal of consideration of flood and fire risks from the planning process, the reduction of environmentally sustainable development standards in major local government areas and the excessive removal of existing trees. Surely we can address Victoria’s housing challenges without also creating these new risks. Many community groups and councils felt strongly that they were not adequately consulted and that their concerns were not taken into consideration. I do worry that the government is overlooking the benefits of consultative and collaborative engagement with councils and communities. More work is necessary if Victoria’s housing distribution policies and the mechanisms that will bring these policies about are to achieve widespread public support.

Given the dramatic scope of these planning amendments, the committee felt that a process of monitoring these changes and seeking to improve their efficacy over time is needed. This is consistent with previous recommendations from the Victorian Auditor-General in 2008 and 2017 – recommendations which the government has not acted on. I hope the government will embrace the findings and recommendations in this report and make changes to the new planning provisions so that Victorians can have confidence that the government’s planning reforms have been chosen for the right reasons. As one witness put to us, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get it right; we must ensure that we do.

I wish to thank all of those who contributed to this inquiry, either through submissions or at public hearings. The short time available to the committee meant that we were not able to explore every issue to the extent we would have liked; however, this important evidence has been published online, and I hope it will inform future policymakers. I would like to thank my fellow committee members for their diligence, hard work and generally good humour throughout the inquiry. Finally, I wish to thank the secretariat staff, many of whom were directed from other projects to assist the committee in completing its work in such a short amount of time. To Keir Delaney, Matt Newington, Kieran Crowe, Whitny Kapa, Julie Barnes, Sylvette Bassy and Elektra Banikos, on behalf of the committee we thank you for your outstanding work on this inquiry. I commend the report to the chamber.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (13:08): Well, this select committee into these planning provisions was given an extraordinarily significant task: to examine some pretty significant changes to Victoria’s planning scheme to address what is a fundamental crisis that Victoria faces, which is that we need to build more homes to house more Victorians. Unfortunately, members of the community – interested groups – were provided with an exceptionally truncated period of time due to the six weeks – the only six weeks – that the committee had to deal with these matters. A matter of a handful of business days were provided to the public to present submissions. For some members of the committee the result was a foregone conclusion, and there are matters that I am sure we will deal with later in the week dealing with those; that being said, I thank all members of the committee, and I particularly want to thank the chair for the manner in which he conducted this inquiry. There were strong views on many sides. There was a lot of very complex information presented to us in very short periods of time, and the committee has attempted to distil that in both the substantive report and also the minority reports attached. I think it is pretty clear, however, that the status quo that existed prior to these planning amendments is not delivering the housing that Victorians need. These changes are a step in the right direction, are designed to build more homes for more Victorians and will ensure that more Victorians can live in the communities they want to, and any attempt to revoke the planning amendments the subject of this inquiry will be a major step backwards for Victoria.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (13:10): I want to begin by thanking the committee staff for the amazing work that they have done. I am not going to list them all – I have only got 2 minutes – but I do want to thank them for the work that has been done, and the chair and my fellow committee members.

This is a very significant inquiry, and whilst it was a short period of time, it is tremendously significant, what is being examined. There is an agreed need for additional housing, but the problem is these three planning amendments and some of the associated amendments will not deliver that – and the evidence is overwhelming that they will not deliver that. In fact what they will deliver is the destruction of Victoria in terms of our built heritage, particularly in Melbourne and particularly in those suburbs where there is significant heritage and vegetation that is very much a part of the ambience and livability of those suburbs.

The Liberal members of that committee were very much in favour of ensuring that communities and councils have their say. It is, after all, a fundamental principle of democracy that there should be a say for people whose community and future are impacted by these changes. The arrogant way the government proceeded with these planning amendments, the lack of consultation and the ignorance with which they proceeded are a great concern. Even the Activity Centres Standing Advisory Committee was ignored; its specific recommendations were ignored.

We need changes to our planning system, but these need to be particularised for each area. You cannot have one size fits all across the whole of Melbourne, because you will see the destruction of large parts of our Melbourne suburbs, our beautiful suburbs on which the ambience and history of our city is built. The built form that we rely on so much was at risk, and it is clear that it is still at risk with these amendments.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (13:12): At the outset I too want to thank my fellow committee members – the chair in particular – and the secretariat for the incredible work they did pulling this together in such a short period of time. I think this inquiry was a great demonstration of the Parliament doing what it should, and that is applying public scrutiny to government decisions. This is particularly important in planning, where we still have no effective oversight mechanisms despite repeated recommendations from the Victorian Auditor-General to establish them.

While noting almost universal support for increased housing supply, increased density and increased affordable housing, serious doubts have been raised through this inquiry as to how these planning changes will achieve these goals. The evidence received demonstrated the changes were pushed through, with the government selectively consulting and leaving out, in many instances, critical partners like local governments, planning experts and communities.

There are deep concerns about the outcomes of these reforms, including the effective lowering of energy efficiency standards for new developments in the most populous local government areas covered by the 27 Council Alliance for a Sustainable Built Environment councils, loss of tree canopy and vegetation, and the overriding of key local considerations around flood and fire risk. In a changing climate we need drastically more resilient buildings and urban spaces, not less. We have already got enough housing that needs expensive retrofitting; why on earth wouldn’t we take the opportunity to get it right for new builds?

