Tuesday, 4 February 2025

Bills

Consumer and Planning Legislation Amendment (Housing Statement Reform) Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Gabrielle Williams:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Tim McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (16:15): I am delighted to be back here in 2025 and to rise to make a contribution on the Consumer and Planning Legislation Amendment (Housing Statement Reform) Bill 2024. It is another year, and this is another attack on rental providers, which I find quite astonishing. In their bid to try to win votes off the Greens, Labor forget about the hardworking Victorians who have invested in second houses to get themselves ahead and to build their family’s futures, which is another attack on the great Australian dream.

Let me make it clear: Labor’s war on rental providers is a war on renters. It is a war on nurses and a war on teachers, because 19 per cent of our rental providers are teachers and nurses who own one or maybe two properties. They rent them out in order to supplement their income and provide for their future. These people are good, hardworking men and women. They are aspirational and they want to build a better future, yet they are also the very same people who are bearing the brunt of these Labor changes. By punishing these hardworking rental providers Labor is also punishing the families who then go on and rent these properties. In the current cost-of-living crisis and the housing crisis Labor is failing to support the people they claim to support.

But make no mistake, the Liberals and the Nationals support renters. We are the party of renters and rental providers, and we are also the party for aspirational Victorians who want to see their bills lowered and the cost of living decrease. We also support better standards in the rental and real estate sectors, and we support greater training and transparency. What we do not support is the constant shifting of the goal posts that leads to higher costs for renters and greater uncertainty for property owners.

There are plenty of great aspects to this bill, I have got to say, that we are we are very pleased to get behind – many sensible and commonsense aspects – but as always Labor want to just push that little bit harder and hurt the proactive people who want to support the rental housing pool, which will in turn hurt the renter in the long run. And if they have not hurt schoolteachers and nurses enough already, they are giving them a backhander on the way past.

There are a couple of things we have serious concerns about. This is an omnibus bill covering consumer affairs, planning and the Attorney-General. I am sure my colleagues will each provide an insight about the changes in this legislation, but obviously I will focus more on the consumer affairs portions of the bill.

Can I remind the house that 71 per cent of rental providers have only one rental property, so we are not talking about property barons with hundreds of properties who can influence the property rental market or influence the price that people pay to rent a property. Seventy-one per cent of rental providers only have the one property, and as I say, many of them are schoolteachers, mums and dads. Nineteen per cent of those are schoolteachers or registered nurses. These are mum-and-dad investors wanting to build a retirement plan. They have aspirations to secure their own self-managed retirement, to remove themselves from the pension pathway and look after their own welfare and their own future. They have chosen to purchase property and subsequently rent out that property to support themselves into the future. Most of these mum-and-dad investors have mortgages, so they are also battling high interest rates and the cost-of-living crisis that has been driven primarily by the Allan Labor government’s poor decision-making.

In terms of the bill, part 2 makes amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997. Many of these amendments address Labor’s promised changes as per their housing statement, which we know has not gone that well. The 800,000 houses over 10 years does not look like it is going to come to fruition. That should have been 80,000 a year, and I do not think we are anywhere near that. But under the changes any and all rental applications and agreements will have to be made using prescribed forms, ensuring consistency across all agencies. That is a good thing. We do not need people applying for a rental property through agency A and then when they go to agency B to apply for a similar property having to fill out another form with different questions and different requirements. The rental market is mature enough to have consistency in application forms, and we strongly support this concept.

The bill also makes it an offence to solicit or attempt any form of rental bidding, again a commonsense approach. This means that an agent can only accept offers for a property at the price it is advertised at. Rental bidding can also be where a potential renter offers incentives to increase their chances of winning that property. They might say they will give six months rent up-front or different inducements or appetisers that would help them win that rental property. This bill limits the ability to offer rent in advance as a way of incentivising an offer, capping the maximum rent payable in advance at one month. As I said earlier, the coalition are strong supporters of a fair and equitable renting system, and we strongly support this change.

Further changes are being made to the period of notice required under rental increases, with the limit extending from 60 to 90 days in the case of either a rent increase or a notice to vacate. Under the current climate I fully support this. If you do get a notice to vacate in 60 days, which it currently is, it will be very difficult to find a property in those 60 days. We support moving that out to 90 days. It is a positive step forward.

The bill also seeks to repeal sections 91ZZD and 91ZZDA of the Residential Tenancies Act, thus removing the right of rental providers to issue a notice to vacate without reason at the end of the first term of a fixed-term rental. That is one of the two main points that we have a major concern with, and so do the Real Estate Institute of Victoria and rental providers; I will go into that a little bit later in my contribution. We have major concerns with this part. I say the government has done enormous good work to make this bill. It strengthens the opportunities for renters and gives them a fair go, which we support, but if the bill gets through in this current form, it will undo all that good work by removing the right of rental providers to issue a notice to vacate without reason at the end of the first fixed term.

Agents must provide a fee-free option to pay rent – another good initiative. The bill also makes it a requirement that any house that is advertised for rent must meet the minimum standards at the time of advertisement. This includes smoke alarms. In addition to this, new requirements around the retention and destruction of personal information collected by an agency are listed, increasing privacy and security for non-successful applicants – again, positive steps forward.

Part 3 makes amendments to the Estate Agents Act 1980. The changes outlined in part 3 of the bill are primarily centred around the real estate sector and the need for continuing professional development as well as accountability. Again, no argument from me on this one. I do believe that greater improvement can occur in this space with more dedicated courses, but we have no argument with the CPD.

Division 1 in part 3 of the bill details the changes to the Estate Agents Act in order to require registration of agents representing, including the eligibility requirements. Clause 54 repeals section 16 of the Estate Agents Act. This section prescribes the eligibility requirements for an agent’s representative and who is responsible for assessing their eligibility. That is no longer required as an assessment will be done by the BLA, the Business Licensing Authority. The steps of registration as an agent’s representative are outlined under clause 70 of the bill, including the application process and eligibility requirements. This also includes a variety of penalties for failing to comply with the registration requirements, with a penalty of up to 500 penalty units applicable to an estate agent who employs an unregistered person as an agent’s representative. The rest of this part of the bill outlines various transitional provisions and subsequent amendments as a result of the changes, including increased penalties for various offences.

Part 4 of the bill makes amendments to the Owners Corporation Act 2006. There are a variety of amendments in the bill to the Owners Corporation Act, with the changes increasing the training and accountability in the owners corporation and strata management sectors, and we know there is a lot of work that can still be done in the strata management sector. The bill changes various definitions and also introduces a new officer in effective control of a corporate strata management company. We know they have officers in effective control in real estate businesses, and this will include it in the strata management business – again another positive step forward.

In order for an individual to be registered as an officer in effective control, they must undertake new mandatory training and meet the eligibility requirements for registration as well as undertake CPD, obviously continuing professional development. That extends to those who are applying to register as managers of an owners corporation, such as individuals appointed by a corporate manager and managers of a specific owners corporation. Those wishing to register in either instance may do so with the BLA or face penalties under the new offences for those operating despite having failed to register. This part of the bill also details additional duties and requirements of the officer in effective control as well as the requirement for an annual registration fee and an annual statement to be provided to the BLA. Powers given to the BLA to cancel a registration of a corporate manager are also included in this section for a variety of reasons.

Part 4 of the bill includes transitional provisions to be included in the Owners Corporations Act, stating that anyone wishing to register must have already completed the mandatory courses and training by 30 June 2027. However, it also allows for new registrations in the intervening period for those who have not completed the courses.

The part 5 amendments to the Conveyancers Act 2006 are minimal. Once again they focus on the requirements for continuing professional development, and they include transitional provisions.

On the amendments to the Planning and Environment Act 1987, to touch on the planning and Attorney-General positions of the bill, I know that the changes to the Planning and Environment Act are designed to speed up the development process but give more power to the minister to call in projects and to sideline or ignore community concerns. This is the other concern I have with the bill. They are the only two parts that we have concerns around. The rest of the bill is completely fine in terms of the way it has been put forward.

A council is to provide a response of its decision to an amendment application within 10 days of making the decision. The bill does not stipulate how long it has to make the decision, but supposedly there will be a reduction of time, and the planning panel is only advisory to the minister. The minister has discretion as to whether to take the panel’s report into consideration before an issue goes to VCAT. The minister can call it in and decide without going to a planning panel. Decisions could be made on a summary of reasons rather than substantive reasons, and that could have impacts or repeat appeal principles. Adjoining municipalities do not need to be advised of planning changes. This affects regional communities like those where I live in regional Victoria, with possible renewal development on municipal borders. There is a three-year expiry provision to start a development and five years to complete it, as opposed to the default two and four years respectively.

