Wednesday, 28 August 2024

Residential Tenancies and Funerals Amendment Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Mary-Anne Thomas:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Tim McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (10:49): I am delighted to rise and make a contribution on the Residential Tenancies and Funerals Amendment Bill 2024. The bill will amend the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 and the Funerals Act 2006, and it will provide for prescribed forms of part 4A site agreements – which are standardised forms – changes in rent calculation formulae and various other, minor, amendments. It also seeks more transparency from funeral directors to ensure customers who are at their most vulnerable are shown clearly the costs associated with funeral arrangements. I do not know if anybody else in this room sees the irony in the fact that this government is seeking more transparency from small business when it goes out of its way to hide whatever it possibly can of its financial mismanagement. It is more ‘Do as I say’ than ‘Do as I do’.

The bill introduces a requirement for funeral homes to include service and coffin price lists on their websites and also in a prominent place in their parlours. When people come in we know they are at their most vulnerable and are upset. We want to make sure that price lists and everything that is included are easily accessible, either on the web or in their office.

It is pretty straightforward, this bill. There are only eight pages of legislative change when you take out the end notes, the table of provisions and the title, so there is not a lot in here. I do want to place on record that the opposition does not oppose this bill. As with many of Labor’s recent bits of legislation, the devil could be in the detail later on in the regulations, but we are not opposing this bill.

I further note that the two peak industry bodies, both VicParks – the Victorian Caravan Parks Association – and the Australian Funeral Directors Association, the AFDA, do not oppose the bill and indeed have already implemented many of the changes that are contained within it. So the heavy lifting has already been done, and this will tidy it up for those who are not in the AFDA or who are not in VicParks, which I will go to in a bit more detail.

As the Victorian housing crisis deepens, Victorians are helpless to combat the lack of housing in this state. As the target of 800,000 homes over 10 years is turning into another Labor farce, there are significant numbers of people who are shifting out of the family home and looking at residential parks. I just want to pick up where the Leader of the House spoke about vulnerable people. I understand that some of those living in caravan parks fall into that vulnerable list, but there are plenty who make a lifestyle choice to go into these leisure villages. They are houses that have been built on someone else’s property and they rent that land, which obviously makes it a bit cheaper for them. I would not say they are vulnerable, but certainly they are making a lifestyle choice.

When we look at those leisure parks and caravan parks, the dwelling, or the chattel, is owned by the person who buys that property and then they rent the land component, which makes it significantly cheaper. You can imagine that if people are nearing their retirement age and their superannuation is not in great shape, they can sell their house in the suburbs – it might be a million or a million and a half; I am just putting it out there as a number. People can sell a house that they may have paid for over the years if they do not have much super, move into a residential park – we have got them in Cobram, we have got them in Shepparton; many regions have got these residential parks – and buy into that and own a property for about $300,000 or $320,000. It is a win–win. It certainly helps them top up their superannuation and gives them affordable housing that they can live in, so there certainly are some benefits in that.

I am reliably told that there are currently about 10,000 people who live in these residential parks or leisure parks, and there are about to be another 12,000 in the next five years, so clearly it is important to get the contracts right. That is what this bill is about: consistency and standardisation of contracts. Consumer Affairs Victoria seems to be a toothless tiger at the moment. Getting things right before people sign a contract is much better than getting it wrong and then having to go and see consumer affairs.

On 15 July this year the Minister for Consumer Affairs released a statement outlining the government’s plan to protect Victorians living in residential parks to:

… ensure all site agreements are in a standard form and key information is disclosed ahead of entering into an agreement so rights and obligations are clear to residents and site owners.

Again, I think that is a positive step forward. The release also states that further details ‘will be developed in consultation with industry, residents and other key stakeholders’ again highlighting that we will not know the full impacts on industry until regulation is introduced. As I say, I hope the government works with us and the industry to make sure that standardised form is what we are seeking.

Amendments to the Funerals Act 2006 have come about due to changes in legislation in other states. Over the past few years it has forced Victoria to introduce this bill to ensure these requirements are broadly similar and allow a seamless experience for those living either in our state or out of our state and those living in cross-border communities. Victoria has been compared to New South Wales or South Australia. We want to be on the same page, and unless you live in a cross-border community, like I do, you may not fully understand how little regulations and little changes in circumstances between Victoria and New South Wales can make a massive difference. People moving into leisure villages or caravan parks want to see consistency, because sometimes to find one of those it may be just over the border – for me, Cobram and Barooga or Yarrawonga and Mulwala – anywhere down the Murray River and of course the South Australian border as well. As noted, the industry has no objections to the bill, and AFDA, the Australian Funeral Directors Association, have already implemented similar for their members across Australia. In many cases it happens already, so impacts will be minimal.

I want to talk about some of the main provisions. The bill will provide standard forms to be used by part 4A site agreements, increasing transparency and allowing for more comparisons across the industry, and it will clearly define CPI as the Melbourne-based CPI, not any other ABS CPI measurement as used in rent calculations. It will require funeral homes to display price lists on their website and in their premises. The residential tenancy sector is a vast and sometimes confusing area, and residential parks are a very unknown area. But as I say, with the housing crisis and cost-of-living crisis there will be a major shift, and we have been told that will double what is currently there. That is just in the next five years, and it could go even higher.

There is a difference between a part 4 tenant and a part 4A tenant, and that stems from what part of the Residential Tenancies Act they come under. In essence part 4 of the Residential Tenancies Act states that it applies to anyone who is a resident of a caravan park with a caravan that is a movable dwelling. We have all seen those caravans in caravan parks that may not even have any wheels on them. But it is still a caravan, and it has got a permanent annexe. Some people use them for holiday houses; some people use them as a full-time residence. In fact the member for Melton had a caravan, didn’t he, at one stage down somewhere. I think he borrowed one, used one or said he had one. But the member for Melton certainly took advantage of the second residence allowance for the caravan.

Danny Pearson interjected.

Tim McCURDY: The former member for Melton, correct. It is the former. We should not forget the former member for Melton. Anyway, it applies to anyone who resides in a part 4A dwelling or a part 4A site, as I said before, without owning the dwelling wholly or in part. So a part 4A is when the landowner leases the land to the person and owns their own part 4A dwelling. To make things simple, a part 4A dwelling could be a portable house or a caravan on blocks. Again, to quote Consumer Affairs:

People who live in a residential park (such as a caravan park or lifestyle village) and own their home, often have what are called Part 4A site agreements.

These agreements cover the land that is being rented for the home. Part 4A agreements only apply to a home that can be moved, such as a pre-fab home or cabin.

Part 4A agreements do not apply to other movable homes that can be registered with VicRoads, such as caravans or camper trailers.

That is the fundamental difference between a part 4 tenant and a part 4A tenant. The general working theory is that these dwellings could be picked up and moved within 24 hours, and that is the difference, or three business days.

As with the terms of residential parks, they are covered by that part 4A agreement and, as I say, can range from a simple caravan park to a leisure village. Leisure villages can provide an excellent lifestyle choice for those who are reaching retirement age. As I mentioned, if your superannuation is a little lower, there is an opportunity for people to get into comfortable housing with a roof over their head and still top up their superannuation. The peak body, VicParks, represent around 5500 to 6000 of the site agreements in Victoria. According to their data the average age of a person moving to a part 4A dwelling is mid to late 50s, considerably younger than for retirement villages, which sits around the mid-70s. With a target of 12,000 new site agreements in place over the next five years, we are seeing this sector explode, as it offers a more affordable and flexible way to retire.

By selling off their home, retirees can supplement their superannuation and also become eligible for Commonwealth rent assistance because they are no longer asset rich. The selling of housing stock will also trickle down the chain by allowing second and third home owners to upgrade, thus freeing up more housing stock for first home buyers, even though we know that Labor seems to have moved away from giving people the opportunity of home ownership. With only 12,000 potentially freed-up houses, this is still only scratching the surface. VicParks, the peak body, assures us that this target will enable Victoria to catch up to New South Wales and Queensland, who are miles in front of us when it comes to these parks. They have been targeted at the baby boomer generation. There are many more people in New South Wales and Queensland who use these registered parks, and Victoria is lagging behind.

Unfortunately under Labor the price of housing in regional Victoria has gone up by nearly 50 per cent in four years. Metro houses have increased by 41 per cent in the last two years, and in some cases units have increased by about $100,000 in the same period. At the moment the government is in a lather, looking for a way to free up housing so we can get a roof over their head for many people. I know in my electorate of Ovens Valley we are very light on for housing and very light on for public housing. I tell everybody who comes into my office and has concerns about trying to find public housing that if they have a property, I urge them, do not leave that property. If you have to pay another $5 or $10 a week, let us work out how we can do that, because getting another house is impractical. It just will not happen. I am encouraging and imploring people to stay in the house they have got, if they can, at all costs. That is no surprise to anybody. We are all in the same situation throughout metropolitan Melbourne or regional Victoria.

The median housing price for the whole metro and regional area does not highlight the increases in some of the individual towns, like Bright in my electorate – the beautiful town of Bright that people love to come and enjoy, with everything that it has to offer. Houses in Bright have increased over 115 ‍per cent, from an average of $585,000 to $1.3 million in the last five years, so it is not unreasonable that there is a housing issue, with people trying to find a property to live in. Many are holiday houses and the value has gone up. Bright is certainly not a place where you are going to find first home owners in the near term. If Labor want to free up housing stock for first home buyers rather than locking them into that perpetual cycle of renting and insecurity, they need to get more serious about their other developments as well. Too often we rely on the hardworking taxpayer to get them out of the mess.

The main changes that will be introduced under the amendments in this bill are requirements for all part 4A site agreements to use a standard form, and that is a form we have not seen yet. I did ask during the department briefing, and I appreciate the briefing that we received. That form has not been designed or made yet, although there are forms that operate within the industry. As I say, VicParks do that for their registered caravan parks now. Not everybody is a member of VicParks, obviously. Ninety-eight per cent of registered caravan parks are part of VicParks, so it is fair to say 98 per cent of people moving into registered caravan parks are using a form already. But I would certainly have liked to have seen what that form is and made sure that there are no little taxes or charges associated with it, or a little government lick along the way as it goes through, to make sure these forms are pretty similar to what the industry currently already has. The Victorian government will finalise the details of this form in regulation, let us hope, after consultation with the industry and stakeholders. VicParks, as I say, already use their own standardised form for their members, and that is 98 per cent of the residential park industry. They are optimistic they will be closely involved in the process. The minister would be foolish to not include them, as any changes will impact on the work that they are doing.

