# Submission on Proposed Planning Amendments I am writing in strong support of the proposed planning reforms in Victoria (VC257, VC274, and VC267), which aim to - and predictably will - improve housing supply and choice. My story I've lived in Seddon now for almost 10 years, and I've been extraordinarily fortunate to live somewhere with such good amenities and public transport at such reasonable prices. I want others to be so lucky. I'm also a new parent. My wife and I hope to raise our son here, close to the friends and support network we've built. Our rent increased substantially last year, and we're guessing there will be further hikes soon - if supply doesn't increase. We're concerned about long-term affordability for us and for our friends; many with young children face similar pressures. At least one couple in our parents' group is reluctantly planning to move out to Sunshine. Without meaningful supply reform, young families like ours will continue to be displaced from our communities - or will never get the opportunity to form them in the first place. My professional perspective In my time in management consulting, I've been an economist and data scientist, done a lot of policy and evaluation work, and I am confident these amendments are sound. This is economics 101. The housing crisis is a straightforward imbalance of supply and demand. For decades, our planning rules have artificially constrained housing supply. This is a phenomenal and long-overdue opportunity to fix this, and I would be furious to see my elected representatives waste it. The evidence The kinds of reforms under consideration are also building an empirical track record. Auckland, New Zealand implemented similar supply-side reforms and saw housing production increase substantially, with stabilising effects on rents. Likewise, Austin, Texas has been building like mad, resulting in more housing choices at all price points. The mistake you risk making You'll no doubt hear lots about balancing the interests of homeowners and renters, and how the current system favours the former - functionally transferring wealth to homeowners. This is awful. But I really want to hammer home the intergenerational aspect. How many future Victorians won't be born because parents can't get the housing they want at the right price point? How many future Victorians will be priced out maybe forever, because they weren't here to advocate for themselves? You have an obligation to consider the interests of those who can't speak for themselves, not just those who don't want to share plum spots between parks and train stations. In conclusion The proposed amendments are an absolutely critical step towards a housing market that works for all Victorians. I strongly urge you to leave these amendments be. Victoria has the opportunity to lead the way in creating effective housing policy that promotes affordability, inclusion, and choice. Sincerely, Michael Kerrison