Further, part 10 of the bill provides VCAT with the power to deal with planning matters without having heard from the parties and decide on a case only on the papers. I do not support this change. This is part of what I was talking about before. If a case is going to VCAT, people should be called in. They should have the opportunity to discuss, and not just send in the paperwork and hope for the best.

Clause 164 allows for VCAT to prevent witnesses from being examined or cross-examined and provides powers to put stringent limits on the timing of hearings and otherwise actively manage permit proceedings in a way which might be more efficient but potentially be at the expense of an objector’s ability to have the proper say that they would like to have.

Part 13 of the bill amends the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 to include reference to RDRV, Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria, providing it with the proper powers and authority needed to deliver binding regulations under the alternative dispute resolution method. The bill also changes the definition of ADR, alternative dispute resolution, to include mediation, early neutral evaluation, settlement conference, reference of a question to an expert, expert determination, compulsory conference and conciliation.

Again, they are positive steps in the way we are moving forward. It is a very difficult area, rent providers and renters and the Residential Tenancies Act, and we do need to make sure there is a smooth transition for people renting. But again, we have always got to make it fair and make it balanced. With this bill many fair things are coming in, but I think it does tip the balance with some of the things in it. I suppose it tips the pendulum away from being fair to siding with the renter. If you continue to side with the renter – and I have got no problem about supporting renters; we do not on this side, but at the same time if you tip the balance too far – you will find that rental providers will leave; they will sell their properties and move on.

That will just make our housing crisis even worse than it currently is. We do need to look after both sides of that pendulum, as I said, between the rental providers and the renters.

Clause 178 outlines the proceedings of Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria and the various ways that a case can be heard and dealt with. Part 13 also makes further amendments that tidy up RDRV’s inclusions in VCAT and ensures it has the proper resources and processes in place to commence work as an alternative dispute resolution body.

As has been noted, the bill is wideranging and covers a lot of different topics and changes in order to implement Labor’s housing statement reforms and, amongst other changes, to speed up development and planning. However, the feedback we have heard from the industry, such as the Real Estate Institute of Victoria, is there are simply too many changes in too short a time. They have got some concerns. Rental providers are exhausted both financially and mentally as they try to keep up with the changes that are going on.

We have also had people raise concerns around the removal of the no-fault notice to vacate at the end of the first fixed term, and I agree with this 100 per cent. Removing this is a mistake. If we think about a renter and a rental provider, they go into a contract together. At the end of that first lease period, whether it is six months or 12 months, the rental provider can issue a notice to vacate without a reason to do so. They can only do it at the end of the first period. They have an opportunity, and I liken this to a probation period for an employee or a staff member that comes to your business: after three months or six months, whatever that probation period is, you can say that this is not working out and the staff member will move on, no questions asked, no strings attached. By removing this I think it really is swinging the balance away from the rental providers.

The government’s justification for this is that rental providers will kick out tenants in order to jack up the rent, and then they can re-let the property at a higher price. This is not actually how it happens in the real world. Rental providers like to have good tenants. If they get a good tenant, they are more likely to not jack up the price; they are more likely to keep a good tenant than they are to kick that good tenant out and take the risk of getting someone who is not as great as the tenant that was there. You will find rental providers are more likely to remain with a good tenant, and if a good tenant has done the right thing they have nothing to worry about. So I encourage the government to consider our thoughts on this, because rental providers, as I said, value good tenants, and I think the government is going down the wrong path by removing this no-fault notice to vacate.

This is a false narrative, and it is another example of Labor attacking or being harsh on rental providers without any serious evidence behind it. Yes, it sends a great, clear message to renters: we are looking after you. But you are really not looking after renters if you go hard on rental providers and they sell their properties and there are less properties on the market. You might think that you are helping renters, but at the end of the day it will bite you on the backside because there will be less rental providers in the market as time goes on. We have heard a lot about people who are serious about selling their rental properties because of the rules and changes that have come in, and the opposition feels that the government has not entirely consulted with key stakeholders or considered the full impacts that these changes will have, either intended or otherwise. Rental providers need an outlet to ask a tenant to vacate before things get messy and have to go to VCAT. Removing this option risks making the system too complex.

With that I would like to move a reasoned amendment. I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this bill be withdrawn and redrafted to take into account further consultation with rental providers and industry about the unfair impact of the removal of no-fault notices to vacate.’

It is clear to those of us on this side of the chamber that more work needs to be done with the industry. We met with many industry stakeholders over this bill: the Real Estate Institute of Victoria, as I mentioned, and also rental providers.

That is why this reasoned amendment is being moved, in the hope that the government will take us up on this and see that there is a fair compromise between providing renters with the important security and peace of mind that they deserve and not throwing rental providers under the bus and having to go through VCAT right from the word go. It begs the question: is it really a fixed-term agreement for both parties? If you put a renter in your property and you cannot ask them to leave, is it really a fixed agreement at that stage?

I spoke earlier about probation for a new staff member coming to your business, and I think this is exactly the same. If everybody is happy – the renter is happy and the rental provider is happy – they will, in good faith, no questions asked, move on and make another agreement. If this clause remains in the bill, it becomes quite an unfair bill. We support 90 per cent of what is in this bill, but there needs to be further consultation with the industry because, as I say again, 71 per cent of rental providers own one property that they rent out. There is this fear that people are land barons and property barons and they influence this and they do all these things, but at the end of the day they are mums and dads, they are teachers and nurses and others who own properties and rent them out. If a rental provider is unable to end a fixed-term contract at the end of the term without reason, it begs the question of whether that contract really is a fixed term at all or merely a long-term periodical contract.

When we compare that to other states and territories around Australia, we are out on a limb compared to every other state, and I will go through them. In New South Wales, under the Residential Tenancies Act 2010, a rental provider can remove a tenant without a specific reason by giving notice of termination. Typically the notice period for a fixed-term lease is 30 days and 90 days for a periodic lease. In New South Wales you can have that no-reason notice to vacate. In Queensland it is the same. A rental provider can give a tenant a notice of termination – that is what it is called in Queensland – for a periodic agreement with at least two months notice. However, there are restrictions on no-fault notices to vacate when a tenant has lived in the property for more than six months. There are little bits and pieces you can put in there to sharpen that up a bit. Fixed-term leases in Queensland can also end without cause when the term expires, with notice requirements in place. In South Australia a rental provider can issue a notice of termination without specifying a reason provided the notice period is at least 60 days. Western Australia allows for a rental provider to end a periodic tenancy by providing at least 60 days notice without the need to give a reason. In Tasmania a rental provider can end a periodic tenancy by providing at least 42 days notice. The Australian Capital Territory is the same and so is the Northern Territory, so we really are going out on a limb.

The government might say, ‘We’re being leaders in this space; we’re proactive and we’re charging forward.’ But at the end of the day if you are charging forward and making life difficult for rental providers, you have to realise that you are making life difficult for renters in the long run. It might not be next week and it might not be next year, but it will be difficult. Whatever concern rental providers have, there is only one place they can forward that on. That concern ends up as the renter’s concern at the end of the day, and that is what we are trying to stop. The Allan Labor government wants to go to war with rental providers, as I said, by taking this path, which I think could leave a black hole. Good clean rental accommodation will get reduced because rental providers are telling us they will leave the industry. As I said, should the bill make it through both houses unchanged, it will put pressure on rental providers and the vetting process, because once they are in, they are in. Rental providers will take a lot more time and a lot more energy vetting people to get them into their property because they are reducing the opportunity to give them a notice to vacate if they are not happy with that tenant. Let us hope the government will support our changes, and I will be interested to hear what those on the other side say when they have their opportunity.

The no-fault notice to vacate at the end of a fixed-term contract in turn allows rental providers to make a clean cut without needing to drag themselves through VCAT for potentially years and years if the issues cannot be resolved between the tenant and the rental provider.

This will ensure things move more quickly but fairly, and if a tenant believes that the notice to vacate is for reasons that are in breach of the act, they are entitled to take that to VCAT. But by not removing this clause we risk locking in good rental providers with bad tenants and we risk adding even more cases to the VCAT backlog, and we know that VCAT has its hands full already.

Whilst we have concerns on our side of the chamber about what I have just touched on, the Liberals and Nationals on the whole support very strongly the need for ongoing professional development, CPD, and professional development training in the real estate and owners corporation sectors. We have heard many stories of poorly trained agents who have caused more issues due to their lack of knowledge and relevant training, and indeed there is a quirk that allows for a strata corporation manager to have no training at all. That means an 18-year-old fresh out of VCE could be a manager of a 100-unit strata corporation without having any training on the relevant laws or regulations. For those of us who have spent a bit of time studying and understanding strata and owners corporation law, we know it is incredibly complex at the best of times, let alone for somebody who has had no training at all. So again we encourage that professional development and training, and we absolutely support this along with the industry as it will lead to a better industry and deliver better outcomes for the owners committees and the owners of the units and strata titles.

