Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has confirmed that his government is working on major planning reforms in a bid to squeeze one million extra homes into existing suburbs by 2050 – eight times the number of existing homes in the whole of Geelong.
Greater Melbourne has about 2.1 million homes, as per the 2021 Census. That means one new home would need to be constructed for every two current homes in order for the city to meet its 2050 goal.
However, one senior government insider warned “the government does not have a social licence for a higher-density city”, citing concerns about the lack of open space and parkland in built-up suburbs.
The planning reforms are being cheered on by the Property Council, which is urging the government to bypass ‘ineffective’ councils to fast-track planning.
Property Council executive director Cath Evans said the planning system was “straining under the weight of its own inefficiencies and widespread resourcing issues … with the end result being that the consumer wears the cost”.
However, Municipal Association of Victoria president David Clark has questioned whether the government can be trusted with local planning decisions, given that IBAC recently concluded that it has an increasing level of “improper conduct” or “grey corruption”.
Clark said Victorians expected to be consulted on development decisions affecting their neighbourhoods.
“Unlike other levels of government, councils conduct their business with high levels of transparency, which allows significant input from the communities they represent”, he said.
Victorian Local Governance Association CEO Kathryn Arndt likewise contended that “bypassing local democracy” is not the answer the state’s housing crisis.
“Victoria’s planning system was designed to ensure people have a strong and democratic voice in their local communities”, Arndt said.
“Local councils understand their communities and whether individual planning applications are in their best interests. Bypassing local democracy is not the answer to our housing crisis”.
“Expanding ministerial powers further at the expense of local communities would be a mistake”, she said.
If the Victorian Government is so concerned about a lack of housing supply and housing affordability, why isn’t it lobbying against the Albanese Government’s ‘Big Australia’ policy, which has ramped the nation’s immigration intake to record highs and will see Melbourne roughly double in size in just 40 years?
Heck, Victorian Premier Dan Andrews admitted on Thursday that Victoria’s extreme population growth is locking people out of housing.
“Every day, we’re a day closer to being Australia’s biggest city, every day it’s getting harder, particularly for young people, to either find a place to rent, let alone to save up and to be able to afford to buy a property and then, and then perhaps buy that property in a suburb of their choice”, Andrews said.
Why focus on the supply-side of the housing market rather than the obvious solution of ensuring that immigration stays at sensible and sustainable levels?
Housing ‘experts’ and commentators should be honest and admit that the single biggest driver of any Australian housing shortage is extreme immigration.
Increasing density in established suburbs will inevitably result in greater demand for land in these privileged locations. Increased demand equals increased cost as the amount of land is fixed.
This will inevitably result in smaller and more expensive housing, less public open space, a greater concentration of people in taller and more concentrated buildings, leading to the destruction of green space and increased temperatures (the ‘heat island effect’), greater traffic congestion, overcrowded schools and hospitals, etc.
These impacts were explicitly projected by Infrastructure Australia in 2018 when it modelled a 2.3 million increase in Melbourne’s population by 2046:
Australia’s ‘housing shortage’ could be permanently solved with the stroke of a pen by the federal government. All it needs to do is reduce immigration back to historical pre-2005 levels. Doing so would also negate the need to bulldoze our suburbs into high density.
Moreover, it would align with the wishes of the Australian people, who overwhelmingly do not support a return to pre-COVID levels of immigration (nor higher):
Why? Because they know that such strong growth means permanent housing and infrastructure shortages, a degraded environment, and a lower quality of life.
Because that’s what they experienced in the 15 years leading up to COVID.