The change to standardised forms will improve transparency in the industry and allow for potential part 4A residents to compare the offering of one residential park directly with another. That is clearly what we want to be able to do – simple and straightforward so that people do not get trapped. We know in retirement villages the concerns are out there at the moment about the up-front costs, the fees that are associated and the difference between one retirement village and another. So let us hope we do not make the same mistake in this legislation that we are bringing forward today. It will hopefully avoid that because it will be one form fits all. Whether you are going into a residential park in Geelong, Ballarat, Cobram, Shepparton, metro Melbourne or wherever it might be, one form will fit all. This will increase that transparency, which I spoke about before, and will catch out any operators who are not doing things aboveboard. It will make a complex document clearer for the regular Victorian. That is what is anticipated and what we are told will happen. The government has advised that the standard form will be available through Consumer Affairs Victoria. The only change of note is the introduction of a Melbourne-based CPI factor in rental calculation, and that is to avoid any other ABS-provided CPI metric being used, as I mentioned earlier, as that could lead to incorrect rental adjustments. I note this change is also fully supported by the industry.

I want to touch on the Funerals Act amendment. The changes to the Funerals Act are straightforward and relatively minor. The requirement placed on funeral homes will likewise be minimal, as most funeral homes already have forms and the pricing either on their website or very easily accessible in their office. These lists are available, and they will only need to be updated on their website and to ensure that their list meets the requirements. But as noted, it is the industry standard practice to have a pricing list, resulting in a small impact on those under the Australian Funeral Directors Association, and the very small number of funeral directors outside of AFDA will be supported in implementing the changes. So again, like VicParks, a majority of funeral directors are associated with AFDA, and currently this is best practice or normal practice if you are a member of AFDA. All this will do is tidy it up to see that every funeral director, regardless of whether they are with AFDA or not, will still have to display their price list for coffins, funeral arrangements and so forth.

It will benefit Victorians by providing greater transparency in a time of great strain and grief for families. We know if you are turning up at a funeral parlour, it is not the happiest time in your life. It is about having all those facts and prices at your fingertips so you can make a calculated decision with the pressure that is already on you being at the funeral parlour already.

The feedback given to us by AFDA is that they did note the bill is very high level and there is little information on the rollout and the timeframe for implementation. Again, this does sound familiar from the government. It comes out with the ideas, but we have got to make sure that those ideas are followed through and that the industry is consulted all the way through to make sure that what they are currently doing, which is what started all of this – the process and the forms that they currently use – is not altered greatly as we move forward. They have, however, offered to work with Consumer Affairs Victoria to ensure that all funeral directors are well informed and supported in rolling out the changes.

These sentiments were echoed by InvoCare Australia. InvoCare Australia is the largest funeral service provider in Australia, as many of us know, and I always crosscheck the information I get from different organisations by going to some of the local funeral directors. There is Mason Park with Glenn Bouchier there in Wangaratta and North East Funerals in Wangaratta with John and Christine Haddrick. I spoke with both of those about their thoughts on this bill, and again, they are fully supportive of the changes, provided the changes are in line with what is currently being done or do not alter too far from that.

This change will also give cross-border communities the chance to compare prices between businesses. I spoke about residential caravan parks. It is a significant issue in cross-border communities because sometimes it is a price difference, sometimes it is a regulation difference. There is always something different, and people move from community to community quite regularly. If you have lived in Mulwala, it is not uncommon to be living in Yarrawonga, on the Victorian side, a few years down the track, and vice versa – also in Cobram–Barooga and Echuca–Moama. So it is important in these cross-border communities that we try and have things as streamlined as we can so people can compare prices between businesses in different states.

As with the changes in the Residential Tenancies Act, the details will come out a bit later on. There is still a lack of scrutiny of the real impact of those changes, but as I say, we just hope that the government works with the industry. I also note there is no clear definition or idea on what a price list must include ‍– this is for the funeral homes – and whether it is a detailed and itemised list of every single item and service provided or whether some items can be packaged together as funeral service items, because there are some costs associated with funerals that must be paid regardless, which some clients may be unaware of. So a price list must be clear about what prices have to be paid and what are in addition to those, and these changes will be regulated by Consumer Affairs. There is an expectation they will provide greater clarity around this once consultation with the industry has concluded.

I have nearly exhausted what is on the bill, so in concluding, as I mentioned, the opposition does not oppose the bill. We would have liked to have seen a bit more detail around some of the forms and the changes. As I say, only yesterday and today we have seen another tax get introduced. People are fearful that any change of a form to a standardised form or anything of that nature could end up being another tax, small or large. Again, when you are burying a loved one, you do not get much say in it; it has to happen. It has got to go ahead, and if a tax is introduced, well, there are some things that just have to be paid and we have to move forward. The industry has said to me that as long as it is in line with what current standards are, they are more than happy to go along. As I say, they are supportive of supplementing standard practice. The details will not have a substantial impact on their industry.

We are keen to see the residential park sector expand – obviously, with the housing crisis that we currently have – and keen to see the subsequent freeing up of additional housing stock for simple and clear regulations in that sector. As the details are finalised, I ask the minister to provide an opportunity for even the opposition to review and discuss them before they come into effect – and time will tell whether that happens or not – but certainly for the industry to do so as well. I also ask the minister to consider what I have said – to include the key stakeholders in the shaping of that regulation that is still to come. With that, I commend the bill to the house.

Katie HALL (Footscray) (11:14): I am pleased to make a contribution to the Residential Tenancies and Funerals Amendment Bill 2024. This bill gives Victorians more information when entering into commercial agreements by requiring greater transparency from retailers. Transparency of information helps Victorians to make informed consumer choices, ensuring they get the best deal possible. The bill strengthens regulatory requirements for two sectors: residential parks and funeral homes and providers.

One of the reasons I was interested in making a contribution to this bill relates particularly to funeral pricing. Having been through this experience myself, when you are in the depths of grief there is often not enough emotional bandwidth to deal with some of the extraordinary costs associated with planning a funeral. I remember when my dear old Dad passed away, my brother and I were at the funeral home and we just thought, ‘Mum’s not going to be able to pay for this.’ The pricing and the range of choices we had were baffling and also really hard to understand. I had a recent experience with the passing of a friend where we were trying to work out why a funeral would cost tens of thousands of dollars. I am pleased that we are making these reforms to address an area of consumer protection that has attracted scrutiny from all sides in recent times, because pricing transparency of funeral services is something that many Victorians are all too familiar with. When you are grieving the loss of a loved one, confusing or sometimes, sadly, even predatory behaviour in terms of funeral costs can add unnecessary anxiety and make a difficult time even harder.

CHOICE and the ACCC have both reported on practices within the funeral services industry in recent years. What these reports have made obvious – the misinformation, the misleading pricing structures, the bundling of goods and services that raise costs and limit choices, the unnecessary fees, the market concentration and the range of issues that compound the grief and suffering of Victorians during what is often the most challenging times of their lives – is actually quite appalling reading. Those of you who have had to bury a loved one know that the cost of a funeral service can be very distressing, and it adds to the stress, making a hard time even worse.

This bill brings Victoria in line with other jurisdictions, like New South Wales and Queensland, in increasing the transparency of funeral home pricing. It proposes amending the Funerals Act 2006 to require that funeral homes and service providers clearly display a price list for all goods and services, both online and in a prominent position within the retail outlet, the funeral home. Like changes to residential parks, which are also part of this bill, pricing of funeral services will need to be displayed in a prescribed form. This will make it far easier for consumers to compare pricing and ensure they get the best possible outcome. The Allan Labor government will continue to work with the industry and community stakeholders to develop a prescribed form that does not unnecessarily burden funeral service providers whilst also being as clear as possible for consumers. The bill will make failure to comply with the new regulations an offence which will carry a financial penalty of 60 penalty units. This is a significant penalty that reflects the severity of taking advantage of people at what may be one of the lowest points of their life.

This bill is about more than transparency and consumer protection. The loss of a loved one brings with it so many pressures and anxieties. The cost of their funeral should not be one of those pressures or anxieties. These reforms will make it easier for Victorians to celebrate the lives of their loved ones in the way that they would have wanted. In an ideal world businesses would not be taking advantage of grieving people. I am proud to be part of a Labor government that is committed to protecting the rights of Victorian consumers. Clearly displaying the prices of goods and services means consumers will be able to purchase the funeral arrangements that they and their loved ones want, not what the funeral homes’ salespeople want.

In terms of residential parks, residential parks are commonly marketed as a lower cost or alternative accommodation option, particularly for older Victorians. Within a park, residents must own their own moveable dwelling. They can vary in size – most are similar in size to a demountable classroom. The lease size concerns where the dwelling is located.

The Allan Labor government has a long and proud record of increasing renters’ rights and has more protections than any other state in the country. We are continuing to work with communities and advocacy groups to fill in the gaps, ensuring that all Victorians can access safe and secure housing.

The residential park and land lease market has grown significantly in recent years, and this growth has spurred more need for legislative reform and increased consumer protections. We are proud to continue an agenda that involves listening to communities and responding in kind to address their concerns. Currently site agreements, the residential park equivalent of a lease, are not required to be in a standard form, and they can vary across operators, making it hard for residents to easily compare terms and conditions. This makes it hard for prospective residents to know if they are getting the best deal or if the site will even meet their needs and requirements. This bill makes changes to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 by amending part 4A so that site agreements must now be standardised and in the prescribed form. Standardised site agreements make it harder for providers to provide unfair agreements. It will bring protections in line with those for other types of renters. Any financial matters, including but not limited to rent, bond, utilities or any other fee or charge, must be defined.

Rent increases must now be calculated using a specified formula or index, which must be clearly defined in the site agreement. The amendments also expand the type of information providers must disclose, including basic information such as the name and contact details of the site owner and the details of any representatives acting on behalf of the site owner. These changes mean that those wishing to enter into an agreement with a residential park operator will benefit from greater transparency across all matters, financial or otherwise. All tenants should be able to get the best deal possible and be certain that their needs will be met before signing any agreement. Strengthening protections and increasing information transparency is crucial to the success of diverse housing stock.