Further, we also support the stamping out of all kinds of rental bidding and ensuring that rental applications and payments are free of third-party fees. We know how tight the rental market has been over the past few years, with sometimes more than 50 or 100 people inspecting a rental property before putting in an application. In many cases we have people with more cash on hand who have been able to incentivise their application by promising more rent per week than listed or by paying several months in advance, and this will stop under this legislation. It makes it near impossible for low-income families or young renters to compete when that rental bidding is in place. As a result they end up worse off, and that is what we do not want. So again this is another positive step forward. By stamping out any solicitation or accepting of rental bidding and by capping advanced rent payments at four weeks, these changes will level the playing field and ensure that when you apply for rental, you will pay what has been advertised, and the applications will be decided on merit, not just on financial gain or inducement.

Alongside these changes we also support the requirements for those houses that are advertised for rent to meet the minimum requirements at the time of advertisement. Obviously, as I said, the smoke alarms and everything else that a house needs need to be at the standard when it is advertised, not a promise that ‘When you move in we’re going to fix this’ or ‘We’ll do that’. It has to be at the standard before you advertise and not when that person moves in, because we know it never happens – or in some cases it never happens. By setting a clear rule, it provides clarity to rental providers about the requirements their house must meet, as well as to renters about what condition the property will be in when they move in.

The opposition supports the changes to the VCAT act in order to provide Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria with the powers it needs to operate as an alternative dispute resolution body, because, as I said, we do not want to be clogging up VCAT any more than it currently is. According to the government, this will reduce the waiting time of the residential tenancies list at VCAT, and RDRV will instead provide speedy and expert resolutions between parties. We have not seen it yet. We know it is in its infancy – it is in its embryonic stage really – and we will see how that turns out. But again anything that we can do that speeds up this process and reduces the backlog at VCAT I think can only be a good thing, and we need to trial it. We find that is a positive step in the right direction. So as long as it is not a toothless tiger and does not end up increasing the VCAT backlog, we will be keen to see how this rolls out.

Whilst the opposition supports many of the changes in the bill to improve the industry, we do not support Labor’s continued war on rental providers, which in turn ends up affecting renters. When Labor claim they are supporting renters and implementing change after change, they really are pushing up rents and making it even harder for Victorians to aspire to afford a home. Since Labor came to power in 2014 rent for metro Melbourne has increased by $200 per week, a more than 55 per cent increase, with a $170 increase in the last four years alone. Regional numbers are the same, with the median increasing by 60 per cent in the last decade and more than $130 per week in the last four years. Labor’s failure to build houses and their regime of tax, red tape and even more tax are punishing renters by forcing rental providers to sell up or increase rents to cover their costs. This is not sustainable, and it is not fair.

I will finish up my contribution. We will not be opposing this bill. We have put a reasoned amendment, as you have heard. I do hope the government considers that reasoned amendment, because we can make this good bill into a great bill if we consider that reasoned amendment and work together for the benefit of both renters and rental providers.

Juliana ADDISON (Wendouree) (16:45): I am very proud today to speak on the bill that seeks to increase and strengthen protection for Victorian renters by shoring up education and registration standards for property professionals and bolstering penalties for those doing wrong. The Consumer and Planning Legislation Amendment (Housing Statement Reform) Bill 2024 also proposes improvements to planning processes and clarifies the role of VCAT in alternate dispute resolutions. I certainly do not support the opposition’s amendment to withdraw the bill. This is a very important bill, and we need it to proceed. It is a lengthy bill and an important bill, and in the sum of its parts it will make a real and substantial difference for renters in my electorate of Wendouree and across Victoria.

In my contribution today I will be focusing one particular clause that has particular significance for my community and the family who have powerfully advocated for the reform. Clause 17 extends the requirement for annual smoke detector checks to all residential rental properties in Victoria, particularly the 240,000 rental properties excluded from the 2021 tenancy reforms. Smoke alarms save lives. Homes without functioning smoke alarms are dangerous and lead to preventable deaths.

Since this bill was first introduced, in the last sitting week of last year, we have had a change of minister, and I am so pleased that he is in the chamber. I wish to congratulate the member for Bentleigh on his promotion to Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister for Local Government. It is terrific to have you here. I would also like to thank the previous Minister for Consumer Affairs, the member for Dandenong, for pursuing the reforms to make sure every rental in Victoria has a smoke alarm inspected once a year, following the fierce advocacy of Simon Scarff’s family. These reforms will save lives.

In 2022 Simon Scarff was 52 years old and lived in Alfredton in my electorate. He lived on Almurta Street, a street that I know like the back of my hand. It is not far from my childhood home and a street on my paper round. I would have ridden up and down that street a thousand times, passing the flat where Simon’s life was tragically taken after it was consumed by fire. Members of Si’s family are in the public gallery to witness what their advocacy has achieved and to ensure that no other family should ever have to experience what they have. Thank you to Therese Scarff; to Jo and Paul McConville and their children Georgia, Bella and Xavier; and to Paul’s parents Anne and John McConville for being here today. Si’s mum Joan Scarff, a magnificent woman, stayed in Ballarat, but she is here in spirit, and we look forward to catching up with her next week to tell her when this has all been passed.

I never met Simon Scarff. However, since his death I have learned that there are several connections between his family and mine. Si attended the Villa Maria primary school with my brothers, and Si’s grandfather was our butcher. Just two blocks from where I live now his parents ran a small business. It is so Ballarat to have such intertwined lives.

Si died in the most horrific way after there was a fire in his rental flat and he was unable to escape. Si called 000 for help but was unable to communicate his situation or answer the questions asked by the operator. Despite the efforts of the 000 operator to establish what support was needed, there was no indication of a fire at the property as there was no smoke alarm sounding. The coroners report found that Mr Scarff succumbed to the effect of the fire while trying to escape the premises and that at the time of the fire there was no smoke alarm installed in the premises, despite one being required pursuant to building regulations. A recommendation by Coroner Paul Lawrie from the finding into the death without inquest of deceased Simon Peter Scarff on 26 October 2023 is:

… that the Minister for Government Services/Minister for Consumer Affairs consider amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (or other such amendments as may be necessary) so that the safety related activities defined within section 27(2) of the Act … may apply to all rental agreements, including rental agreements entered before 29 March 2021.

Through the Coroners Court Jo and Therese learned that in July 2023 43.5 per cent of existing rental agreements in Victoria – more than 240,000 rental households – had entered into leases prior to 29 March 2021. Like Si, tenants living in these homes are not protected by the 2021 rental tenancies reforms, including smoke alarm safety-related requirements.

The suffering experienced by Si is hard to comprehend, and it continues to haunt his family. They have listened to the 000 call from that fateful morning, listened to his distress as he sought assistance. His mother Joan wishes she could have swapped places with him, that she could have experienced what happened to him so he did not have to.

Action was needed to ensure that Coroner Lawrie’s recommendation was adopted. Following the coroner’s finding, the Scarff family started a petition on change.org in December 2023 calling for the recommendation of the coroner to be adopted by the minister and implemented. They wanted to ensure that no-one else was killed in a household fire and that all Victorian rentals received the same protections and level of safety on their homes regardless of the agreement date or lease type. More than 5000 people have signed their petition.

I received an email from Si’s sister Jo McConville in December 2023 on behalf of her mother Joan and sister Therese. She wrote:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

On Saturday 12 February 2022 my brother died in a fire at his home, which was a rental property at 1/13 Almurta Street, Alfredton. Coroner Lawrie has made a recommendation that the Minister for Government Services and the Minister for Consumer Affairs consider amendments to the relevant legislation so that safety-related activities in respect of gas, electrical and smoke alarm activities may apply to all existing rental arrangements.

My brother’s name is Simon Peter Scarff. He was born on 29 May 1969. Coroner Lawrie has requested that the findings be published so it is available on the coronial website for you to read. We are asking you for your support to have this recommendation adopted so that all renters are protected by the same laws. Our aim is that Si’s suffering and death are not in vain and that all renters are protected by the same safety standards.

I met with the powerful sisters a couple of weeks later on 10 January, and their advocacy was compelling. I then spoke to the minister and organised for her to meet with Jo and Therese in Ballarat soon after. There were tears as the sisters shared Si’s story and the impact that it had on all of their lives as well as their pleas to take action so no other family would have to experience what they had to.

