Transport Infrastructure and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

November 14th 2024, 2:48pm
Parliament of Victoria | Legislative Council

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan):

I rise to make a brief contribution on the Transport Infrastructure and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. The bill seeks to amend the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to provide for the delivery of precinct projects utilising the project powers under the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009. I will say that the bill in its current form is somewhat perplexing, and some aspects seem intentionally vague. I will be seeking some clarity around certain provisions in the committee-of-the-whole stage.

Possibly the most perplexing aspect of this bill is why it is necessary at all. In Victoria’s housing statement the government committed to:

… review and rewrite the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to build a modern, fit-for-purpose planning system.

Surely the reforms we are seeing today would actually be included in the new act. So why then is the government seeking to amend the act now rather than wait a few more months until the review is completed? I do not imagine much is going to happen in the way of precinct development between now and early next year.

There also appears to be some ambiguity around the definition of ‘precinct projects’. What sort of areas are likely to be declared precinct projects, for example? Major precinct developments are one thing, but could these powers not be used equally for small-scale precincts, and if so, how and where?

We have concerns about the very short notice periods needed to enter private land to carry out minor works. I would argue that a seven-day notice period is insufficient and would question the government’s rationale for giving private property owners only seven days notice before someone can enter their property to start drilling holes and testing soil and so on for who knows how long. We are also concerned about the rights of review for property owners or occupiers being removed.

I want to be clear: we do not seek to block infrastructure development in this state, but we would like to see some better checks and balances around these reforms, and we are not convinced that there is sufficient justification for this expansion of powers and would like the minister to provide some concrete examples of how the powers could and will be used, as well as a better justification for the timelines that are proposed. However, perhaps some of these questions will be better addressed in the committee-of-the-whole stage, and I look forward to that occurring.

[Council divided on bill]

[Bill passed 24 – 13]