Activity centre planning provisions

14th of May 2025, 4:20pm
Parliament of Victoria | Legislative Council

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan):

I welcome this opportunity to contribute to the debate on motion 905, moved by Mr Davis. I do not intend to reprosecute the arguments within the committee but rather to consider the motion in the context of the committee’s findings. Mr Galea nailed it: the committee did not recommend that the amendments be disallowed. What the committee did – and I remind members that the majority report was unanimously supported – was to objectively and carefully consider the amendments, their intent and their possible effects. That is the process I tried to guide the committee through as chair, and that is the basis on which Victorians gave evidence.

If I can summarise the findings as succinctly as possible, it would be to say that in relation to VC257 the committee found significant problems with the quality of the consultation with communities, councils and the appointed expert panel, but that:

… the controls introduced by VC257 have the potential to give proper effect to the objectives depending on how their local schedules are drafted and where they apply.

The committee made a very clear recommendation that the government review the expert advisory mechanism and consultation methods with planning experts, local councils and communities for the first 10 activity centres and make improvements about both in relation to the next 50 activity centres. The government and opposition members on the committee both supported that finding and that resolution, and I am sure that we all expect that the recommendation will be acted upon.

In relation to amendment VC267 the committee again found significant problems with the quality of the consultation with communities and councils and found that there are risks of unintended consequences. The committee recommended that the government make improvements to the new townhouse and low-rise code introduced under amendment VC267, including by reinstating the clause 65 decision-making guidelines, which are a safeguard that allows decision-makers – for example, council planners – to consider evidence about the risk of floods, fires and other hazards.

Other recommended improvements were to add a landscaping standard and improve the tree cover canopy standard to avoid excessive tree removal and to lift the environmentally sustainable development standards up to the level previously found in 28 local government areas where those standards have been lowered by the code. But the committee did not recommend wholesale revocation.

The code can be improved while it is in effect, and again I expect that these recommendations will be acted on. But just as the committee did not recommend that these amendments be revoked, nor did it find that the amendments are satisfactory as they are – far from it. As I have pointed out, the committee found some very significant problems. Revocation is not the only tool for fixing these problems, but these problems are going to have to be fixed, and the committee has provided the government with a practical path to fixing them.

I say to the government as diplomatically as I can: winning the motion in this chamber today does not itself fix the problems with the amendments, nor does it fix the government’s broader problem, which is the erosion of public trust in the planning system and in the government caused by clumsy planning reform.

This is not a simplistic YIMBY versus NIMBY war, as the government would have it. The committee heard overwhelming evidence from members of the public, from planning professionals and from local governments that there is widespread support for the government’s aim for very significant infill development. They just want to make sure that it is done well, because our town, our city, is littered with examples of failed planning exercises; that new homes come with basic infrastructure; that it manages flood risk; that it includes affordable dwellings; and that homes are designed to be energy efficient and do not cost a fortune to cool in summer or to heat in winter. These are all reasonable expectations which are not currently met by the standards.

The government can dismiss all of this if it wants and lump all critics of its planning reform agenda as barriers to progress, but how sustainable is that? How will Victorians embrace the housing infill objectives of the government – and those are objectives which I support, too – if the planning system is designed to stop them having a say about the future of the communities that they live in or if the supposed consultation on planning scheme amendments is so poor that participants make their minds up that the government does not actually want to hear from them at all? Does the government stand behind the words in today’s Age article that:

The committee, which looked into three major planning amendments brought in by Labor, was dubbed a “sham inquiry” by the government, which claimed the Liberals were trying to block building more homes.

A sham inquiry – seriously, is that really the government’s position?

I would just like to note for the record that Dr Mansfield and I – and I would like to commend Dr Mansfield on her comments previously in this debate – put a proposal to both the government and the opposition that the motion before the chamber be set aside and that instead we resolve, firstly, to switch back on clause 65 of the planning design guidelines. This would allow councils to at least consider issues such as environmental hazards, public health and maintaining environmentally sustainable design standards – considerations that the planning scheme amendments currently preclude.

Secondly, we asked that the Minister for Planning agree to meet with key stakeholders such as the Municipal Association of Victoria and the Planning Institute of Australia to consider key issues of concern identified by the select committee in its report. To our very profound disappointment, both the government and the opposition rejected this modest compromise, this simple path forward.

So there is still a lot of work to do. I imagine there will be plenty more Victoria Planning Provisions amendments coming down the line. I imagine there will also be some reforms to the act. Whether those reforms are designed to smash through or whether they are done in a way that generates public confidence is entirely up to the government. So far we have seen a lot of the former, and I hope we start seeing some of the latter.

Legalise Cannabis will not be supporting this motion for the reasons I have outlined. That said, simply defeating this motion and branding anyone who expresses concern as a NIMBY will not insulate the government from further revocations and opposition in the future.

[Council divided on motion]

[Motion defeated 15 – 22]