I am pleased that within this bill we are delivering for people who are in vulnerable situations. Often people moving into one of these parks may be in a position where they cannot find another type of rental property. Similarly, people who are arranging a funeral for a loved one are in a very vulnerable position. So I am pleased to commend this bill to the house, and I wish it a speedy passage.

Josh BULL (Sunbury) (11:24): I am pleased to follow on directly from the member for Footscray, quite surprisingly. It is never easy to follow on from the member for Footscray and the fine contributions that she makes to the house. I am pleased – as others have been – to have the opportunity to contribute to the Residential Tenancies and Funerals Amendment Bill 2024. I note that those opposite are not opposing the bill. The comments from the lead speaker I think relate to what are sensible, fair and practical changes that are contained within the legislation before the house this morning.

This government is focused on making sure that it is supporting all Victorians at all stages of their lives. We are ensuring that we are providing a range of opportunities and options for those who change life circumstances, who age, who wish to make changes for many and varied reasons within their lives. The residential park changes that are before the house go to providing additional certainty, surety and in many ways opportunities for a better, fairer system. We know that residential parks provide options for a different way of living, and it is important that we ensure that those opportunities and options are provided and maintained. But as a state, as we grow and expand and people take different opportunities to live in different ways, we need to make sure that we are providing for more and better options as people are making those changes.

Reflecting on some conversations within my local community – certainly I have great engagement with a number of our citizens groups, particularly the Sunbury senior citizens who I caught up with just recently, and a shout-out to Frank and Louise Zambello, who do an amazing job, and to all the senior citizens right across the electorate – they are particularly conversations that relate to a change of life, to a change of employment and to a change in family circumstances. Making sure that we have a robust but also dynamic system that achieves that balance, or equilibrium if you like, around choice and certainty is something that has been spoken about with me by the senior citizens but also right across the community. What I think we should keep working hard on with the changes to the residential parks and how they are regulated, which is one element that is contained in this piece of legislation, is making sure we are supporting our local communities. We know, and the member for Footscray touched on this, that residential parks are commonly marketed as lower cost or alternative accommodation for senior Victorians. Residents living in residential parks will typically own a moveable dwelling and rent the underlying site where the dwelling is located from the site owner.

The Residential Tenancies Act 1997 regulates a range of residential tenure types, including residential rights of people living in residential parks, which are also referred to as part 4A parks, manufactured home villages and lifestyle communities. In March 2021 the government implemented more than 130 ‍reforms to make renting fairer and safer for all Victorians, and that includes residents living in part 4A parks. Those reforms included a new requirement for precontractual disclosure of certain information such as the disclosure of the nature of the park’s operator, the operator’s interest in the land, the residential park rules and the amenities available for use. Not to pre-empt what the future debate will be, but I think there is a recognition across the chamber that these are, as I mentioned earlier, sensible and practical reforms that go to what is an important part of options and opportunities for people’s living, their way of life.

I wish to now move to the changes around the provisions for funerals. Certainly, as has been highlighted and spoken to in previous contributions, the process families go through for a funeral when a loved one is lost is a particularly tough, emotional and challenging period. That is so for anyone, their family and the wider community. What the government is seeking to do this morning by the passage of what is before us is to make sure that greater transparency exists, bringing us into line with other jurisdictions and ensuring that we know that greater transparency and fairness are provided. What that does is give greater confidence to families and those who are grieving in what is a particularly tough, challenging and emotional time.

We know and understand that the vast majority of people across our state do the right thing. Particularly when it comes to these very emotional times, we know that there are so many people who will always put people first and support communities, as ought to be the case. However, as with any process, piece of legislation or matter that becomes of financial interest, there are some who seek to do the wrong thing. It is our responsibility and obligation as a government and indeed as a Parliament to ensure that that does not occur and that further damage, whether that be emotional or financial, does not exacerbate what is already a really tough, challenging and emotional period for families. What this legislation does is ensure that that transparency is improved, and that is a very, very important matter.

Both of these changes, albeit relatively small, are important. They form what is, in my view, a range of matters that have come before the house and will continue to come before the house today and tomorrow to ensure that we are doing everything that we can to improve those opportunities that people seek to better support their families as their life circumstances change. The residential parks changes mean there will be more opportunities, there will be more options and there will be better support. That is important, as are the changes to the funeral arrangements.

What I know and understand is that members on this side of the house, as we move through our local communities, are constantly listening to and working with local communities. Whether it is by knocking on doors, making phone calls or being out and about at community events, we are ensuring that, as life circumstances change and as society and community evolve and change, the house is responsive, the team is responsive and the government is responsive in making sure that we are listening, we are acting and we are delivering to make sure that Victoria becomes an even better, stronger, fairer and more decent state. That is the primary role of our team, and we will continue to focus on that as we move forward. I commend the bill to the house.

Brad BATTIN (Berwick) (11:34): I rise on the Residential Tenancies and Funerals Amendment Bill 2024. I thank the member for Sunbury for jumping up; I was just farewelling the Consul General of Japan, who will be heading back home. What an amazing Consul General he has been. From a bipartisan point of view, it has been magnificent. I know this is not on the bill, but that Consul General has done a lot to develop relationships with many in this house which will build for all of us going forward, so everyone in this place thanks him from the bottom of our hearts. The other good thing was I said I would pay for all the coffee but I have just left the room, so someone else can fix that up. So some very good things have come out of this bill already.

One aspect of this bill that is very important, particularly out in the growth corridors, is the amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 and talking about caravan parks and people who are going into lifestyle villages. Traditionally – it was not that long ago – we only really ever heard of retirement homes as places for people to go to towards the end of their life, when they needed extra support et cetera, to have assistance, whether it was medical or social. What we have seen over time is now this development of these lifestyle villages. Obviously we have all visited many of them. I went to one recently that my father-in-law has just moved into. The quality of these facilities now is second to none, I think. The improvements have been magnificent. The good news is they have changed the age requirement at this one and it is now over 50, so I am only 18 months away. I walked in there and thought to myself at first about how people used to always be fearful of going into any village towards that stage in life, because it was an admission of retirement, an admission of where you were heading, whereas now they are actually creating these lifestyle villages. I think it is really important that parliaments and governments keep up with this change.

That is why in this bill there are many parts that we think are heading in the right direction. It is ensuring that we have fairness and openness around rent increases, that we have standardisation across the country and that people going into these residences do not fall into the traps of yesteryear. We know this still happens on occasion, where people who are more vulnerable do get into a position where they are just looking for somewhere to live and end up signing documents that put them in a position that is financially unsustainable. I think it is really important from the whole Parliament’s perspective as this changes – and I know that the member for Ovens Valley said there are 10,000 currently within these facilities across the state and another 12,000 to come over the next five years – that we are changing the rules and the legislation to protect those people going into these villages and to these sites. The last thing that we want to see is what we have seen in the past with some of the organisations that have retirement villages where the funding model effectively takes everything that a person has on the way in. Those that are the most vulnerable are not putting that money aside to fund the next generation; they just want it there to get by. Or they are in circumstances, as we see, where an over-55s or lifestyle village is no longer appropriate given their health outcomes. They need to be able to get that money back out to go into a facility that is suitable, where they can get that extra support. That is why when we are looking at this and at the change – how it is more transparent – we think it is really, really important.

I know the other part of this is around the Funerals Act 2006 and ensuring that prices are available so people can see openly and honestly what is happening. I think the funeral services and the funeral sector over time on occasions have had a negative name in the community, because you are catching people in a position that it is very difficult. I am going to say you are not in a position to negotiate. You generally go into a funeral service at the last minute. You are going in and speaking to someone. You have just lost a partner, parent, friend – whatever it is in those circumstances. You do not feel you are in a position to negotiate. You just think, ‘I’m going to walk in here. This is a place that is going to take care of me.’ We have heard of circumstances in the past where people have been effectively ripped off in that position. It is pretty sad, but the reality is that is what legislation is there for – it is to protect those that are not in a position to have that at the time. So having an open price policy is very important.

Unfortunately for me, we have just lost a friend to cancer. I spoke to her husband – he just went through this process – and he said he could not believe how hard it was to find out things as simple as ‘What is the price of a funeral? How much is it going to cost me right now?’ He is in a circumstance where money was not the biggest issue, but after discussions with his wife, who had a long illness, she effectively just said, ‘Do not waste any money on a funeral. Just do everything on the cheap, whatever you can. People will come along who love me. To be honest, if you save a thousand bucks, put it on the bar and have a drink.’ That was the preference, and that is many people’s preference. I think it is really important when people are in those positions, in those circumstances, that they can have that open and transparent market. Again, it is a market that is very short term. Many of us in this room would have bought a car at some stage. You can go onto Google. I can look up a Hyundai. I can then go and compare five different Hyundai dealers. I can work out who is going to do me the best deal. Then at the end someone throws me a free tank of fuel, and that is the one I am going to go with. That does not happen with funerals, because you are generally in a different circumstance.

One thing we learned from this – I was not even aware of this until I heard from him – was that basically the hospital said to him straight after she passed, ‘Which funeral company are you going with?’ He did not want to think about that at that time. In that circumstance, if you say ‘with X’ – and let us be honest, in my mind if I was doing it, I would go ‘Tobin Brothers’, because I know Tobin Brothers in Berwick are massive, so it would be the first name that came to my head – that might not be the best outcome for financial reasons. I think if you had that openness on there, in today’s world – you do not want to be doing it, but you have to – you could get on your phone and go, ‘I just want to check a few things in here.’ Having the price of a coffin on a website – again, probably in here we do not want to discuss it, but it is just a reality – and I think making sure that we have got that transparency in areas like that is really, really important. We have all been through it, and we have all seen it.

I will go back to the Residential Tenancies Act. We know that in Victoria we have got issues in relation to housing availability. I know through the growth corridors rent is a massive issue, including the cost of rent. The amount and rate that rent has gone up in the last probably two or three years has been horrendous through some of those areas. I do not want to get super political on this part, but we know and understand some of the implications of tax and how housing is working with that. I think the opportunity with this bill is to ensure that we have got confidence and stability in the market. To have those looking at investing – not the people moving into them, but large-scale investors – to build these types of lifestyle villages as an opportunity going forward is nothing short of a positive, because then people have an opportunity to downsize their home. They can move into something like this, which gives them safety and security. A lot of people get to the stage in life where they want to travel, and they know that their house is going to be protected. Every person that moves into one of these generally frees up another family home in the community.