The changes are also a huge missed opportunity to deliver more affordable housing. Why hasn’t the government looked to introduce a mandatory affordable housing and social housing requirement in these changes, something countless housing advocates, unions and support services have long been calling for? We cannot afford to continue to leave it to the market to solve the housing crisis. The government talk a big game about how these changes will create more housing for young people and those who need it most, yet they have been unable to produce evidence or modelling to support these claims. If they are serious about ensuring we have sustainable affordable housing, then I urge them to take on board the findings and recommendations of this inquiry.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (13:14): I also rise to share a few remarks on the tabling of this report today and in doing so also thank both Matt Newington and Kieran Crowe and their team, our committee secretariat; the committee members; and indeed, for his work, our chair, who pulled together a report in an unreasonably limited amount of time but did so nevertheless very well. This is a significant opportunity. The amendments which have been the focus of this inquiry are a significant part of actually changing the housing system, the planning system, in this state. For decades planning strategies have talked about the need for activity centres to slow urban sprawl, and for decades we have seen those trends continue unabated. The Allan Labor government is taking genuine action, and that is what these amendments represent. They represent providing those meaningful housing options for all Victorians and for young generations who are being, frankly, screwed over in every state of this nation by the existing systems that are in place.

We have before us on the notice paper an outrageous revocation motion by the Liberal Party, who wish to take us back and who wish to deny an entire generation of Victorians the fair chance to get a home of their own in a place where they want to live. We will have much more time, I am sure, to discuss this tomorrow, but I do note, and it is disappointing to see again, the foregone conclusion in Mr Davis and his colleagues’ minority report – along with, I note, their managing, impressively, to misspell the names of both the Premier and the Minister for Planning in one sentence. We see again the foregone conclusion of revoking these amendments, which we know that he wanted to do, because he read in the motion the day before this select committee was established. It is an outrage, and it is equally clear that to revoke these planning amendments would be an act of unprecedented vandalism of the housing aspirations of a whole generation of Victorians.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (13:16): I rise to speak to the report that has been tabled this morning, and I too want to acknowledge the work of the secretariat, who were put under quite a bit of pressure, I might say, in terms of this inquiry, which was of great interest. It actually did enlighten, I think, many community members who came before the inquiry and also many who were watching on. There were a lot of witnesses that we heard from, and I do want to acknowledge the work of the committee and the chair as well in putting to those witnesses a number of questions that were really relevant.

As everyone has said, we acknowledge that there needs to be more housing. It is not an issue around whether housing is needed or not, but what the government is doing, which is very significant. They are applying this cookie-cutter approach right across our suburbs, which many witnesses said is going to have a very significant impact, whether that is to the built heritage or to the tree canopy or to the amenity. Those issues cannot be disregarded. I was very pleased that the Municipal Association of Victoria and a number of local councils provided excellent evidence, and I only wish that the government would look at what the MAV and those local councils had to say in this inquiry, because their concerns should not go unheard. The community groups’ concerns should not go unheard, and the many experts that came before the inquiry that were questioning the government’s approach should not go unheard. This report goes to a lot of those issues, and I would hope that the government would look upon it favourably and take on those recommendations. Again, I want to pass on my thanks to all those that came before the inquiry and all those that were involved, and I hope that the government takes this issue very seriously.

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (13:18): I too rise to thank the secretariat, who did an outstanding job in a very limited amount of time to produce this report, and to also thank our fellow committee members and the chair, who also did an exceptional job. I want to make one point: we constantly hear about the fundamental crisis – Mr Batchelor – in housing. This crisis is of the government’s own making. If you put 15 taxes on developers and if over 40 per cent of the cost of a house is taxation, then you will have a crisis in housing. And on top of that, if you have the CFMEU absorbing all the workers and many of the builders that we need to build houses, at extortionate rates of pay, we will not be able to build affordable houses – there is no question about that.

Lots of blame was levelled at local government. I want to tell you that in many local government areas they have approved hundreds and hundreds of developments. In one council alone there would be over a thousand dwellings ready to go, but no developer in this state is going to put a spade in the ground, because the product to market will be unaffordable for anybody – not just the next generation that want a house, but anybody. This government is totally responsible for the housing crisis that exists in this state today – nobody else. To apply this extraordinary level of amendments to the planning scheme so they can say they are going to do something about affordable – let alone social – housing is a lie.

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (13:20): First and foremost, can I express my thanks to the secretariat, the chair, my fellow committee members and of course the stakeholders, community organisations and individual community members, because what was put in front of us as committee members was an extraordinarily short timeframe to consider something as significant as the challenge of building more homes for more Victorians. Within just six weeks we heard from many community leaders and of course organisations about the housing challenge and about how for some they just are not playing fair. They block housing every chance they get, they are blocking homes for those that need it and they fight for the status quo. That is right; that is what we heard – the deep, deep fight for the status quo. What we heard was that some representatives from some communities absolutely wanted everything to stay the same. I for one do not live in a deep fantasy land. I know that for working people housing is the second-most pressing concern after cost of living. The link between affordable housing and stable employment could not be more clear. Workers deserve to live in areas with access to public transport, essential services and an engaged community.

Trades Hall came, and they told us clearly that all levels of government should act decisively and inclusively to ensure that more Victorians can access secure, dignified housing in the areas that they want to live. The challenge could not be more clear: 11 million people will live in Victoria in 2056. That is because people move here. They want to live their lives here. They want to raise their families here. They want to work here. This is an enormous challenge, and we must step up and meet it. There will be a growth of about 4.5 million extra people from 2022. I can say that we must build more homes where Victorians want to live and grow Victoria as a place for future generations to thrive.

Motion agreed to.