Wednesday, 18 February 2026

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (10:01): I move:

That this house:

(1)   notes that the Victorian Planning Authority (VPA) engaged Alluvium consultants to prepare a drainage and flood strategy for the proposed future development area known as the Greater Avalon employment precinct (GAEP), including undertaking a drainage and flood assessment for the proposed growth areas, and determining existing and future drainage and flooding issues and/or constraints affecting the site and surrounds;

(2)   further notes that apart from a brief memo by Alluvium published on the VPA project website titled ‘Greater Avalon employment precinct – existing conditions flood modelling report – technical memorandum – (Alluvium) May 2024’, none of the other reporting completed by Alluvium has been publicly released, including work that details potential future impacts of proposed developments in the precinct on the Ramsar wetland in the vicinity of the GAEP; and

(3)   in accordance with standing order 10.01, requires the Leader of the Government to table in the Council within three weeks of the house agreeing to this resolution, all reports prepared by Alluvium related to the Greater Avalon employment precinct.

I am pleased to rise to speak on this short-form documents motion. This documents motion relates to a process that is currently going on in my region in the Greater Avalon employment precinct, or GAPE. The VPA is currently in the process of preparing a planning scheme amendment for the GAPE. This includes the Avalon framework plan and the development plan overlay to GAPE west. There are advanced plans for major developments in this area in manufacturing and logistics and possible airport expansion. While not under direct consideration in this planning scheme amendment, we know that Vopak also has plans before the government for a gas import terminal in this area. While these developments are being enthusiastically spruiked as big economic opportunities for the region, the area comprises extremely important and vulnerable ecological sites and is an area of immense cultural sensitivity. This includes critically endangered grasslands and species that call the grasslands home and nationally and internationally significant Ramsar wetlands, which are essential for migratory birds and other flora and fauna, many of which are threatened and endangered species.

We have heard concerns from a range of stakeholders about the adequacy of environmental considerations in this process. Specifically, there are grave concerns about the challenges arising from drainage and contaminants like PFAS and difficulties mitigating these to prevent ecological loss, including at the Ramsar site. Simply put, polluted stormwater run-off into these wetlands and coastal areas could devastate local ecosystems. There are already significant flood risks at the site, which will be exacerbated by climate change. Coastal inundation and erosion are also major threats. These are things that have already been identified by several of the entities that are involved in the assessment process here, including the City of Greater Geelong. Maps on the website of MAB, which is the company seeking to develop the area, show significant development in the intertidal zone and Ramsar site where protected wetlands are mapped.

We understand that Alluvium consultants were contracted by the VPA to undertake a drainage and flood assessment for the proposed growth areas and determine existing and future drainage and flooding issues and constraints affecting the site and surrounds. Apart from a brief memo regarding this work on the VPA website, there are no other reports that have been publicly released containing Alluvium’s assessment. We believe that the full reports may contain conclusions that indicate that proposed drainage solutions are inadequate with respect to environmental protection. Victoria already has less than 1 per cent of native grasslands left, and Ramsar sites and wetlands are disappearing, threatening many species of migratory birds. This is due to a multitude of threats, including overdevelopment, pollution and climate change.

This Labor government has time and time again shown that the environment is not a priority. It has ignored repeated calls to update our broken wildlife laws. It is gutting already minimal environmental programs and continuously cutting departmental staff and has no real vision for how we not only protect but restore nature in this state.

We are experiencing a biodiversity crisis. While it is being compounded by climate change, it is a disaster in and of itself. It is being driven by the prioritisation of industry over the earth and waterways. What we have left is precious and irreplaceable. Protecting it should be our top priority, but instead it seems like everything is being done by this Labor government to try and facilitate development at all costs. We call on the government to release these reports. The Victorian public deserves full transparency regarding the likely environmental impacts of the developments planned for the GAEP.

 Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:05): I rise to speak on the short-form documents motion put before us this morning by Dr Mansfield. Indeed in doing so I note the very significant importance of the Greater Avalon Employment Precinct, indeed of the Avalon precinct, as part of Plan for Victoria in building, driving and accommodating our state’s continued future growth. In doing so, and in accordance with the government’s custom with these types of motions, I affirm that the government will not be opposing the short-form documents motion before us today.