If we can get houses back on the market in these areas for families and young families, that is a positive within the market. It gives people an opportunity to buy a house for themselves or an opportunity for other people to look at an investment they can rent out to others in the community. We have seen it through the growth corridors, where people are struggling to get rental properties. When you see a rental property come on the market, we are talking about 50 people turning up to put their name down to try and rent a property through Berwick or Officer or Pakenham. These are places that probably five years ago would have had around a 4 or 5 per cent vacancy rate at minimum; now it is down to a 0.8 or 0.9 per cent vacancy rate. There are less houses on the market for investment properties. A big issue down there at the moment with many of those properties is that for every three investment properties that go on the market to be sold, only one of them is coming back as an investment property, so we need to be ensuring we free up that housing market. Giving the older generation, who are looking at options and alternatives moving forward, the stability and confidence that they can go into what we are calling caravan parks here but are lifestyle villages will give us the opportunity to free up some of those houses for the next generation to come in and buy some of those properties.

I know we have got the member for Cranbourne in here. We have seen the growth down there, and we are going to continue to see it. I know the member for Bass was here before. My electorate has got 60,000 voters in it now, so the growth is massive out through those areas. Clyde and Clyde North have 10-plus families a day moving in. If we do not have not just new homes but some of these older homes on the market and if we continue to build houses on 600- to 700-square-metre blocks, we are going to take up a lot of land very, very quickly. These lifestyle villages are a genuine opportunity for that generation, who want to free up some cash, have the opportunity to travel, invest in other things they want to do in their future and spend some quality time with their children and grandchildren. These are great opportunities for them to have the facilities – the pool, the gymnasium et cetera – without having to put them all inside their home and a great opportunity to free up cash.

As I said, we are not opposing this bill. We will wait to see the regulations come through, but we do support the concept of having that open, transparent position for the whole of the state that is equivalent across the country, so people moving in have the open, transparent transactions that they deserve for the future.

Paul MERCURIO (Hastings) (11:44): I rise to make my contribution to the Residential Tenancies and Funerals Amendment Bill 2024. I am not really sure if I can say much more that has not already been said by the previous four speakers. I am grateful that the member for Ovens Valley is not opposing this bill, and again I appreciate the thoughts and words that every other member has already made in regard to this bill. The bill will make amendments to part 4A of the Residential Tenancies Act ‍1997, and these changes will bolster consumer protections for residents of residential parks. This is done through requiring part 4A site agreements to be in a prescribed standard form with proper precontractual disclosure to ensure that consumers fully understand all requirements, stating that rent may be increased and providing the formula for how they calculate the rent increase. I have a lot of residential parks in my electorate, and I have had quite a few people coming into my office to talk about their concerns with how the rent is calculated, how the residential village works and contracts. But I will talk about that a little bit later on.

Additionally, this bill is seeking to amend the Funerals Act 2006. When I read what changes are being made I was shocked that they were not already actually in place. The changes being made will require funeral providers to display the prices for their services and coffins and list them online and in a prominent position at the business premise. I have had the unfortunate experience of having to bury my brother and my father, and when reading this bill I think back on those experiences and I cannot remember anything. The fact that my brother committed suicide added an element of difficulty. It was something that I had to come to terms with, and not only me – my mother was with me in my house in New South Wales. I had to break the news to her, and then I had to take her home to deal with this.

I cannot remember what I did, but I must have organised the funeral over the phone as well as flights for my family and things. It was an incredibly stressful time. It was an incredibly painful time. The plane trip from Sydney to Perth was one of the longest plane flights I have ever been on, and I have flown around the world. Getting there, I remember the funeral directors were fantastic. In fact where we had the funeral, I used to go to school with a kid called Ainsley, and his father was the caretaker of Fremantle Cemetery. Ainsley used to have parties there at night, and they would slide down the crematory slide sometimes. We did not do it this time. My brother would have loved that. He did slide down but unfortunately not in the condition we really wanted him to. I do not remember any of the details, so I understand that we need this transparency and for these details to be pretty well spelt out to us.

I digress to say that I had to take my sick dog to the vet. It was a veterinary hospital. Every time they looked at my dog they would come out and say she has got this or that and it is going to be another $4000 or they would go back and come out and say, ‘We need to put a drip in, and that will be $430.’ I found it sort of amusing that there was this running commentary, and I was able to take my dog to another vet that was cheaper. But you are not going to do that when you are trying to organise your brother’s funeral or your father’s funeral. I certainly think being able to clearly understand what the costs are going to be and clearly understand what service is to be provided will help a lot, because quite frankly after going into a funeral home I do not think you are going to turn around and go out and go to another one, so I fully endorse what this bill is trying to achieve.

I might also add that within this bill there is an added penalty for noncompliance, and it enables regulations to prescribe forms and particulars for the goods and services and the coffin price list. Again, this is not to punish funeral providers but to give consumers another level of transparency so that they can make the best decisions for themselves. Consumer advocates like CHOICE have raised concerns about funeral pricing for a long time, citing the need for increased price transparency and the lack of it within the funeral industry. Again, this bill I think is going to be fantastic.

One of the big surprises for me when I went back to collect my brother’s ashes was how expensive that was. Again, I had no idea. I might just add that we scattered my brother’s ashes down at the port in Fremantle, at the dog beach where he used to love to go. When we went down there as a family, no-one was there, and when we scattered his ashes a whole lot of dogs appeared and played along the beach. It was a beautiful moment. I am a bit teary today.

I would like to talk about the Residential Tenancies Act. In this bill we are making changes to the Residential Tenancies Act, which I note has been a bit of an ongoing topic over the last few years in the media. The residential park sector has witnessed significant growth, and with growth comes increased concerns about certain aspects of residential park operations; namely, issues around precontractual disclosure, park site agreements not being standardised across the industry and a lack of consumer protections.

My experience with residential parks was as a councillor for the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council, There was a residential park proposed to go into where I live, in Tyabb. I was always a bit confused by the planning of it, because where they wanted to put the park was low-density housing. They were 5-acre blocks and they could only put one house on them, But for some reason with the planning scheme they were able to put 50 houses on each 5-acre block, which kind of staggered me. I know we need housing. I just thought, ‘If it’s low density, it’s low density,’ but apparently not.

The idea with these parks, and part of the planning, is that the buildings can be removed within a day. I have been through some of these parks, and they are really lovely, but I really do not know how you could take a building out in one day. As I said, a lot of people have come to me who have bought into these parks; they have bought into that lifestyle. I think the process of going to the parks and meeting with the operators of the parks can be really enjoyable. You will have a coffee and maybe a white wine or something. They will take you around and show you the facilities – the bowling greens – and talk about how you can have picnics and families and friends over. I think to some extent the true, deep contractual arrangements may not be as transparent as one would like them to be. As one gentleman said when he came to me, he liked the dream but they were just bleeding him dry.

You buy a house – and there are people saying that the houses are cheaper than perhaps they might normally be; I am not quite sure if that is true or not – and you rent the land underneath, but you also pay fees for upkeep and other things in the park. Of course when you sell you have to pay a certain percentage of the sale price of your house to the company. I did have a couple of people come to me saying, ‘I can’t afford to live here, but I can’t afford to leave.’ I think at that stage in life, when you just wish to retire and enjoy the time ahead and the time left, you do not want to be fearful of the fact that you cannot live the way you want to and in fact may end up with nothing. I do not think that is great, and obviously this bill is working on that.

I also understand that there is some other research. The Minister for Consumer Affairs announced that a research review will be undertaken by the commissioner for residential tenancies alongside the Consumer Policy Research Centre. This will review Victoria’s residential park sector. It will engage with residents of these parks through a survey to gain further understanding of this rapidly growing industry and what changes can be made to improve the lifestyle. I think that is incredibly welcome, and I am looking forward to that happening, as I am sure a lot of people in these parks are.

I think I have said what I came here to say. I am really glad that this bill is before the house today. I am glad that it looks like everyone will be accepting of the bill, and I am very, very happy to recommend this bill to the house.

Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (11:54): I too rise to talk about the Residential Tenancies and Funerals Amendment Bill 2024. In doing so, like the previous member, I thank the member for Ovens Valley for speaking especially about the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 and how it impacts people that live in border towns. To have some clarity come in to regulate the industry a little bit more is a really good thing. I know that in my patch we have a lot of lifestyle living now and old caravan parks have been turned into residential parks. It is a choice that our older generation are making. It actually gives them a little bit of security in being able to own a dwelling; of course the land underneath they still rent. They will have some certainty about the rules and regulations, because if you sit down and read these contracts, they are a little bit hard to digest. If you are not in that industry but in that situation and you want a dwelling or a house and you sign on the dotted line, there are rules and regulations around it. Some are good rules and some are hidden rules, which do spring up at times.

I do note, as the member for Ovens Valley said, we will not oppose this bill, because what we are trying to achieve here is really good. The intention is to change site agreements between residents and site owners to standardise these forms and ensure key information is displayed before an agreement is entered into. As I said before, these are mostly elderly people that are moving out of the properties they have had in town and choosing a new lifestyle. As the member for Hastings said before, they are moving into these lifestyle areas, where there are bowling greens and there are cinemas and theatres that have been built to give a sense of security and community. People may have lost a loved one and be moving as a single person into these environments. This allows them to have companionship and interaction with other people and, as he eloquently put it, to live out the rest of their life in these areas. But we need to make sure that they know what they are signing up for and also, moving on, if something does happen and loved ones pass away, that the generation that is left knows what happens in that next step. If you are trying to sell the property, how will all that run? It is a grey area, and hopefully clearing some of these items up will make it a lot easier.

I used to work in a lot of these places in my role as a plumber. I was able to sit down and talk to people in these lifestyle villages. They really love being there, but things happen. If there are upgrades of infrastructure in the park, whether they be power, gas or water upgrades, hidden in the detail is that they are up for paying some of these fees as a collective. That was always a concern, because some of the people living there have budgeted to a very tight schedule. The hidden costs are the ones that cause all the grief.