The minister listened and acted, and it was a privilege – one of the best days ever – to join with the then Minister for Consumer Affairs and members of Si’s family in Ballarat on 19 November last year to announce that the reforms campaigned for would be adopted by the Allan Labor government. It was one of my proudest days as an MP – yes, just great, to be there with your mum and your uncle and everyone. It was amazing.

As a direct outcome of the advocacy of the Scarff family, the changes proposed in this bill will make rental properties safer by requiring rental providers to conduct smoke alarm, gas and electrical safety checks by qualified tradespersons for all residential rental properties.

Thank you to the former Minister for Consumer Affairs the Honourable Gabrielle Williams for her compassion, determination and commitment to make this significant change for renters and for 240,000 homes across Victoria. The Scarff family have been so generous in sharing their story. Despite their immense grief they are to be commended for their advocacy following the death of Si. Thanks to their efforts all renters in Victoria will be safer.

The proposed amendments to the bill will ensure that smoke alarms are tested every year for every rental property. I commend the Consumer and Planning Legislation Amendment (Housing Statement Reform) Bill 2024 to the house, and in doing so I ask you to support the Scarff family by ensuring that Si’s suffering and death were not in vain and that all renters are protected by uniform safety standards.

Richard RIORDAN (Polwarth) (16:55): I rise today to contribute on the Consumer and Planning Legislation Amendment (Housing Statement Reform) Bill 2024. I acknowledge the member for Wendouree’s compassionate discussion of an important element in this bill. I guess one of the good things we do when we come to this Parliament is that we can make a real difference to people’s lives and improve on where systems have let us down. That is a good thing. To the Scarff family here, who has been part of some of the journey of this bill, it is I am sure a very important day to see it come to fruition.

However, speaking as Shadow Minister for Housing and Shadow Minister for Planning, we also have a housing crisis in this state, and the housing crisis is bearing out terribly for so many families right across the state. In Victoria at the moment, despite the rhetoric of housing statements and endless media statements from this government, the housing crisis continues to get worse. Here are just some very basic figures: this government has spent, it claims, nearly $4 billion on public housing. You would expect that over the time you would have an increase in public housing, but we have had a decrease of some 475 public homes in the state of Victoria after four years. In fact between 2017 and December 2024, a seven-year period, when you add all the public housing and community housing together, Victoria has only had a net increase of 4067, with the entirety of the increase being done by the community housing sector. This government will claim that COVID caused them not to be able to achieve their housing outcomes, they will claim building materials and other things, but in exactly the same period New South Wales have increased their public housing and social housing by some 10,454. There is a massive difference in what this state has delivered compared to what a comparable state, in New South Wales, has delivered. It is a shame on this government that at a time when our population has continued to grow we have now got fewer homes available for people. But not only have we got fewer homes, the homes we have are smaller. In fact the homes that have been built have actually been, on balance, single-bedroom units. We have some 4500 fewer bedrooms for Victorians to sleep in in public housing each and every night. It is quite an incredible feat to think we could shrink the offering to the most needy in this state at a time when the government attempts to trumpet its merits in this space.

It is not only the community and public housing sector which is a really important part of the housing story in this state, it is what we are also doing to the private rental market. This bill of course hinges on the fact that it is about trying to help attain the goals of the government’s housing statement – a statement which, by the way, only 18 months ago trumpeted the fact that this government was aiming for 80,000 homes a year. The Productivity Commission has just come out and said we did not even get close. We are talking some 34 per cent less – only 52,800 homes provided here in Victoria from a goal of 80,000. That is not just missing the mark, that is about the way I play golf, trying to get it near the green. I would be out in the rough, on the side of the road over the fence on Queens Road if I were playing down at South Melbourne there. This is nowhere near good enough.

When we see legislation that is coming in here now that essentially will make the provision of the private rental market even more difficult, it shows that this government does not actually understand how the housing market works. What we know, for example, is some 30 to 40 per cent of housing sales in the state of Victoria at the moment are rental properties going on the market, with landlords fleeing. On the government’s own figures, the rental bonds here in Victoria, there has been a 3.6 per cent decline, so it has worked out at roughly 24,500 fewer homes being rented through the private sector last year.

So we have got this massive decrease in availability of private sector housing and a massive contraction in the availability of government-subsidised and government-supplied housing. Victoria is in a real crisis here, and this bill does not speak to anybody who is going to actually increase the availability of homes for Victorians to live in.

In fact to quote CoreLogic on the production of the massive decline in bonds lodged here in Victoria and the real estate market talking about the amount of rentals that are being taken off the market and going to be sold, they talk about, here in Victoria, this massive exodus of availability of rental properties, which as we know only sends prices up, stemming from high taxes and low yields and a lack of confidence here in Victoria to invest. And where are the investors going? They are going to other jurisdictions, Queensland and Western Australia in particular.

But I also want to draw people’s attention to a part of this bill the government has made much of: ‘This bill will introduce amendments to ban a rental provider or their agent from accepting unsolicited bids.’ That is this government’s attempt to stop desperate people from trying to get a home, and as one of the largest landlords – or the largest landlord – in the state, in Homes Victoria, you would think the largest landlord and the largest provider of rental property would actually show some responsibility in this space. But I have documents here from Homes Victoria, for example, where Homes Victoria are going out into the private market. They are going out into the suburbs, and I will name them – because they have named them – they are going out into Brunswick, Brunswick East, Brunswick West, Carlton, Carlton North, East Melbourne, Kensington, North Melbourne, Moorabbin, Princes Hill, West Melbourne, Sunshine, Sunshine West and Maribyrnong. Some of their representatives are sitting here, and this government is going out into these suburbs and offering landlords massive increases for handing over long-term rentals to them as a rental provider. What this means is at a time when we know – the facts are telling us – the private rental market is shrinking, there are fewer houses available and rents are going up, this irresponsible, hopelessly organised government is going out into the private market and taking homes from hardworking Victorian families, from mums and dads and single people and elderly people and people escaping domestic violence. All the people that are on the waiting list, waiting years, are now having to compete against the government that says it wants to make rentals fairer and rentals easier and rentals less discriminatory, and here is the government of the day going out to the landlords, going out into the private market and saying, ‘Sell. Give me your home. I’ll pay you 5 per cent per annum’ – so locking in rent increases well above inflation. They are out in the suburbs of Melbourne outbidding innocent, hardworking Victorian families and taking three- and four-bedrooms out of the market to give to the government because they have so incompetently managed their own housing stock.

We now have a situation where the government has a problem of some 4500 fewer bedrooms, so what is their solution? We are going to go and make it harder in the private market for mums and dads and people out in the suburbs on low incomes in a cost-of-living crisis. We are going to make it even harder for them to get a home. It is incongruent, really. It does not make sense that a government will go to the effort to bring this bill to us and on one hand spruik its credentials at trying to make renting fairer and easier for people, and at the very same time the same government is going out into the market, bidding up prices, bidding up the cost of rentals, giving deals to current rental providers that the private individual just simply cannot match. Individuals cannot match guaranteed 5 per cent increases. They cannot manage long-term rental agreements with generous terms and conditions. It is grossly unfair. It goes against the intent of this and it explains to Victorians how misguided this government has become.

I absolutely support the shadow minister’s reasoned amendment that proposes that we omit all words after ‘That’ and replace them with the words ‘this bill be withdrawn and redrafted to take into account further consultation with rental providers and industry about the unfair impact of the removal of no-fault notices to vacate’, and quite frankly the other inconsistencies that exist in this bill. It is poor legislation, and it should be amended.

Sonya KILKENNY (Carrum – Attorney-General, Minister for Planning) (17:05): I am delighted to rise to speak today on the Consumer and Planning Legislation Amendment (Housing Statement Reform) Bill 2024. Before I do I would like to acknowledge the really heartfelt, compassionate contribution made by the member for Wendouree. Her compassion and her care for her constituents go to show why she is such an outstanding local member in this place. Before I speak to the bill in further detail I would also like to thank Minister Williams, the former Minister for Consumer Affairs, and now Minister Staikos for their work in bringing this bill before the Parliament.

The bill does number of things, but I am going to speak mostly to the planning reforms that are included in it. It acquits a number of key commitments that the Allan Labor government made back in September 2023 to get more Victorians into safe, comfortable and affordable homes, whether that is a home to rent or a home to buy. We have heard that the bill introduces a range of reforms to increase protections for renters and to help with cost-of-living pressures. It will also strengthen the Victorian planning system by implementing some key recommendations that were made by the former commissioner for better regulation. But – surprise, surprise – those opposite, we hear, do not support this bill. This is a bill that is going to bring about greater protections for renters, it is designed to give Victorians greater housing security and it is a bill that introduces reforms that we know industry has been calling for, reforms to reduce red tape so we can build more homes for Victorians. It feels like it is just the same old opposition, blocking homes for Victorians when we know more homes mean more opportunities. This bill is yet another example of the levers that the Labor government is pulling to work with industry, to work with communities and to work with local governments to get more homes built for Victorians.

This government is firmly committed to reducing costs, minimising delays in the planning system and creating certainty for the community. We have heard that in relation to the red tape commissioner reforms the bill will amend the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 to implement the recommendations that were made by the commissioner for better regulation and to ultimately strengthen the planning system. Several years ago the former commissioner for better regulation Anna Cronin, who is now the CEO of the Victorian Building Authority, prepared a really extensive and thorough review of Victoria’s planning processes. I want to thank Anna Cronin for all of her work and note that in her new role she is progressing significant reforms in the building system that work in a complementary way with reforms in planning that will deliver more homes for Victorians.

Her review sets out 27 recommendations, and I note that the majority of those are non-legislative and have been implemented. They focus on simplifying and streamlining the planning system to make sure that Victoria remains the number one place to invest, to make sure the planning system is working for Victorians and not against them and ultimately to provide greater certainty – greater certainty for industry, for local government and for community, and to support us, the Labor government, in our very clear aim to build more affordable homes for Victorians. The proposed changes to the Planning and Environment Act and the VCAT Act in this bill will acquit those recommendations and they will go to make our planning system much more responsive, more agile and modern and better equipped to deliver on our commitments in Victoria’s housing statement.

The planning amendments in the bill will update and modernise the planning scheme amendment process, and this is important for a number of reasons. First, it means that landowners for the first time will be able to formally ask local councils to prepare a planning scheme amendment. Currently we know there is no formal requirement for councils to respond to requests. It also means that councils will not be able to just simply abandon a planning scheme amendment without good reason, and it will give the Minister for Planning the ability to continue that amendment process. A new low-impact pathway for less complex amendments will also be created where the planning authority can deal with the submission without the need for a planning hearing. These really are commonsense amendments, all of which go to helping improve the system so that ultimately we can help to deliver more homes for Victorians.

The bill will also amend the Planning and Environment Act to make improvements to the planning permit application process, and this means that councils and responsible authorities will have further authority over applications, with the capacity to reject incomplete applications and the ability, importantly, to extend default planning permit expiry times for the use and development of land. The bill will also enable the Minister for Planning to issue guidelines to help responsible authorities determine who to give notice to when dealing with material detriment. Again this is important. It will give certainty to communities on when they can expect to be consulted with and ensure this is standardised across Victoria.

Several amendments will be made to the operation of the planning panels – again, red tape reform aimed squarely at reducing hearing times and associated costs and ultimately improving the operations of panels. This means frivolous or vexatious submissions or ones that are wholly irrelevant to an amendment will not go to panel hearings. Parties can also be joined when submissions are largely identical, conferences between experts to narrow the scope of matters in disputes will be available and panels will be permitted to consider matters based solely on written materials in certain circumstances. These are amendments that industry has been calling for after the red tape commissioner conducted her review into the planning system. They are measures that are designed to make the system more agile and more efficient to enable us to get on and focus on what we need to focus on, and that is building more homes – more affordable homes – in all of the locations where Victorians want to live.

Whether they are renting or buying, Victorians want the security of a home. The reforms in this bill, the amendments in this bill, go to that very issue. It is about ensuring that efficiencies will be created in the planning system, that costs will be reduced, that industry will be supported to get on and focus on delivering the homes that Victorians need. As we go through and reform our planning system, together with the building system, we are giving confidence back to community and we are giving confidence back to industry that we have a pipeline of development, that we have a target of homes that are needed for Victorians and that by following this target we are ensuring that we are able to make homes more affordable, particularly for first home buyers here in this state. The Premier has been very strong on this: that what is so important is to be able to support first home buyers to get their foot into the market, whether they are renting or buying, but more importantly, get their foot in the market in places where they want to live – places that are well connected to public transport, that are well connected to services and to shops and to schools. These might be places where they have grown up or places where their friends and families live, and they want to be around that support network.

This is about ensuring that our planning system is working for Victorians, that it is interconnected and that our reforms are working to deliver on what we understand is such a core issue for so many Victorians, and that is being able to find the security of a home, whether to rent or buy, in a location of their choice, which is well serviced by public transport, jobs and services and close to those who they love. It is a question of equity, and on that basis it surprises me none that those opposite would decide not to support this bill before the house. I commend the bill.

Matthew GUY (Bulleen) (17:15): It is a pleasure to speak in the calendar year 2025 on a bill that involves – there goes the planning minister – the planning system. I heard the minister’s strong grasp of her portfolio in her scripted speech. It was very interesting to start the year off that way. I want to make some comments on the bill, and I note in its title the Consumer and Planning Legislation Amendment (Housing Statement Reform) Bill 2024 refers to the government’s housing statement, on which I want to make a couple of comments, although I will start off by making some comments around the reforms. I note it has got changes to VCAT and planning laws, particularly in relation to PPV, Planning Panels Victoria. I understand that the government is saying, ‘Well, we need these reforms to planning panels, and we need these reforms now because they are slowing up our housing statement and we have got to pass these to get these reforms’. The minister has had these powers since the 1990s. It is called a 20 part 4, and under the Baillieu government it was further amended under a 20 part A. I am not scripted, unlike the minister. I mean, I would know this; you think you would know this. You do not need to go to Parliament and say, ‘We have to put our statement on hold. We haven’t met our target for this year, and it will be harder next year to meet the same target because we’ve only got 50,000 as opposed to 80,000.’ The government has got the powers now; it does not need a change. As I said, it is called the 20 part 4 in the Planning and Environment Act 1987 or 20 part A, which is for an authority to use it. Maybe one of their authorities would like to use it, because they have got the authority, which was gifted to them in this legislation by reforms from the then coalition government. But it has not been used. Why has it not been used? Because there is always an excuse as to why things cannot happen – ‘You’re blocking,’ ‘You’re this,’ ‘You’re that,’ ‘We haven’t got this,’ ‘We haven’t got that.’

At the end of the day the government has made a target, and it is not going to meet it because it is just not very good. They have taxed the industry out of existence in Victoria. We know that. I mean, look at Melbourne’s skyline. I saw the other day a great, great big new twin tower project residential for Sydney, which is going up and has been approved off there in Sydney’s CBD. Meanwhile, the same project which Dick Wynne boasted was going to be the tallest in the Southern Hemisphere appears to be on ice down in Southbank because they cannot get it off the ground in Victoria. They cannot get a builder; no-one will build here. They cannot get domestic purchasers to purchase 2000 apartments – no shock on that. And you cannot get overseas buyers because frankly they have gone to Brisbane. Take a reality check: that is what it is.

I notice in this bill, the housing statement reform bill, there are some interesting points in it about renters. It is so important to renters. I am not sure why it has taken three months to get to today. I mean, why wasn’t it an urgent bill last year? Why didn’t we pass it in the urgency of December? Okay, it is three months later and now the government are saying it is urgent. But they introduced it in December. We could have debated it then. We were happy to debate it. The government did not want to come back. Fair enough.

There are no new announcements of residential towers in the CBD of Melbourne in this time, and particularly in the last six months there has been nothing. That is contrary to Brisbane, contrary to Adelaide, contrary to the Gold Coast, contrary to Newcastle and contrary to Sydney. But that is the case in Melbourne. Okay. There have been no precinct structure plans approved by this minister in that time. We are talking about the housing statement in this bill from 2024. Here it is: housing statement reform. There are no precinct structure plans approved. So here we have a government saying – in its own title of this bill – ‘We’ve got a 10-year plan.’ Well, half of that 10 years is already gone in one of the years. It is already gone – 20 of it is already gone – with nothing approved, no CBD towers and no precinct structure plans. There has been no major development in activities areas commenced around the greater Melbourne area.

So it is a simple question to ask: if it is all so urgent and this all needs to be done to get houses off the ground, why is nothing happening? It could be happening right now. Where are the urban renewal sites?

Juliana Addison interjected.

Matthew GUY: Please, I let you speak in peace; you can let other people speak in peace, if you do not mind.

Where are the new urban renewal sites for Melbourne? Where are they? I mean, there is no new urban renewal, there are no new CBD towers, there is no new commencement of major residential constructions in any of the activity areas and there have been no new precinct structure plans (PSP) in any of that time, and yet we have to again come to the Parliament and be told that we are the blockers by the minister, who opposed development in her own seat. Here I have the minister saying more Victorians want to get into a safe and comfortable home – unless they are in Carrum.

