15 June 2011
Mr MORRIS (Mornington) — One of the critical differences between the Baillieu government and the government it replaced late last year is its genuine desire to work with local communities and local government, and not to pay lip service to consultation and then ride roughshod over those communities. The current government has a genuine commitment to working with both, and in that vein I am very pleased to speak on this bill because it delivers a key planning reform which, in many ways, is the centrepiece of the government’s planning agenda and that is the establishment of a new urban renewal authority.
The bill provides the legislative base through the device of amending the Urban Development Authority Act 2003 to establish the new authority and bring about changes to the authority itself. In summary, the amendments will abolish the Victorian Urban Development Authority, or VicUrban, to create the new authority as its successor in law. It will amend the name of the principal act which is an entirely reasonable thing to do. It will amend the purposes of the principal act to reflect the purposes of the new authority, set out the additional functions of the authority and establish eligibility criteria for the appointment of directors to the board of the authority.
During the course of the debate the member for Richmond expressed some concern about the future of projects that are currently under way and under the control of VicUrban. My understanding is that when the matter was raised at the briefing on this bill, which was attended by Mr Tee, a member for Eastern Metropolitan in the other place, and the members for Melton and Cranbourne, they were informed unequivocally that all the existing projects will be completed.
That leads me to wonder whether the member for Richmond did not ask the question; and if he did not I would be very surprised, because I know how thoroughly he approaches the task. Perhaps Mr Tee did not volunteer the information, but the information was very clearly supplied at the briefing, so perhaps the member for Richmond may want to go back and have a conversation with Mr Tee about that particular aspect of the bill. That is — through you, Speaker, in case the member for Richmond did not catch what I was saying — on the aspect of completing current projects, about which he expressed concern earlier, it will happen.
I return to the bill. As the successor in law to VicUrban, the new authority will have a head start in terms of financial, staffing and asset bases, which will allow it to proceed to the early implementation of the government’s urban renewal agenda. We are advancing a number of reforms within the planning portfolio to set priorities and strategic directions that will support the management of population growth throughout Victoria. We have been through a period of very rapid and largely unmanaged population growth in Victoria, and we do not want to see continue.
It is extremely important that there be accommodation opportunities that suit a range of household formations, for want of a better term. Families come in all shapes and sizes: ageing households, large households, small households and single households. There is a great diversity of new housing required. It needs to be well located, well designed and appropriate in size to suit the needs of the different types of households.
That really is the whole point of urban renewal, because often the areas that are the most appropriate for urban renewal are areas that are able to sustain a greater density of housing and can contribute in a very real way to supporting choice and enabling the supply of housing for a growing population.
The authority will be a key mechanism in facilitating sound residential and mixed‑use development in urban locations and for supporting the delivery of the government’s metropolitan planning strategy and its housing affordability policy agenda.
Clause 5 of the bill amends the purposes of the principal act, changing them to reflect that the primary function of the authority is to manage or coordinate the carrying out of urban renewal projects. That means the authority will be charged with enabling land to be development ready. That will then allow the attraction of private sector investment in strategic locations, facilitating market activity.
Clause 9 of the bill amends the functions of the authority. It clarifies that the authority’s primary role is now to be focused on urban renewal activities. Other functions — functions perhaps more customarily undertaken by the soon‑to‑be former authority, such as land development, partnership arrangements, consultancy services and so on — may still be undertaken at the request of the minister. Among its functions the authority will promote housing affordability and diversity in urban renewal projects. It will also be expected to optimise the housing opportunities on each urban renewal site.
Underpinning that is the goal of enhancing liveability. I stress the diversity of choice. A one‑size‑fits‑all solution is not appropriate. That was a mistake made by the former government. It tried the one‑size‑fits‑all approach: it was called Melbourne 2030. We know what an incredible failure that approach was, and it is not a mistake we are going to repeat in any way at all. We know that people require higher density accommodation and that that can be delivered in established areas. That is a market that is different to the outer suburban market — the outer growth market — and it can cater for a very broad spectrum of households.
Clause 10 of the bill makes it explicit that the authority is subject to the direction of the minister in relation to delivering specific urban renewal projects. I think that is an important distinction, because contrary to what the member for Richmond said, it creates a direct link in the implementation of government policy. It is a policy link, and I think it is a very necessary link. At an operational level it will mean that there is a substantial shift towards larger scale strategic development sites — that is, sites that have the potential to deliver higher density development. As was said in the second‑reading speech, the authority will also drive major long‑term — potentially 30‑year — urban renewal projects.
There are many great opportunities for urban renewal around Melbourne. To put this in perspective, a project such as Fishermans Bend, south of the West Gate Freeway, will produce something like 200 hectares of future development land. It is a potentially significant residential area. If you contrast that with the Barangaroo project in Sydney, you find that the urban renewal yield from Barangaroo will be 20 hectares — so Fishermans Bend, at ten times the size, obviously has tremendous potential.
There are also changes in terms of governance of the authority, particularly the skill set required of the board as a whole. The board will require aggregate knowledge of the funding and delivery of infrastructure, property and land development, urban planning, economics and financial management, public administration, corporate governance, housing delivery supply and affordability, and the law, particularly commercial law.
The bill before the house provides for a legislative framework that represents a significant change to a better state planning regime. It creates an authority which will have a clear mandate for urban change in strategic locations right across the state and which will attract the necessary private sector investment in those locations. I commend the government for its initiative, and I commend bill to the house.
Legislative Assembly 15 June 2011
Printer Friendly Version...