There is also the funeral part of this amendment bill. As the member for Hastings said, people really do not look into what happens at the end of life. They sort of push that into the background. So they need to have some clarity about pricing when they have to sit down with the funeral people. If you are planning a funeral for a loved one, you are really not switched on as to what is going on most of the time, because of the grief of losing that loved one. Price really does not seem to matter. It is a very tight window when you are trying to make sure that the send-off for that loved one is done in the right way. We need set prices – standard prices – that everybody knows, so if you choose to upgrade, as such, you know exactly what the bottom line is and where you are starting. That is also a good thing to do.

Down in the Latrobe Valley we have the Gippsland Memorial Park. That is a huge cemetery trust down there. It is not only used for the Latrobe Valley, but a lot of other people come and use the cemetery park to bury their loved ones. There is a crematorium in there as well which they can use. It is a big business, and they do it well. I know back in the day you heard some horror stories about what the end price was from people that went through losing a loved one and getting the bill in the mail, so to speak. They do it much better now.

Latrobe Valley Funeral Services and Dave Hastie down in Gippsland run a fantastic business. It is hard to say ‘fantastic business’ when you are talking about death, but they engage the family all the time. Some of the send-offs that they do have moved from being in a church or in a place at the cemetery, and they have funerals on beaches or they have them in paddocks, and it is great that they can actually do all that. But to actually have that written down so that you can make a conscious decision about how much this is going to cost and where it is going to be when you are at your most vulnerable after losing a loved one is something that is really good to do. This bill is providing these opportunities, and as I said before, it is great that on both sides of the chamber we are in agreement on this.

One story I do have is from working as a plumber at the Gippsland Memorial Park. I am one – probably the only – person who has actually been put into the chamber at the crematorium and been pulled back out and is still able to stand here. I say that because in my role as a plumber I had to be pushed in there to change the gas injectors. They lay you on the trolley – so I am lying on my back – and then they push you in. It is hot and a very tight space, and you flip over and do the work that you need to do. I must say that I made sure that the gas was disconnected and the power was disconnected, because some of the people that work at these funeral places are great people but have a wicked sense of humour. They did put the door down on me and knocked on the window and waved, but I did end up doing the job and coming out.

The next thing that followed was they said, ‘This is great. You’ve done that, but look around.’ There probably would have been, I do not know, 15 or 20 coffins that had been through services and needed to be put into the chamber. So they said, ‘We need you to stay here and make sure that it is burning properly.’ So we had to test all the jets and the pressures to make sure they were right. They rolled the coffin in, and there is a little window where you can actually view it. I watched, it started and that was enough for me; I did not want to see what came next. I am very thankful that I am here. I am sure that the injectors have been changed again, but I still will claim that I am one of the few people who have been in and come out. Whether it is a precursor to what happens down the track I am unsure, whether it be like our member for Euroa, accosted by a wombat, with her life flashing before her eyes – and I will not go as far as the member for Gippsland East. We do not oppose this bill.

Anthony CIANFLONE (Pascoe Vale) (12:04): I too rise to support the Residential Tenancies and Funerals Amendment Bill 2024, and of course I do so in the spirit of Labor long believing that Victorian consumers deserve greater transparency and greater protections in order to make informed choices. That is why as a government we have continued to progress meaningful reforms that support consumer choice and transparency and that also help with the cost of living, because in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis challenging many households, strengthening consumer supports and rights is paramount for this Victorian Labor government. That is of course why we are here today. The bill is focused on enhancing the transparency of information provided to Victorians so that they can make informed and better consumer choices when it comes to the residential parks housing sector and also the funeral industry. I will be focusing the substance of my contribution on the funeral industry, funeral homes and the end-of-life industry.

The death of a friend or family member can be a time of considerable sadness, distress and reflection. For those arranging a funeral these circumstances can impact their usual decision-making abilities, and funeral providers have important roles in guiding consumers through this very delicate and sensitive process. Whilst the funeral industry is certainly one of the most sombre of industries by nature, the funeral industry is also very much big business, which is why improving consumer choice and transparency is so important. With most Australians having to organise, dare we say, at least one funeral in their lifetime, the industry’s revenue according to the ACCC has been previously identified at $1.6 billion. Two publicly listed corporations account for almost a third of the industry, with 26 per cent being InvoCare, which includes White Lady Funerals, Simplicity Funerals and Value Cremations, and 6 per cent forming part of the Propel Group, which is traditionally focused I understand on regional areas. Around 68 per cent of funeral businesses are typically smaller and family-run businesses, and I do have quite a few in my electorate too.

The cost of a funeral service can vary significantly depending on the products and services included, whether it is the ceremony’s location or the service that is marketed. According to the ACCC, costs on average for funerals can range anywhere from $4000 or thereabouts for a simple, no-cremation service, right through to in excess of $20,000 for a full service and burial. Businesses within the funeral industry, like other service providers, are subject to a range of legal obligations, including relevant federal competition and consumer laws, and the funeral services sector is also subject to a range of industry-specific regulations within each state and territory that are in part enforced by that respective jurisdiction. Victoria, for example, did require the registration – and still does – of businesses that provide funeral services but, prior to some of these reforms, not the individual funeral directors.

Funeral pricing has been the subject of significant nationwide scrutiny over several years. CHOICE has previously reported on issues within the funeral industry, including uncertain pricing, misinformation, fees for no service and a highly concentrated market where the ownership of funeral provider businesses is unclear. In 2021 the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, ACCC, released a report on funeral services sector competition and consumer issues. The report highlighted common sector issues across the country, including pricing structures lacking clarity and transparency, which may mislead consumers, and the bundling of goods and services, which can limit consumer choice and access.

Consumers are typically grieving when looking to purchase a funeral and may find it difficult to consider items and prices fully or be vulnerable to being overcharged before making decisions. We have heard some of those stories as part of the debate today. This bill brings Victoria into line with other jurisdictions like New South Wales and Queensland to increase that transparency for funeral home pricing. For example, it proposes to amend the Funerals Act 2006 to require funeral homes to display a price list for all goods and services on their online business website and in prominent positions at their business premises. Funeral providers, for example, will also be required to publish and display a coffin price list in the same place. A failure to comply with these and other requirements will be considered an offence.

Along with every household in my electorate at some stage being consumers of the funeral industry, it is my community that has had – as well as the member for Broadmeadows’ and the member for Preston’s – a longstanding connection to the state’s funeral and crematoria sector. My community is home to or on the border of the Coburg cemetery, John Fawkner cemetery and the Northern Memorial Park. Each of these and around 21 other cemeteries across the north are overseen, managed and maintained by the Greater Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust. I commend the work of the trust, including the chair Michael Doery, deputy chair Liz Beattie, trustee Katerina Angelopoulos and all of the trustees, executive management and hardworking staff who work so respectfully and diligently with families on a daily basis to farewell loved ones and lay them to rest in our community.

Established in 1856, with a 14.5-acre site gazetted a year later, the Coburg cemetery was created, and its first recorded burial was 19-year-old Margaret Sullivan in 1875. During the Spanish flu pandemic, schools were closed and the cemetery was open on Sundays to cope with demand. It reached its capacity in 1971. Coburg has just under 60,000 people buried across its 25 acres as of 7 August this year. Some key people buried at Coburg include William Guthrie Spence, an ALP politician and founder of the AWU; Dick Lee, a Collingwood footballer; James Francis ‘Jock’ McHale, a Collingwood footballer and coach; Charles Web Gilbert, a sculptor; Anna Teresa Brennan, the first woman to graduate in law at the University of Melbourne and the second to be admitted to the Victorian Bar; Albert Sylvester Renny, a jockey who died after a fall at the Fitzroy racecourse; and Sir Alexander George Wales, a former Lord Mayor of Melbourne.

Fawkner cemetery was established in 1906 and designed by Charles Heath. He also designed Coburg town hall. It was the first cemetery in Australia to introduce a grand public mausoleum. It contains the war graves of around 173 Commonwealth service personnel from World War I and World War II. Fawkner spans a huge 113 hectares and a further 282 acres across its northern part. As of August this year, it has received 220,000-plus burials, not including interments of cremated remains.

Some key people buried at Fawkner include Dorothy Knapp, the first person to be interred at Fawkner cemetery, aged four; Thomas ‘Frank’ Francis Traynor, a jazz musician and jazz club proprietor; Revel Cooper, a Noongar artist; Kathleen Best, the founding director of the Women’s Royal Australian Army Corps; Edward Phillip Harrington, a World War I soldier and war poet; John Coleman, Essendon VFL player and coach; Deirdre Cash, author of The Delinquents under the pen name Criena Rohan; Alfred Tipper, showman, cyclist and artist; and of course Mark ‘Chopper’ Read. How many jobs are associated, you ask. 264 employees work across the Greater Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust, so there are a lot of jobs associated with the end-of-life and funeral industry in my community.

I would like to take this opportunity, if I may, given the nature of this bill, to pay a special dedicated tribute to a local community citizen and veteran who recently passed away and whose funeral is coming up on 6 September at the Coburg RSL. Godfrey Camenzuli was a dedicated, passionate and compassionate advocate for our community and country. Godfrey was 81 years old at his passing. He was born on 24 February 1943. He passed, after a prolonged illness and battle, on 24 August 2024. Godfrey was the immediate past president of the Coburg RSL, serving as president from 2013 to 2017. He served in the Australian Army and was a staff sergeant in the Royal Australian Armoured Corps, serving with the 4/19th Prince of Wales Light Horse brigade as well as the Australian Red Cross. He joined the Citizen Military Forces in 1960 and was discharged in 1984, with a bit of time off in between. He also trained in the armoured corps soldiers for Vietnam.

Godfrey was an RSL national life member and a stalwart and saviour of the Coburg RSL when it was going through very tough times quite a few years ago. He was part of the RSL for nearly 25 years, and he held numerous positions on the committee, including as president, vice-president and former past president. He was granted life RSL membership in 2013. He was also awarded the Humanitarian Overseas Service Medal, the Reserve Force Medal, the Defence Long Service Medal and the Red Cross Meritorious Service Award. He was the person who welcomed everyone to the Coburg RSL. He was a feature of the RSL and would love to share a yarn and a drink with every single patron or member there. We still have our branch meetings there as the Pascoe Vale Labor branch, and he was always there, happy to have a chat and have his say. He was truly a mate of Coburg. That is the best way to describe him. He will be missed.