I offered up that they should change the planning regulations around central Doncaster because there are mandatory height requirements and I do not think there should be. I think we should have a discretionary limit, because if people in a time of a housing crisis want to put in developments in an area which can manage, around a central area where people can walk to the shops like I do from my office and where they can walk to the bus service, as I do, because I get the bus most weeks of Parliament to the city, then you should optimise that development area. I accept that. That is what Box Hill is about, that is what Doncaster should be about and that is what Ringwood should be about, although with some restrictions on that. I accept that, but of course not in the planning minister’s seat – no, no, no. There are mandatory height requirements in Preston too, which is quite weird, given that it is flat. I used to live in Preston for 12 years. Preston is quite flat, and you could manage quite reasonable growth there, which would be around the railway station. I would have thought the government would want to value-add to their level crossing removal. I mean, you would think they would want to value-add to it by putting residential growth across the market site, which could then provide for people to walk to the supermarket and to walk to the 24-hour chemist that is there. It has got great services on High Street and St Georges Road. As I said, I lived in three locations there for more than a dozen years, so I think it is a great location too. I do not understand why this minister and the one before her would come in and say, ‘Oh, no, not there. Not there either. Not Frankston either. Not Carrum. But we really need homes and we cannot do anything about it until we reform VCAT.’

We heard all the words. Did you hear them? ‘Efficient’, ‘responsive’, ‘agile’, ‘modernise’, ‘red tape’, ‘reform’, ‘confidence’ – how about you just do something? I have heard – and this is quite true – from the development industry that the minister does not want to make difficult decisions and that there is something in her office called the ‘scary cupboard’ and the advisers put all the too-hard briefs in the scary cupboard. She cannot make those decisions because they are scary decisions. How about making one decision? Bring in a PSP and approve it. Approve a development in the CBD of Melbourne. Approve a new housing development in a major activity centre. Do something. You say there is a housing crisis but then do nothing. All the speakers on the other side come here saying all these words – ‘efficient’, ‘responsive’, ‘agile’, ‘modernise’. But when it comes to doing something and when it comes to the housing crisis that we are going through, it was mainly created by Richard Wynne, who refused to approve anything for the best part of a decade and left every other minister with now a massive problem in Melbourne – that is, market demand that is up here, supply that is way down there, start times of four-plus years and now a high-taxing regime on top of that, which means that you cannot even get anything off the ground to respond to the market demand.

This is what we are living with: a delusional government that now believes that it needs to race into the Parliament and blame, of all people, Planning Panels Victoria for delays in the system. I mean, I have heard people in the industry just laugh and laugh and laugh. Can you believe it? They blame developers. Well, they tried that one for a decade. They tried the Liberal Party for more than a decade. They tried the federal government. They tried to blame everyone. And now they are blaming poor old Planning Panels Victoria, which is part of their own department. That is theirs to control. You can override it. You can call them in. Now they are blaming poor old PPV. I feel sorry for them. I know a few people down there. They just shake their heads. It is like they have tried every trick in the book. It is like when you go into one of those circus acts where you turn the wheel around and the thing pops out – ‘It’s this. It’s that. It’s something else.’ No, they have blamed everyone, and it is about to run out because there are not the homes being approved that need to be approved to address the supply constraints that we have in the government’s housing statement.

If you want to address them, then maybe the best way to start, as I have said over and over again, is to go and look in the mirror, because it is the government’s policies that have created this crisis. But it is the government can fix the crisis. They could fix it fairly promptly. They choose not to. They choose to blame others rather than fix the crisis. That, to me, is the telling part of this discussion, and it will not be solved until we get a change of government.

Kat THEOPHANOUS (Northcote) (17:25): I rise in support of this bill and its important purpose to increase protections for renters and deliver greater security and certainty in our housing system. Our Labor government is committed to making renting easier, fairer and cheaper, and that is why I am also honoured that this is my first speech as the Parliamentary Secretary for Renters. The very existence of this role reflects the seriousness with which our government takes housing security for renters. It is a topic I have raised many times as the member for Northcote, and I am looking forward to working closely with the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Consumer Affairs Victoria, the Department of Government Services and our many important stakeholders to deliver tangible outcomes for renters and continue the Victorian Labor government’s legacy of landmark reforms.

Renting is a critical part of our housing mix. In 2025 a third of Victorians are renters, a record number that is expected to grow. In my electorate of Northgate that rises to around 40 per cent of constituents, and I know that other parts of Melbourne share those high numbers. In sought-after suburbs like Northgate or Thornbury there can be lines out the door during inspections. I cannot count the number of conversations I have had with people in my community who are in real distress about their housing circumstances. People go from viewing to viewing and make application after application but are unable to find homes. People are living in awful circumstances and conditions, such as mould-ridden properties or homes without proper heating and cooling. Parents have to uproot their lives and their children’s lives because their landlord has calculated that they can impose a big rental increase or simply evict them for no reason. People have to go through drawn-out VCAT processes just because a rental provider wants to roll the dice on claiming their bond, and there is no real consequence for doing so. Most of all I hear about the disempowerment and genuine fear people feel in a system that for far too long has not given them the dignity and security that they deserve.

Our home should be a sanctuary, a place of comfort and peace, whether we are renting or not, and the fact is that renting is not just a transition into property ownership. For many people it will be their long-term or lifelong housing. That is why this bill is so critical and why over time our Labor government has put in place rental protections and reforms that are now considered the strongest in the country. It is why we are addressing the serious issue of housing supply with an enormous pipeline of social and affordable housing and why through our housing statement we are making bold decisions to streamline the planning system to get it moving faster and more effectively and incentivising the private market to contribute to increasing housing stock. Victoria continues to approve and build more homes than any other jurisdiction in Australia. That is not by accident; it is because our government is firmly focused on giving Victorians every chance to have safe, stable, secure homes. That is what everyone deserves and that is the foundation for opportunity, aspiration and hope.

Yet there are those opposite who are so out of touch that they cannot fathom the idea that it is good policy to increase housing in suburbs close to public transport and close to employment, schools and services, and there are those in the Greens political party with the exact same sentiments who will actively block homes from being built even while they try to make us all swallow this narrative that they care about people in housing stress. The contortion is quite something to witness. No doubt if one of them graces us with a showing on this bill, we will witness the mental acrobatics that it takes to reconcile blocking critical housing reform and critical housing projects with the slick slogans that they put on their campaign material.

Our Labor government has made housing a priority and has progressed a huge suite of substantive reforms to give more Victorians the support, security and safety they deserve. This bill represents the latest tranche of reform, with key measures like repealing the remaining no-reason notice to vacate and banning no-fault evictions. That means tenants will not be able to be asked to leave without a valid reason and certainly not just because someone wants to hike up the rent. Of course usual reasons, like property damage or not paying the rent, or repairs or if the owner wants to move back into the property, will still apply.

The bill will also ban all types of rental bidding, a harmful practice that unnaturally drives up the cost of housing and undermines fairness and integrity. We already made it illegal for real estate agents and landlords to solicit or encourage higher offers, but now we are also making it unlawful to accept an unsolicited higher rental bid or accept more than a month’s rent in advance. This evens the playing field for renters, and there will be tough penalties for agents and landlords who break the law.

In a tight rental market, a notice to vacate or an unaffordable rent increase can be incredibly stressful, and 60 days is often not enough time to find affordable and secure housing or prepare for an increase in rent. That is why this bill increases the notice period from 60 to 90 days in these cases, a practical way to give both landlords and renters more lead time.

Regarding rental increases, the bill importantly makes amendments to enhance the rent increase review framework. At the moment there are pretty strict limitations on what the director of Consumer Affairs Victoria or VCAT can consider when rent increases are reviewed. We want to expand those considerations so that, for example, things like the size or proportion of the rent increase can be assessed, not just whether it is commensurate with the neighbouring properties. Such a change would make a big difference for renters facing staggering rent increases. I have heard some really distressing instances where rents have been increased upwards of 200 per cent in some cases.

Of course things do not always go to plan – they do not pan out as we plan – and sometimes disagreements arise. Sometimes these disputes can be hard to resolve independently, and this can be incredibly stressful, draining and time consuming. This bill supports the establishment of Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria – RDRV – offering a quick and free service that empowers landlords and tenants to resolve their disputes outside of VCAT, because frankly VCAT should be the last resort and not the first point of call. The quick resolution of a dispute can make a huge difference to the material circumstances but also the wellbeing of both the tenant and the landlord, and we are looking forward to getting that service up and running by the middle of this year.

