Wednesday, 4 February 2026

David Davis: On a point of order, President, I have just seen these amendments now. They differ from what left this chamber. Is there a reconciliation available of the different amendments that were sent by this chamber and the ones that have returned?

The PRESIDENT: Can I suggest, Mr Davis, that I will call on the minister soon to move a motion around accepting the government amendments and then I will call for debate. We might be able to flesh that out during a period of debate. If the amendments have been distributed, I will call on the minister. I will just note, taking into account Mr Davis’s point of order, that any debate on the motion must relate to the amendments, not rehash the second-reading debate.

 Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop, Minister for Housing and Building, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts) (18:05): I move:

That:

(1)   the Council does not insist on its amendments 1, 2, 5 and 6 to this bill; and

(2)   the further amendments made by the Assembly be agreed to.

David Davis: On a point of order, President, I wonder if the minister has a reconciliation of what went over and what has come back, because it is my understanding that it is different. I think the minister might want to give some explanation to the chamber about what the amendments are and what the differences are.

Harriet SHING: Thank you for that point of order, Mr Davis. In all respects other than a further amendment to correct a typographical error the amendments are identical to those that were provided.

David Davis: Just on that typographical error, what is the nature of that error and where is that error? Can we see that in the bill?

Harriet SHING: Thank you, Mr Davis, for your inquiry. Further amendment 5 reads:

Clause 86, page 89, line 4, omit “(2)”.

That omits an error which was otherwise attendant in the amendments that were returned.

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (18:07): As I understand it – and this is the explanation by the clerks rather than a note or an explanation from the government – what went over is not the same as what came back. The minister has identified one point where they claim there is a typo. To be honest, if you look at the back of the sheet there, it is pretty hard for us to work out that that is a typo from that sequence. I accept –

The PRESIDENT: This is a debate, so you can –

David DAVIS: I am happy to have some detail on that; that would be helpful. As I understand it also, from talking to the clerks rather than the government, the Assembly took the view that they did not want to accept our suggested amendments. That is my understanding. They have proposed in their stead amendments that are identical. I think that is correct, isn’t it? It would be nice if the government was able to give some explanation about why the government in that chamber formed that view rather than just leaving it –

A member interjected.

David DAVIS: I beg your pardon?

A member: Were you in the chamber yesterday, Mr Davis?

David DAVIS: No, I was not when this came through. I am not always in the chamber; that is right.

A member: It feels like it.

The PRESIDENT: Please let Mr Davis continue on his contribution.

David DAVIS: I did not know when it was coming. No-one told me, so there you are. I am trying to understand the bill and trying to acquit this properly. As I understand it, the Assembly did not want to accept amendments from this chamber and instead wanted to move amendments that are identical. That is correct, isn’t it? That is how I understand it, and maybe the minister might like to reflect upon that for the chamber’s benefit. I do want to say with this bill two points. I want to make a general point about the bill: that it is a disaster.

A member interjected.

David DAVIS: It is about the amendments to the bill. Some of these amendments I welcome – for example, the amendment moved by the Greens to reintroduce disallowance provisions. We strongly support that. That is a positive, and we are pleased that the lower house has agreed to support it.

A member interjected.

David DAVIS: I think it is, actually. I think it is the amendments we made in the last sitting day before we went to the Christmas break, and they went to the Assembly. The Assembly dealt with them yesterday and they have come back to us, and a number of these were dealt with at the time. So my point is that there are a number of our amendments which the Assembly has decided they will not accept, but they have made amendments that are identical in their stead. So I am making some points about this bill. We could have looked at all of these matters that are dealt with, these amendments and others –

The PRESIDENT: You need to confine your commentary to the amendments, Mr Davis.

David DAVIS: I am. I am talking about those amendments and saying we could have dealt with those through a parliamentary committee process, but the government did not want to do that, and now we are still dealing with this bill. There would have been plenty of time through that Christmas period to have dealt with these matters. I am just going to limit my comments to that, to say we will not oppose these amendments. We will allow them to pass.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (18:11): My understanding is the amendment we are dealing with here is one amendment that was not accepted by the Assembly of all the amendments that went back, and that was in relation to the affordable housing provisions, and that is the one that has come back to us because it was moved again by the government. That was on advice of the clerks in that chamber, just given the nature of the amendment. Obviously, this is an amendment – although it is now the government that is putting it forward – we warmly welcome. It is identical to the amendment we moved. The one thing I would say is that how this amendment impacts the availability of affordable community or public housing is largely going to be dependent on regulations that are yet to be developed and the government’s willingness to actually use this new power, and I would really strongly urge them to ensure that the regulations they develop are meaningful and will deliver genuine new affordable and social housing and that they use this power, because we are desperate for more affordable housing and the government should be pulling every lever available. This new power is one that housing advocates have long called for. They really welcomed it when it went through this chamber at the end of last year, and I am sure many members received very positive feedback about this, but it will only be of benefit if it is actually used as a power. So the ball is really in the government’s court now should this amendment pass, but we are very supportive of this change.

 Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop, Minister for Housing and Building, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts) (18:13): Thank you for your comments, Dr Mansfield, and noting the work that has gone into these refinements from the Assembly, those objectives have been made clear. Referring to Hansard from the Assembly from last night ought to give you some measure of clarity in that regard. Again by reference to Hansard, Mr Davis, you may wish to acquaint yourself with Hansard from the Assembly as it relates to advice from the Clerk. Dr Mansfield has just taken you to that matter, and I just want to be very clear about exclusive cognisance making it not my role, then, to comment on matters as they may arise in the Legislative Assembly – you yourself are very familiar with that work – and also the role of the Clerk in that regard.

Mr Davis, on further amendment 5, which you have raised some concern about, I just want to provide you with some comfort that the omission of (2) is because the end of subclause (1) was the end of that particular amendment 5. So on that basis there was no content to be provided as a consequence of any subsection (2), and that was removed for avoidance of any doubt that there be any text missing. So, Mr Davis, I trust that that gives you a measure of comfort. Thank you to you for those lines of inquiry, which have enabled me to clear up any matters of ambiguity that may have remained for you. The government, as you would know, supported these amendments in the Legislative Council previously and continues to support the amendments being made to the Planning and Environment Act 1987 through the bill. The amendment establishes a new head of power, as Dr Mansfield has rightly pointed out, that enables planning schemes to make any use or development of land conditional on the provision of an affordable housing contribution. This is in line with action 4 of the Plan for Victoria, which seeks to increase social and affordable housing across the state, including through legislative reform. This just adds an additional tool to the toolbox that can be utilised to build more social and affordable homes, particularly in settings where there is uplift or an additional benefit or capacity being delivered in a given area. The details, regulations and operation of this provision will be worked through with the planning regulations advisory committee, made up of stakeholders, councils and experts who deal with the planning system every day.

I would also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge those members of the crossbench who supported this bill last year. It is a real disgrace that the opposition continues to attempt to block housing and planning reforms that will benefit all Victorians, particularly younger Victorians, accessing the housing and rental markets.

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: Minister, you have to keep the debate to the amendments.

Harriet SHING: The amendments make it very clear that Labor is the only major party that unashamedly backs housing supply and access for Victorians. On that basis, I want to commend these amendments as they have been returned to the Council and to note that we will continue to work with other parts of this chamber to ensure that the objectives of this bill, through amendments and through the discussion of matters such as those we have had this evening, continue to be prosecuted and acquitted in an efficient and unambiguous way.

Council divided on motion: