13th of May 2025, 1:03pm
Parliament of Victoria | Legislative Council
David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan Region):
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]
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.
[Ends]
Final Report: Inquiry into Victoria Planning Provisions amendments VC257, VC267 and VC274