This bill also makes a very important change, which I have spoken to advocates about at length. It makes it an offence for a rental provider or their agent to advertise or offer to let a home that does not meet the minimum standards at the time of advertisement or offer to let. Prior to this, compliance with minimum standards has only come into effect after a rental agreement has been signed. That has meant that dodgy rentals have entered the market and left renters seeking urgent repairs after they have moved in, which risks then that retaliatory action by rental providers. They are on the back foot from the beginning. With this change, rentals cannot be advertised unless they meet the minimum standards first. It makes for a much fairer, much more robust rental system.

We are also making rental applications easier with standardised forms to better protect renters’ information. Given the volatile digital landscape we are all in, I think it is really important that we limit requests for unnecessary information and personal data, and when that data is shared that it is protected and stored appropriately and when it is not needed anymore it is destroyed.

A key reform of course that the member for Wendouree so emotively outlined is extending smoke alarm safety requirements. It comes about after that tragedy, with a life taken in Ballarat – Simon Scarff, who died during that fire. His rental property did not have a smoke alarm installed. That was a preventable tragedy, and we need to amend our legislation to adapt.

Housing insecurity is a real and lived experience in my own community. Right now around 5 per cent of Victorian households are facing serious rental stress, driven by housing supply issues and cost-of-living pressure. It is why at every opportunity I will always stand up for and back policies and projects that deliver more homes, more amenities and more services in my community. We have had many, many homes built in my community, including 99 new social housing homes that have opened just recently in Preston. We are doing that work to build more homes, and we are making renting fairer. I commend this bill to the house.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): Before I call the member for Mildura I would just like to acknowledge that former member Jaala Pulford is in the house.

Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (17:35): I am always happy to rise in this place to talk about housing, because as the member for Bulleen pointed out earlier, there are a lot of rental providers that have been taxed out of this state. When you live in a tri-state area such as Mildura, you can physically see that happening every single day.

We know that there is a housing crisis in this state. When you go out and talk to your communities, top of the list are health care, housing, roads and cost of living. Housing and cost of living of course are very closely related. Yes, rental stress is a huge issue, a massive issue. It is basic supply and demand, and when you make it so hard, through reforms, for rental providers to actually provide rentals, of course there is going to be a lack of supply. There is a lot of talk – we always hear it – and shifting of blame about who is to blame for the housing crisis. As the member for Bulleen said earlier, it was developers, then it was the coalition – everybody – but there is no accountability personally.

What could fix the housing crisis is incentivising those private rental providers to provide long-term rentals, but we are just making it so hard for rental providers. No-one is saying there should not be a minimum standard for rentals. Of course every dwelling on the planet should have a smoke alarm. There should be minimum standards for mould. No-one is saying that there should not be; of course there should. There is an issue, though, particularly in rural and regional Australia, that we see now. I will illustrate a couple of points. One is that of the rental providers a fair chunk of that market are teachers, for example, nurses – nurses I think are 9 per cent of the rental provider market; teachers are 10 per cent – and mum-and-dad investors who might have one additional property, which are around the 35 to 40 per cent mark.

A member: 71.

Jade BENHAM: Seventy-one – I was being conservative with my figures. That one additional property is purchased with the view of providing a long-term rental, but there are a lot of homes out there that are purchased that are perhaps ageing – that have been soldier settler houses, for example – and that do need a lot of renovations to come up to minimum standards. If that is going to mean that a $50,000 to $100,000 renovation is required to upgrade insulation or to upgrade an air conditioner or to upgrade a water system from a rainwater tank or whatever it might be, it gets more expensive the further away from a metropolitan area you get. The ability to actually get tradies to do that work is – I mean, I have been trying to get a plumber for 12 months now and cannot get one. I have been trying to get a builder to do some brick – I mean, you just cannot –

Wayne Farnham interjected.

Jade BENHAM: The member for Morwell unfortunately is no longer a plumber, otherwise that might have been an easy fix. Maybe there could be other reforms for regional and rural areas, because people do want to live out in the bush. Why wouldn’t you? It is a wonderful lifestyle. You can get very large houses. Some of these houses are very large, but they are ageing – pre-insulation, the pipework might need to be redone, all that kind of stuff. No-one is saying there should not be minimum standards, but it might be an ongoing thing. So by putting someone under pressure to spend $50,000 to $100,000 to renovate before actually listing a rental while the property is sitting there not being able to make a return on the investment, that is a poor investment.

When the rules are different literally 100 metres away, where you can invest your money and get a return straight away, that is why we see developments, and that is why we see people literally jumping the river or jumping the South Australia border – and they do.

I was talking to a real estate agent last week, and he has been a real estate agent in Mildura for 20 years. When I asked them at the start of last year, the reports were that they were losing 12 homes per week from their property list. Now it is around 10 per fortnight, so it has not really slowed up. They are still losing homes, particularly over the summer period. We live in a tourist area if you can handle the heat and like to water ski, and a lot of these go to short-stay accommodation, but the lack of incentive for the private sector to provide those long-term rentals has been taken away. They have been taxed out of the market in Victoria. It is simple as that. It is not that hard to understand what would fix this. Unfortunately with those 58 new or increased taxes, half of which are property related, is it any wonder they are leaving the state and literally going across the river or across the South Australian border? Even this real estate agent that I was talking to has ceased investing in property himself in Victoria. He is now going to Victor Harbor because it is easy. Even if they want to build new apartments, in Victor Harbor it is much easier and it is much, much quicker.

Again, renters obviously need to be looked after. There needs to be minimum standards, but not to the detriment of those that provide those rentals in the first place, because that is just madness. Guess what? It leads to a housing crisis, and that is what we are seeing instead of some practical solutions. You know I am a pragmatist by now. I like practical solutions that will actually have tangible outcomes so that we have not got people who cannot get a rental property for months and months and months and only then they may have to go and live in someone’s second dwelling.

This is another issue in rural areas: the planning schemes do not allow people to excise old block houses. Small farmers who could once make a living off a 30-acre irrigated horticulture block can no longer. Farming has got really hard too, so those small-time farmers are being bought out by the bigger guys next door. Unfortunately even if they have lived in their house all their life, they cannot excise that dwelling on a 30-acre block from that land and stay in their home, so they are going to buy another property – not to provide a long-term rental – or they will move into one that they have had for 20 years when that was a long-term rental. They are having to give notices to vacate because they need those places to live in. So there are planning-reform levers that could be pulled to alleviate and offer some practical support in the housing crisis. You just cannot tax your way out of debt, and you cannot tax your way out of a housing crisis; it just makes it worse. We need practical solutions to this housing crisis, of course.

I was listening to the member for Ovens Valley too, who gave a very, very comprehensive bill report. He seeks to move – and I support – his reasoned amendment:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to take into account further consultation with rental providers and industry about the unfair impact of the removal of no-fault notices to vacate’.

Again, it may not be the fault of those renting. It may be the fault of other rules and other flow-on effects of this government implementing so-called reforms that have led to this housing crisis or have led to people not being able to live in a home that they have lived in for 50 years.

I know that this is something that it is quite specific to rural and regional Australia, but guess what? We matter too, and we also need somewhere to live. Someone that has worked the land for the past 50 years to provide food and fibre to the people of this state, this country and internationally should have the right to choose to stay in their home if they want to.

It is not that hard. It is really not. It is pretty simple actually.

A couple of reforms that we know do not fit the city certainly do not work in regional and rural Victoria. When we sit on the borders with New South Wales and South Australia and can see land being cleared for more housing developments and ‘Sold; signs going up quite literally daily, whether it is for investment properties or for housing – people will live in New South Wales but still use Victorian hospitals, schools, police and ambulances a lot of the time – it does not make any sense.

Katie HALL (Footscray) (17:45): I am delighted to make a contribution to the Consumer and Planning Legislation Amendment (Housing Statement Reform) Bill 2024. It speaks to the Allan Labor government’s steadfast commitment to deliver more homes for Victorians. As the Parliamentary Secretary for Homes, I am very proud to be contributing to this reform work.

I would like to begin my contribution by reflecting a bit on some of the things we have heard from the other side. I think the member for Mordialloc called it earlier today in debate on the government business program when he predicted that the Liberal Party would just move a reasoned amendment, because it is a pretty lazy approach to dealing with legislation of this nature. I do not know how you can sit in this place and oppose a bill that is going to make sure that renters are safe in their homes with the security and safety of smoke detectors.

Michaela Settle: Because the landlords matter more than people.