I express our community’s deep sorrow and condolences to the Coburg RSL and RSL Victoria, but of course I express my deepest sympathies to Godfrey’s family, loved ones and friends, including his daughter Paula Camenzuli and his partner Kerri Marshall. Godfrey’s funeral service, as I said, will be taking place at the Coburg RSL on 6 September at 2 pm. It was his final wish that his funeral be held on a Friday afternoon so everyone could knock off work, celebrate his life and go home early. That was the sort of bloke that he was. Michael Pianta, the president of the Coburg RSL, has asked me to convey the following message:

Rest in peace, our brother in arms … your service is completed.

Lest we forget. On that note, I truly do commend this bill to the house. We all will have something to do with the funeral sector at some stage in our lives. For those left behind, let it be a fair process.

Kim O’KEEFFE (Shepparton) (12:14): Today I rise to make a contribution on the Residential Tenancies and Funerals Amendment Bill 2024. The bill is for an act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 in relation to part 4A parks and to amend the Funerals Act 2006 in relation to funeral goods and services price lists, coffin price lists – providing more transparency – and for other purposes. I acknowledge the many contributions in the house today, particularly that of the member for Morwell, who finished on an interesting note by sharing his own funeral parlour experiences in his former plumbing role, which was quite interesting. Many of the members in the chamber have contributed some interesting experiences.

The bill includes reforms that ensure that Victorians have the appropriate information when making critical decisions about their housing arrangements and when making funeral arrangements following the passing of a loved one. Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 residential parks are regulated under part 4A of the act and are commonly marketed as a lower cost or alternative accommodation option. Most of the time people living in residential parks move into a small house or unit and they then rent the land from the owner, who are often land lease companies. With the existing pressures on the Victorian housing market, limited housing availability and affordability and substantial increases in rent, more and more Victorians are seeking alternatives and are turning to the more affordable option of residential parks and other options.

During the current housing crisis there has been a substantial growth in the land lease industry, which is expected to double in the next five years. This pressure presents new risks, as the market is not well regulated and there are few protections for residents who lease land. I note this bill will amend part 4A of the Residential Tenancies Act to require a site agreement to be in a prescribed standard form, prescribe specific methods for calculating rent increases and strengthen precontract disclosure requirements. It is hoped that these reforms will improve clarity and transparency for consumers entering residential park contracts, provide better support for residents to make informed choices and respond to concerns raised by residents and their advocates, as well as strengthen consumer protections and clarify rights and obligations.

It is critical that we move towards better processes to access housing and to ensure that protections and guidelines are in place and that there are no surprises. When disputes present themselves it can be very stressful for both parties. Vulnerable tenants can be extremely disadvantaged when they do not have the resources, knowledge and, often, financial capacity to defend themselves. Lifestyle villages have become increasingly popular for retirees or those wanting to downsize. I have heard there have been some issues and disputes within those residences, so hopefully this bill will address residents’ issues and have a clearer process in place. As pointed out previously, people are having to look for more affordable housing alternatives, so it is no surprise that this bill is before the house and there is a need for reform.

Caravan parks are also becoming popular for both short-term and long-term occupancy. Regional Victoria has lots of visitors and tourists, and caravan parks play a significant role in filling some of the accommodation needs. There is need to have better conditions and transparency and confidence and stability in the market. During this housing crisis is a good time to – and we should – do more and make it easier for someone to downsize, as this creates more available housing in the market.

The increased land tax has had a significant detrimental impact on the housing market and has led to increased rent and less rental properties and landlords selling up as they cannot bear the financial impact. The state budget has failed to address housing, and with rising cost-of-living pressures, it is any wonder that residential park tenancy is becoming a more affordable option.

We are going backwards fast in my electorate when it comes to housing, and those reaching out for housing support have significantly increased. We actually have one of the highest rates of homelessness in the state. This government is not meeting its housing targets, and the numbers of homeless people will continue to increase.

My electorate has many residential parks that people call home. In recent months my office has been providing assistance to many residents from these residential parks who are eligible for the 2023–24 energy bill relief program for eligible embedded network households. It has been really interesting and great to actually hear of their experiences living in residential parks, but some of their demands and needs are not being met.

While Queensland and Western Australian residents have been receiving the first quarter grants of the 2024–25 Commonwealth government electricity rebates since 1 July this year, which will total $300 per household over the full year, Victorians continue to wait. So on the one hand we talk about improvement and support, and on the other hand, when there is financial incentive, Victorians are forced to wait, when they need assistance right now. The financial distress that many Victorians are facing is unacceptable, and it is due to this government’s financial mismanagement. Regional Victoria is a beautiful place to live, and our residential park tenants are proud of their homes. They have a sense of belonging and a place to call home, they are part of a residential community, but like with many Victorians, I hear time and time again of their financial struggles.

Another act the Residential Tenancies and Funerals Amendment Bill 2024 amends is the Funerals Act ‍2006, which aims to strengthen transparency with funeral providers. In particular the bill inserts a new section into the act, section 23A, which provides for the display of funeral goods and services price lists and coffin price lists on their internet sites and at business premises. A funeral provider must display the provider’s funeral goods and services prices and coffin prices either on the provider’s website or in a prominent position at the provider’s business premises. Failure to do so will result in 60 penalty units, which in today’s terms is close to $11,000.

Victorians should be supported when making a decision when they are grieving a loved one and are at their most vulnerable. It is important that there are protections and penalties in place for those who seek to break the law or fail to comply with our laws, and we must ensure best practice. The cost of a funeral can be stressful for a family, and having clear access to costs online will alleviate the pressures of making decisions when you front up at a funeral parlour with no idea of what the costs will be. Many of us have been through this experience, and it is confronting, as family members are bereaved and not in a good state of mind. Most operators are doing the right thing and are genuine and care for the people that they support. It is difficult having to make financial decisions at that time. The funeral industry are supportive of these changes.

Like many of us in this place, we have gone through this experience. I can recall how hard it was for my family when we lost my dad due to quite tragic circumstances. It was a shock, and when you are dealing with such an incredibly sad time and all of the family members are grieving in their own way, it is hard to try and work through the funeral arrangements and make sensible decisions or decisions that are appropriate to all. I think, when I look back to that time and also when my mum passed away, it would have been so much more helpful to have had access to some of the costs prior to visiting the funeral parlour.

In my electorate recently it was revealed that prices at the Shepparton Public Cemetery will be increasing significantly, and this will have a severe impact on families in our community, particularly those already facing financial hardship. For example, burying a child in the Shepparton Public Cemetery now costs $3391, up from $565. That is a 500 per cent increase. In addition, Muslim burials have increased from $1450 to $3779, a 160 per cent increase. As you can imagine, exorbitant fees have been a shock and are unfair, placing undue additional financial stress on grieving families. The cost of a funeral is already extremely high; many families are already struggling with the rising cost of living, and these increased burial costs are unacceptable. It is unacceptable that these changes were implemented without any consultation or consideration.

Losing a loved one is an incredibly difficult time for any family. We should be looking at ways to support and assist families, not adding extra financial burdens at a time when they can least afford it. It is actually astonishing to think that this government would stoop this low by increasing burial fees ‍– yet another financial impact on Victorians when they can least afford it. Finally, we do not oppose this bill. Hopefully the changes in this bill will make for a better and fairer system.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (12:22): I am very pleased to rise to speak on this bill. We note that part of the impetus for these changes is that there is a growth in the land lease industry but there are not sufficient protections in place to meet the growing needs of this important sector. Of course we know that some of the drivers are existing housing pressures in Victoria. These are not exclusive to Victoria; they are nationwide and certainly occur in various parts of the world. But I will just make one point: you cannot on the one hand sledge Victoria with regard to the availability of housing and on the other hand oppose our social and affordable housing developments. The two do not go together, so if you are going to sledge, you need to be able to match it.

A member interjected.

Nina TAYLOR: Yes, just put it out there. But anyway, coming back to the bill, I believe and my understanding is that we do have bipartisan support on the bill. I am very relieved about that, noting that the incentive or what is driving people towards also the residential parks and alternative accommodation options is that they are being marketed as low-cost options and potentially viable alternatives. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that per se, provided there is transparency for the consumer, hence the bill that we are debating here today.

Let us face it, when you make a decision, whenever you move in this particular context – you are going to take out a contract to move into a residential park – that is a really big decision, particularly, I should say, for senior Victorians. They are not necessarily at the start of their career in life, so their financial capacity is likely to be more constrained. Hence it is even more important that there are adequate protections in place so they know what they are getting into – so that everyone who is making a decision to, for instance, get into a residential park can pull out the calculator and be able to accurately say, ‘I know exactly how much this is going to cost me, and I know if I can afford it or not.’

But there is a further limb to this. There is also the element of being able to understand their obligations, including the financial costs involved not only in living in or exiting a residential park but also how rent increases will be calculated, bond arrangements and additional costs and fees. You can see how someone could, if they were not fully informed, very quickly get into trouble, or perhaps they change their mind. Perhaps they get in there and go ‘Actually, this isn’t for me’ but realise they are restricted in their capacity to get out of that situation because of fees et cetera that they had not anticipated at the time of making the big decision to take out a contract with that particular proprietor for potentially the rest of their life. This is why it is a really good step forward, this bill, noting this is not the end of the conversation on this issue. I am very happy to see, because of the growing market, the Minister for Consumer Affairs has commissioned the commissioner for residential tenancies to partner with the Consumer Policy Research Centre to review Victoria’s residential parks sector to understand concerns and opportunities to strengthen consumer protection. You can see that we are really diving in a very deep and profound way into this issue because it matters, and we want to make sure that all Victorians who are going to literally invest in these particular living circumstances are adequately protected.

Having said that, we were not going to wait for the outcomes of that particular review, noting that there is still more to do in this space, but at the same time we want to make sure that no stone is left unturned with regard to doing everything we can to give Victorians the information they need and deserve. It is only fair, and fairness is certainly what our Allan Labor government is all about. We have also heard stakeholder concerns; that goes without saying. But this is why we were not waiting, because we know there is an imperative to move these reforms along, hence that is why the important regulatory controls are being brought about with this legislation.