I do want to briefly comment on, as we have discussed many times, concerns about the system which we have currently in the standing orders in relation to short documents motions. Whilst I completely accept the importance of this particular issue, I note the fact that there was a vacancy on the slot this week and it seems that we see a case of people scrambling to try and fill that vacancy, rather than having that short-form documents motion that they actually wanted to raise. I would just make that remark at the outset – that as part of the ongoing work and refinement we are undertaking with our standing orders it is very important that we have this opportunity in whichever way it is deemed to be. But if we are at the point of now just trying to fill the slots rather than having the original purpose for them, then that would call into question, again, the slapdash and shambolic nature of the way in which Mr Davis has once again attempted to fiddle with the standing orders.

Now, I do wish to make some remarks on this particular issue when it comes to Avalon. It is a very important precinct, and it is important that the appropriate environmental processes are undertaken, which is part of the reason why I say that we are quite happy and do not oppose this motion before us today. Avalon is an important precinct. One could even say that we will see jobs taking off as part of the runway for development that we have on this precinct. We are going to see a potential of up to 8000 new jobs, with total jobs exceeding 25,000 upon completion of the precinct, which includes of course Avalon Airport itself. This is a very important project. When you couple and consider it with the fact that we have a very large and booming regional city in Geelong, when we have the booming western suburbs of Melbourne too, it is also an important part of providing those economic opportunities and those jobs closer to where people live.

Indeed we have seen dramatic improvements in particular on the Geelong corridor, with train frequencies now running at every 20 minutes during the day. I had the opportunity to go out to Geelong quite recently on the V/Line, and it was a terrific experience. It was very fast and indeed quite simple to get down there, with trains every 20 minutes there and back. It made it quite a good choice and helped me to leave the car in Melbourne and take the train down instead. If you look at the upgrade to the line down beyond Geelong through to Waurn Ponds, and the expansion of capacity that has opened up, including with that frequency boost, it is all very important too. It is also part of that diversification of jobs away from just the central business district of Melbourne. Avalon is and will continue to be a very important jobs precinct under this government, and Plan for Victoria certainly places it at its heart for the western suburbs of Melbourne and for the Barwon community as well. We know that the western corridor of Melbourne and Geelong is expected to deliver more than 128,000 dwellings by 2051, reflecting the importance of sites like Avalon, which is, as I say, an area that is continuing to take off.

 Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (10:09): We will be supporting Dr Mansfield’s motion. These reports should always be released, as should all the others that are languishing in the backlogs of your departmental ministerial offices. As for a motion that you have got, you could have brought it forward this week and we would have supported it to try and get a better process, but you have chosen not to. Anyway, I turn to the motion of Dr Mansfield, which I do want to add to. I have been out on this site numerous times and there is need for development there, but this site is ridiculous, and I want to raise my concerns about the Victorian Planning Authority’s approach to the development of this site. We certainly do need development land in this area, but the west part of the Greater Avalon employment precinct seems a very odd place to start. There is a significant amount of developable land in the area which does not suffer from the same amount of environmental disadvantages. It seems odd, to say the least, that the VPA has pushed this GAEP west land first, and I think it is worthy of further investigation. It is not just me saying this, it is included in formal submissions to the public exhibition of planning scheme amendment C477.

The Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action says there are outstanding matters previously raised that are not addressed in the exhibited material and that these should be resolved prior to the finalisation of the amendment. They go further. DEECA does not support the approval of the native vegetation precinct plan without confidence that the offset obligations can be met. On the 93 hectares of coastal saltmarsh, DEECA warns it is likely to degrade more rapidly due to increased freshwater incursions from adjacent development. It also identifies unresolved water management issues, including potential impacts on the adjacent Ramsar-listed wetland. Parks Victoria refers to uncertainties related to potential impacts to the reserve and associated biodiversity values and the absence of comprehensive hydrological modelling of the upstream catchment and flows through to the reserve. The Victorian National Parks Association describes the amendment as premature and raises fundamental questions, including:

It is in our long-term interests to fill-in the Cheetham Salt works in the western portion of GAEP, given their functional ecological significance …

These are serious reservations on Ramsar obligations, climate risk, flood plain development and the adequacy of environmental assessment. DEECA warns that passing the planning amendment despite these reservations and instead deferring key investigations to the development plan stage ‘introduces significant uncertainty and creates an expectation that development is achievable.’ In short, why prioritise GAEP west, a flood plain adjacent to internationally significant wetlands containing high value saltmarsh, when surrounding development land for employment sites to which these considerations do not apply is available and can readily be used?

We support the release of these documents and much greater scrutiny of the VPA’s processes on this Avalon project. And can you please produce the documents that you are being asked for in some timely unredacted fashion and do not hide behind the nonsense that you constantly come up with as a reason why you can never produce the documents that are asked for in this chamber. It is totally unacceptable, and you are absolutely –

Jaclyn Symes interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: If you have nothing to hide, release the documents, especially those relating to this particular project, and do it in a timely fashion, all totally unredacted. Bring on your motion if you want to change the procedure for how we do documents.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:14): I do expect the Greens to campaign against jobs growth in the regions, but I do not expect the Liberal Party to campaign against jobs growth in the regions. It speaks volumes about where the Liberal Party are that they are standing here today campaigning against regional employment opportunities. But not this government, because this government stands up for regional jobs. We stand up for investing in our regions. And the proof is in the pudding, because the regional unemployment rate in Victoria in December last year was 3.4 per cent. We are creating more jobs in regional Victoria than other jurisdictions.

Bev McArthur interjected.

The PRESIDENT: Mrs McArthur, you gave your contribution without being interrupted.

Ryan BATCHELOR: Regional Victoria has experienced, under Labor, some of the highest jobs growth amongst all Australian states. Across the state regional unemployment is at 3.4 per cent. In December last year the unemployment rate in the Geelong region was 3.3 per cent. It was even lower in Geelong than it was across the state, which is an absolute vindication of the state Labor government’s strategy of investing in our regions and supporting jobs growth in our regions.

President, I am sure you are curious as to what effect Labor’s investment in regional development has had on the unemployment rate since we were elected in 2014. I can tell you. In the Geelong region, for example, the unemployment rate in October 2014 was 7.1 per cent. 7.1 per cent was the unemployment rate in Geelong when Labor came to office. In December last year it was 3.3 per cent. My maths might not be great all of the time, but I reckon it has halved in that time. I reckon Labor’s policies of investing in regional Victoria and Labor’s policies of investing in employment growth, particularly in the Geelong region, have seen the regional unemployment rate halve since we were elected. I am not going to listen to the Liberal Party trying to campaign against jobs in regional Victoria, because what this government has is a record of jobs growth in regional Victoria. It has a record of investing in the kind of activity that is going to generate more jobs in regional Victoria. What we see under Labor is a government committed to doing the work necessary to promote employment growth and to promote economic growth in regional Victoria.

The facts do not lie. The facts tell us that in the Geelong region, which is obviously connected to the greater Avalon employment precinct to which the documents being sought under this motion apply, the unemployment rate has halved since Labor was elected. I do not know why we have, from the Leader of the Liberal Party in this place, such a committed campaign to slowing that down. She might want to talk and explain to her constituents as to why she is opposed to jobs growth in regional Victoria, why she is opposed to the kind of work being undertaken that supports that jobs growth continuing, because we can say quite clearly that Labor is the party that supports jobs in regional Victoria. Labor is the party that does the work on the planning, on the environmental controls and on getting industry together to make sure of the jobs growth that we have seen in regional Victoria. The highest rate of regional jobs growth in the nation, a halving of the regional unemployment rate in Geelong over the last 10 years: that is what Labor delivers. That is why we will continue to do projects like this, to keep jobs in regional Victoria.

Motion agreed to.