The kinds of things that the legislation will amend require that all residential park site agreements are in a prescribed form as determined in regulations. This will mean that consumers can more easily understand agreements and are able to compare and contrast different agreements to get the best outcome for that situation. That is really practical and sensible reform. Secondly, it is to expand the types of information. I have to say when you read it you think this should go without saying, but in any case it is great that we can have that properly legislated. For instance, things like the name and contact details of the site owner would appear to be a fundamental – the site owner’s representative at the park, prescribed entitlements, financial matters and obligations for when someone enters into or leaves a residential park, including but not limited to bond arrangements and requirements around fees and charges. Finally, it will require that rent increases occur by a fixed amount explicitly set out in the site agreement, including the formula and method for calculating a rent increase. This way prospective residents can know exactly what they are entering into and what the costs can be so that they can do everything possible to mitigate the risk of them ending up in severe financial circumstances and/or not being able to get out of those circumstances should they wish to change their arrangements.

I will move to the other aspect of the bill, which is to improve consumer transparency so that consumers, particularly at that most vulnerable point in time – that is, when they are making funeral arrangements – know what they are getting into. Of course everyone at one time or another in life is going, unfortunately – it is just part of life – to have to undertake this kind of organisational activity. I am trying to think of how to describe preparing for a funeral.

A member interjected.

Nina TAYLOR: Yes, exactly. This is just a part of life. I do remember, if I can take myself back 30 years to when my father passed away, my mother and my brother and I were just in a blur. I think that is pretty typical of grief. I remember distinctly having to try and choose coffins – I am not trying to be too macabre; in this context it is relevant – and you feel torn because you think, ‘We have to respect my late father’s memory.’ You have got a terrible cheap-looking horrible thing that you feel embarrassed about and then you have got the top-of-the-grade thing. Because you are so emotionally torn and invested in that situation, you really do not want to be making those decisions, but you have to because you have to honour the memory of your loved one, and you want to do that.

I am so thrilled – I am actually relieved; it is relief I am feeling – that there is a much more up-front mechanism now in place to ensure that when you are in that haze of grief and pain at least the difficulty of making those decisions is minimised. It is far simpler, and it is just fairer, so that you can actually focus more on nurturing that emotional vulnerability that you feel at that time instead of having to really stress about the cost of the funeral per se. Then maybe you can spend more time looking at flowers but also connecting with your relatives and the other aspects, which are truly far more important on an emotional level.

I know I did go off on a little bit of an emotional tangent on that, but the fact is that is what funerals are. They are extremely emotional situations. But here we are, putting practical mechanisms in place to ensure that those processes are at least a lot more equitable and transparent and you can focus on the elements of the actual ceremony or event that are truly meaningful to you, rather than being burdened by confusion over what exactly you are investing in when you are seeking to honour your loved one in that situation.

Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (12:32): I rise today – and I often say I will make this brief, and that never happens. A long story short has never happened before in my life. There are a few things that I do want to put on the record and comment on in this bill, the Residential Tenancies and Funerals Amendment Bill 2024, and the residential parks is probably a good place to start. We do have quite a few of these in my electorate; they are mainly used for workers accommodation. In fact I know a lot of the corporate farms have gone through the process of trying to get dwellings for workers accommodation on-farm, which has been very, very difficult, so in a lot of cases putting residential caravan parks on their properties or other land that they own has been a way that they can actually do it – or dispersed camping or whatever the case may be.

A lot of these residents can be long-term, season to season, but they can also be quite transient and move around. A lot of the big farms will also have residential parks in different regions. When you have farms or companies that own almonds in Robinvale, potatoes over the river, strawberries down near Shepparton and stone fruit through the Swan Hill–Murray Valley region, to have standardised forms makes sense. It will probably have minimal impact as far as the industry goes, and stakeholder feedback, from what I understand, has been quite positive.

It is a good thing if we can make it a little easier for workers accommodation to exist in the form of caravan parks. I will give the almond industry – or the nut industry, with pistachios as well – in our region as an example. The workforce, particularly that we use, are grey nomads that come down with their caravans. There are also, obviously, permanent cabins around what are effectively residential parks, but the workforce is grey nomads that spend their winters up in north Queensland and the Northern Territory, travelling around doing all that wonderful retirement living in caravans. Then they will come and drive shakers, drive pick-ups and drive machinery during the summer and harvest food for things like almond milk and almond meal and all sorts of other things that almonds contribute to the food chain. So it is actually a good thing. It is highly regulated already. To have standardised form and agreements is a good thing.

I also did want to touch on the amendments to the Funerals Act 2006, which have come about due to the changes in legislation in other jurisdictions. It is obviously very important in cross-border communities, as we have heard the member for Ovens Valley point out and also the member for Morwell, to have that standardisation. In cross-border communities, and I understand that it is difficult to get your head around if you have never lived in a border community, but in a lot of these places – I will use Mildura, Wentworth, Gol Gol and Buronga as an example and Robinvale and Euston as another one – infrastructure is largely on the Victorian side but the development that we are seeing is on the New South Wales side. So a lot of people live and build their forever homes on the New South Wales side but deal with everything in Victoria: they work in Victoria, their kids are educated in Victoria and the cemetery is in Victoria. It is very important for cross-border communities to have Victoria change in order to ensure that the legislative requirements are broadly similar to New South Wales and SA.

SA is exactly the same. My electorate and the member for Lowan’s electorate go right over to South Australia. When you have got people living in Victoria – Murrayville is a perfect example. It is a town of nearly 300 people, but Pinaroo is over the South Australian border. They are very closely connected. We saw in COVID that having those borders closed meant that the residents of Murrayville could not go interstate to get their fuel, which is what they had to do largely. There is a supermarket in Murrayville and there is fuel there now, but when those borders were closed they were left without fuel and they could not travel far from home. That was a pretty scary prospect. Some cross-border thinking is a step in the right direction, and it needs to follow all the legislative requirements of course.

I did want to spend a little bit of time talking about death, given that is the nature of the funeral industry. We have heard several stories today about grief and organising funerals. We have heard about the member for Euroa’s near-death experience after an altercation with a wombat, which has caused many a problem to her baby, to the person that she is carrying – quite scary. I certainly have never been attacked by a wombat, but I cannot imagine that it was a nice experience. My family is currently in the process of planning my Uncle Charlie’s funeral. He passed away on Friday after a long battle with illness. Uncle Charlie only came into our lives 20 or 25 years ago, after we discovered that my Italian grandfather, having lived here before his wife arrived, had a whole other family. The two brothers and the sister, when we found her after adoption, were welcomed into the family and have very much been a large part of our family, for all of my adult life in fact. We lost his daughter Nerida many years ago. When I heard at the family wedding on Saturday that Uncle Charlie had passed away the day before, I thought, ‘I know his daughter Nerida will be waiting for him with open arms and that big beaming smile of hers.’ I know that they probably have not stopped talking since. So rest in peace, Uncle Charlie.

I also wanted to pay tribute to a high school friend of mine who was tragically killed in a race car accident, actually, a couple of weeks ago. Again, you see the prices. Someone who is 45 years old obviously is not expecting something like that to occur, regardless of which state you are in. He was in Western Australia. You see the GoFundMe fundraisers that come out after a tragic incident like that and the amount of money they have to raise to be able to pay tribute to their loved ones. Having to go through all of that rigmarole, as we have heard many members on both sides today talk about, you are in such a blur at such a tragic time. If we can at least look into it and see very clearly what the costs associated with burials are, then that is a good thing. But I did want to take a moment to pay tribute to that very old friend of mine that I went to school with who, like I said, was tragically killed in a racing car accident a couple of weeks ago. Vale, Evan. He will forever be 45.

Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (12:40): I too rise to speak on the Residential Tenancies and Funerals Amendment Bill 2024. I have been waiting to speak on this bill and these issues before this house for some time. I am just looking around because I did see the minister here, the honourable member for Dandenong, just briefly before. I thought it was great that she was here listening to this bill before the house.

I am so proud to be able to stand here and talk about it, because this bill addresses issues and challenges and is now providing the solutions and opportunities for folks not just in the Laverton electorate but right across Victoria. I would like to say ‘seniors’, or those just a little bit older and wiser than me; it is really the people 55 years and over who are living in residential parks. This is a wonderful opportunity for folks in this house to talk about some of the many, many challenges these residents have been facing. This bill is going to address them and solve so many of those challenges, and I am going to talk about that today.

I want members in the chamber to imagine for a second that they are in their late 50s – here is the minister here. You may not be far off being in your late 50s. Maybe you are in your early 60s and you are looking to downsize your home. Maybe your kids have moved out of the house – they have flown the nest, as they say – and they no longer need you to have that really big home you have been living in. Maybe you are a renter and you have saved up some money to move into a residential park unit. Or maybe you have retired and you are looking for a place that has that wonderful sense of community, with fabulous people who want to do things with you in those later years of your life. That is what residential parks can be about, and it is what attracts so many people across this great state to live in them.

In my electorate of Laverton I happen to have two of these residential parks. There is Palm Lake Resort in Truganina, which I have been to on many occasions – so many I have lost count. There are great people living there. Each time I go there I am absolutely amazed by the warm welcome I receive from residents. There are awesome residents, and I am going to name two of my faves: Neil and Carmel. I know that they will be listening to this speech. This is to name just two that are in Trug and that watched just a few weeks ago when I spoke about our government’s proposed reforms, of which this bill acquits just a few. There is also Ingenia Federation village in Albion, just along Ballarat Road. Since becoming the member for Laverton I have got to know the folks living in that residential park and heard about their experiences and their passion for their community and the Albion community. These are amazing people. They are mums and dads; they are our mums and dads.

After speaking with both communities, it quickly became clear to me some years ago that there were things amiss. I was starting to hear some pretty terrible things, some issues that we are going to tackle in this bill, and they were common – they were shared across the residential parks and shared by residents who lived, let us face it, on either side of my electorate. These issues included things about how rent was calculated. In many, many instances I was told that residents were paying up to half or even more than half of their pensions to cover the rental costs. There were maintenance issues – things like rails and ramps – that required residents to basically hound their managers just to get fixed. Rails and ramps may not be an issue when you are 55, 56 or 57 when you move in, but if you are staying there well into your 60s and 70s and 80s and hopefully beyond, they become things that enable you to get out and about in the local area and do all the fun stuff that you moved into the residential park for in the first place.

We are talking about things like exit fees. If you are a resident, you cannot just leave if you do not like the way the park is run. You have to pay a percentage of the value of that demountable home in order to leave – you cannot just leave. What that means is that residents often find themselves effectively trapped in their own homes because they must pay for the privilege of leaving. These are just some of the issues that have been raised with me when it comes to living in these residential parks. Some of the conduct of managers and these companies running them is absolutely unconscionable, which is exactly why we are here in this place today talking about reforms in this bill that will change the way things operate.

You would be forgiven for thinking that these parks are retirement villages. I have walked into them and thought, ‘My God, I would love to live somewhere like here when retiring with my husband Scott. This is fabulous. Some of them have cinemas. They have spas. They have pools. They would be great places to retire to.’ But since I have been scratching beneath the surface I have found that sometimes they are not great places to retire to, and we need them to be. We want them to be great places for folks to live in and spend the later part of their lives doing all the things they imagine themselves being able to do. They deserve to do that, and that is what this bill is about.

We did a lot of incredible work in reforming the Retirement Villages Act 1986 to give better protections to elderly residents who live within these communities. But residential parks are not retirement villages, and under the current legislation they are actually classified, shockingly – can you believe it? – in the same category as caravan parks. We have got the member for Melton over there; I know he is an avid caravaner, or I should say motorhomer, now. And as a camper I should say these are not caravan parks. Palm Lake and Ingenia Federation retirement villages are not caravan parks.

I want to acknowledge the most incredible woman – I know that there are many members of the house who will do so today, because she has advocated tirelessly for some of the most vulnerable Victorians right across the country who are living in these situations – and that is Judith Duff. I know Judy, and I know she will be listening today. I want to give you a big shout-out, Judy. You are an incredible woman, absolutely incredible. This bill is before the house and there are members on both sides of this chamber talking about these important changes today because of you, Judy. You have done good – you have done real good.

Judy heads up the Manufactured Home Owners Association Victoria, and we have had many, many, many discussions about the challenges folks are facing. Judy has been instrumental in going around and talking to other members in this place about the parks in their electorates. She has gone out across Victoria and talked to folks about the situation that is happening in their parks and about what is going on – I do not like saying that they are caravan parks, because people do not consider them as parks; they consider them their home. These conversations and your advocacy, Judy, have been listened to. When I heard a few weeks ago the minister announce that we would be tackling these issues by introducing much-needed reforms for residential parks, I was so happy and so satisfied. I know, Judy, that you will be over the moon. You will have been at home having a cup of tea listening to the whole debate this morning and this afternoon.

I note that the opposition will not be opposing this bill. The changes we make here today will be absolutely life-changing for the residents who are out there listening. As a result of this work the minister has commissioned the commissioner for residential tenancies to go and partner with the Consumer Policy Research Centre to review this sector so that we can continue, importantly, to strengthen protections for residents who live in these parks. We are not waiting for this review to make the change, and that is what is most important. There are things that we know are not working, and they can be fixed right now. That is why they are before the house today in this bill.

In my eagerness to talk about this, I have run out of a lot of time for the changes in the bill. I know my colleagues who have met with Judy are going to talk about some of those changes. I do want to give a huge shout-out to the minister, who has expedited the reforms in this space and brought the bill before the house today. The minister has been an absolutely fabulous friend to the likes of Judy and the many hundreds, if not thousands, of vulnerable Victorians that she has been representing. The minister has listened, and she has gone ahead and found some solutions and opportunities for change and legislative change that will make people’s lives in these residential parks so much better. So I do want to give a big shout-out to the minister. It has been a long time coming. Judy, I am going to end by saying a big thankyou to you. I commend the bill to the house.

Gabrielle DE VIETRI (Richmond) (12:50): I speak today in support of the Residential Tenancies and Funerals Amendment Bill 2024, and I thank the government for bringing forward this piece of legislation. I have a few contributions to the debate, as there are some issues that this bill seeks to address that could benefit from further consideration. The Greens will be supporting this bill because it makes a start in addressing some of the areas of concern for the thousands of older Victorians, especially those living in land lease villages, and it strengthens consumer protections in the funeral industry. As a state, we have been lagging behind other jurisdictions on both of these issues. The government has taken an important, albeit small, step in the right direction with this legislation.

Land lease villages are a rapidly growing sector, one that has had little to no regulation or protections for residents. Approximately 22,000 older Victorians, many of whom are retirees with limited financial resources, live in these villages, and without proper protections and oversight of operators, the residents remain vulnerable. The Greens strongly support the bill’s introduction of standardised site agreements as they will provide much-needed consistency and fairness. For too long many residents have been pressured to sign complex, non-standard contracts, contracts that have at times been unfair or misleading, placing undue stress on those residents. Everyone in this state is deserving of transparency and proper protections when it comes to their homes. This has been a key ask from stakeholders for a very long time, and this part of the bill is particularly welcome.

The bill seeks to make some necessary changes, but there are further issues significantly impacting land lease villages that we should also be taking action on. While the provisions regarding precontractual disclosure and defining the CPI referenced in rent increases are not objectionable, they are relatively minor compared with more significant issues that the residents are facing. Victoria needs a registration system for land lease villages, similar to those in Queensland and South Australia. There should be reliable data on the number, the location and the size of these diverse villages as well as a record of site owners.

Further, this bill does not address the unfair and exploitative fees that residents face. The dwellings in these villages represent major assets, often a resident’s entire life savings. Residents can come up against unbelievably exorbitant exit fees, and their homes can only be sold with the landowner’s consent. The unacceptable power imbalance that exists between residents and the landowners needs further remedy.

The dispute resolution processes that are currently in place are inadequate. Residents have shared stories with me of intimidation and of retaliatory moves by the managers. Establishing a retirement housing ombudsman, a dedicated service to provide free, fair and binding determinations, would be far more effective than having to go through VCAT, which is an impossible option when facing wealthy site owners. These owners are often large businesses with legal representation at their disposal and money to burn.

In summary, the Greens support this bill because it addresses important issues and represents a positive step forward. However, I urge the government not to become complacent. We must continue to consult residents, listen deeply to their concerns and remain committed to further reforms that protect them from exploitation and abuse. I look forward to the report from the commissioner’s research project, which will hopefully lead to more comprehensive legislation that truly addresses the needs of land lease village residents in Victoria.

Daniela DE MARTINO (Monbulk) (12:55): I rise to speak with pleasure on this bill today, the Residential Tenancies and Funerals Amendment Bill 2024, and it pleases me greatly to see that there is multipartisanship on this bill. It is being supported by all in the chamber, which is a fantastic position to be in, because I think, as many have noted, this bill is all about enhancing transparency of information so that Victorians are better informed when they make their choices as consumers.

Finding somewhere to live and the loss of a loved one are two of the most stressful life events that people can go through. When we are looking for somewhere to live there is a lot that we take into consideration, but there is often a really emotional response. People see somewhere, it looks lovely, it feels nice and they are drawn in, and then to not have transparency in the pricing and for people to find that they are then trapped in a situation that they feel quite vulnerable in when it comes to the amount of money they have to spend is not ideal. This bill goes quite a long way to addressing that. We know there is more work to be done, but this is a great step forward.

I wanted to address, first and foremost, transparency in funeral pricing. Six years ago we lost Dad, and it was Mum and I who started to sit down and make all the funeral arrangements for him. It was sudden and it was unexpected. So there is the shock and the trauma of losing someone you did not think was going to be gone, and the next thing you know, a funeral director is there. And they are very empathic and calm, saying all the right things and being quite lovely at a time of great stress and sadness and shock, and then out comes the folder. The folder has a range of different things you can choose, and as the member for Albert Park mentioned before, one of the things to choose is a casket. At the risk of sounding macabre, this is the reality of it – and I think there are probably many people in the chamber who have been through the situation of arranging a funeral for a loved one.

Looking at it, Mum sees the first casket on the front page, and it is a beautiful one – if you can so describe one. It is made of solid wood, and it is quite lovely; it is very ornate. Mum says, ‘Oh, that’s lovely. I like that for Dad.’ And I say, ‘Oh, it is quite beautiful. Where is the price? How much is it?’ And the funeral director says, ‘I will come back to you on that. Just keep looking.’ So we keep looking, and there are other caskets, and I say, ‘I think they’re getting probably cheaper as we go through,’ because you can see the quality diminishes. So I am thinking, ‘Okay, the most expensive one I think is on the front page.’ Finally I say, ‘So how much is that one?’ And from recollection – I do not have an invoice for it; I have got an invoice for the one we ended up with but not that one – it was somewhere around the $15,000 mark. And I said, ‘Mum, I think Dad would probably turn in that casket if you spent that amount of money on it, to be quite honest.’ And she said, ‘Oh, but it’s lovely.’ I said, ‘Mum, that’s a lot of money, and right now you’re very emotional, so let’s have a look at the other ones.’ And so we ended up with one that was about $2300. I have just checked it, because I found the invoice for the funeral and all the costs associated. It was over $11,000 for this funeral, which included cremation, so it was a lot of money.

But it occurred to me at the time that there was very little transparency in what was going on. At the time I owned my own business, and when you sell goods on a shelf you do not hide your pricing. You do not let someone go, ‘Oh, that food looks really tempting and lovely. I’d like to pick that up. I’m only going to find out at the point of sale how much that costs me.’ You would know at the point of selecting that item exactly how much it was going to cost, because that is what is required when you walk into a store. There is either a price tag on it – the old-fashioned way – or there is a price label on the shelf. It is not difficult to do. The reason it has not been done is because they have not had to do it. And what a shame and what an indictment on the industry itself that this opacity and obfuscation has continued for as long as it has.

So I am beyond delighted that, as a government, once again we have seen an injustice, we have seen something that basically does not pass the pub test and we have done something about it. Let us legislate to compel funeral services to be transparent and to be clear in how they price at a time of people’s deepest sorrow and greatest vulnerability.

Sitting suspended 1:00 pm until 2:02 pm.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.