Katie HALL: That is absolutely true, because if you listen to the member for Bulleen, the weasel words are spectacular. He spoke about optimised planning. When I think about his track record in planning I think about Fishermans Bend with no schools or infrastructure. How is that optimised planning? If you look to my community of Joseph Road – the precinct in Footscray that he approved; thousands and thousands of dwellings, 40-storey buildings – our government had to take the developers to court to get them to pay developer contributions so that they could build roads in there. That is not optimised planning; that is a disgrace. That is letting people down. The importance of housing is not so developers can make a coin, it is so that people have homes to live in, homes with dignity. Residents in my community are still living with a gravel road in these enormous apartment complexes – only now is the council delivering that road infrastructure – overshadowing the Maribyrnong. It is basically falling into the Maribyrnong; in fact we had one developer encroach on the land a metre over what was approved. The whole thing has been a disaster because the Liberal Party was more focused on giving developers a fair go than on people who are going to spend every cent that they are ever going to have on a place that they want to call home.

When we build homes we are also thinking about building communities. That is why our government’s work in precincts is so important, because it is not just the house, it is the infrastructure around it, the accessibility to schools and hospitals and train stations and bike paths – active transport. These are all crucially important things to make a community livable. I will not cop hearing the words ‘optimised planning’ when it is just ‘Approve, approve, approve, tick and flick, do not require the developers to pay developer contributions so that there is community infrastructure’. That is a disgrace. That is what that is, and that is the Liberal Party approach to planning.

But here we are working on massive reforms that are going to benefit some of the most vulnerable people in Victoria, and although I am someone who represents a seat with a diverse range of suburbs, in the suburb of Footscray alone I have twice the state average of renters. For those renters every single one of these protections is crucially important. These reforms will join a suite of over 130 reforms already in place to make renting fairer, and I could not be prouder to be part of a government that has introduced the strongest rental reforms in the nation, because if you are a renter, Victoria is the place that you want to live.

I must have missed something in the Liberal Party contributions over there. I do not understand this argument that if an investor who owns many, many properties decides to sell a property, that is then automatically denying a renter a home. No, it is not – the house still exists. Maybe a renter might buy that home off an investor. So these changes are not as simplistic as those opposite will have you believe. They are so important to the people of Victoria.

I think many aspects of this bill are going to be transformative to renters, the first being Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria. What a wonderful thing, to establish Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria so that renters are not having to go through the costly and lengthy process of going to VCAT. Renters almost always need to take time off work to attend a hearing, and I know this. One of my staff members had to do this when he was dealing with a VCAT matter for his rental property. For many this results in lost income. In a cost-of-living crisis it is unacceptable for renters to incur significant financial loss to have their most basic of rights upheld. You should not need to become an expert in tenancy law just to get minor repairs done. You should not lose income because your landlord cannot be bothered to do the right thing. And the wait times for VCAT cases can take months, if not years. This means that renters can be out of pocket hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars while they wait for their day in court. The RDRV will be accessible to everyone with a lease agreement, including social housing tenants. It will be available online, over the phone or in person, ensuring that every Victorian can access the service where and when they need it.

The bill will amend the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 to clarify that VCAT can provide a broad range of alternative dispute resolutions to parties and clarify VCAT’s roles. But the RDRV hearings will be less intensive than a regular VCAT hearing, making the process more accessible and less daunting to renters, and that is something to celebrate.

The mandatory licensing for property managers I think is also a really compelling part of these reforms. This bill makes amendments to the Estate Agents Act 1980 to require agents’ representatives to be registered – pretty basic. Agents’ representatives assist estate agents with their functions and typically work as property managers or sales consultants. As someone who has rented a lot of properties in my life, from share houses to living on my own, I know that sometimes there has been a bit of an all care, no responsibility situation in dealing with some of the estate agents or agents’ representatives I have been dealing with, and I am sure many members of this place have heard countless stories from constituents about property managers making inappropriate and often illegal requests.

With the time I have remaining I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the member for Wendouree and her advocacy on behalf of her community.

I found her contribution regarding Simon Scarff’s terrible and tragic death to be really sad, and I am so proud that she has been able to help secure this change. The fact that a rental property does not have a smoke detector, or have a smoke detector that is working, is absolutely shocking to me. This reform will change lives, and I am grateful to Simon Scarff’s family for their advocacy as well. This bill is excellent, and I commend it to the house.

Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (17:55): I rise to speak on the Consumer and Planning Legislation Amendment (Housing Statement Reform) Bill 2024 – an interesting title – and I do so to basically, first of all, outline that there are really eight areas of change in this bill. Six of them I have no problem with. Two of them I do have an issue with, and that is why I support the reasoned amendment put forward by the shadow minister:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to take into account further consultation with rental providers and industry about the unfair impact of the removal of no-fault notices to vacate’.

Now, some of these changes are reasonable, like being able to have transportable bonds and standardising application forms so renters do not have to just continue to fill out the same form over and over again for different providers or real estate agents. Then there are some other changes which I also see as reasonable, like going from 60 to 90 days to give renters more time to find another rental property, because we are in a crisis; and rental bidding. It does seem unreasonable, when people are lining up to rent a property for say $500 a week, that they say on the quiet, ‘I’ll pay $700,’ because that is making it even more difficult for renters to find properties.

But I would say they are problems of the government’s own making. I mean, why are renters having to bid? Why are they taking longer to find other properties when they have to vacate? It is because we are in the middle of a housing crisis, and we are in the middle of a housing crisis because the government have created this problem. They have created it through two avenues: the first one is the taxes that have been introduced by this government – 58 new and increased taxes in the decade that they have been in, and half of those taxes are actually on property. When you put taxes on property, you have an outcome that we are seeing play out at the moment, and that is a very negative effect on being able to have enough rental properties available to renters. So we have a crisis of the government’s own making.

I think what we also are seeing in this bill are the very bold words of a government saying they are producing a housing statement reform. First of all, can I begin by saying this is a government that has been in for 10 years, and last year we saw them come out with the statement that they are going to build 80,000 homes a year. Well, what have they been doing for the last 10 years? Do you wait for a crisis before you address it? Seriously. And what have they done in their first year of addressing the problem? Did they meet the target of 80,000 homes? Absolutely not. They missed that target by a whopping 34 per cent. So instead of building 80,000 homes, they built less than 53,000 homes. A 34 per cent miss of the target – an absolute fail, and that is what this is. These whole reforms that the government have put in muck around the edges of the problem, like we are seeing today with these reforms to the Estate Agents Act 1980, Residential Tenancies Act 1997and other act amendments. These are just more changes over the last 10 years that they have done. There have been a significant amount of changes to that act, and all we have seen are more challenges for people trying to find a rental. It has not improved it. If it improved it, we would see renters not struggling like they are to find rental properties, but instead what we have got is a housing crisis and a rental crisis.

We are seeing many of these taxes make people who want to be rental providers unable to do that. The government keeps saying that rental providers are massive land barons, and it demonises people who want to provide a home for somebody to rent. Let us be clear about who these people are. What group makes up these people who want to provide a property for somebody to rent? Seventy-one per cent of these people have one home other than the home they live in that they provide for a family or someone to rent. A significant proportion of those are teachers and nurses. These are not people who are out there to crucify poor people who they want to see out on the street. That is one of the reasons why the reasoned amendment has come through as it has; it is to withdraw one of the changes to the Residential Tenancies Act, and that is that after the first term of a contract you have to have some reason to give to stop the contract being renewed. When you employ someone it is very similar: you have a probation period, and sometimes it just does not work out. That is the case with this analogy that I am trying to use to help people understand. It is not after the end of the second extension of the contract or the third extension of the contract. If it is not working out, it is very reasonable to say, ‘Look, let’s call it quits.’ But that has been taken away from the rental providers to be able to utilise, and this is just making people walk away from that sort of investment – these mums and dads who want to provide rental properties to help people to stay in rental properties. Not everybody can afford to buy. Here is an email I will read out from a constituent, who wrote to me and said:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

This is why I am no longer investing in a rental property. Not long ago my wife and I received some inheritance money and decided to purchase a unit in Warrnambool, with the idea of putting someone in it who could not otherwise afford rental accommodation – a noble idea.

We put a lady into the unit who was a refugee with a young child and set the rent at $220 per week. This mostly worked well, but after a couple of years our tenant’s circumstances changed and she now has moved to Portland, so we advertised the unit for rental through a local agent. In addition, our tax bill is now three times what it was and there are new requirements coming for heating, cooling, insulation and we think further expenses.

He goes on, but his point is he cannot afford to keep that property anymore. What he did was invest that money that he inherited to help others, and he cannot afford to do that anymore. The stories that I hear in my office are from people coming in saying, ‘I can’t afford to pay these taxes. I have to put the rent up or I can’t actually keep the property because I can’t meet the mortgage that the property has on it.’ So people are exiting the market. They are going to Queensland and they are going interstate. The evidence is clear when we look at the figures of how many bonds are being put forward. It just indicates there is a massive loss of people who want to provide a rental property for people. They are not able to do so in Victoria. The government’s own changes over 10 years have totally failed and destroyed the balance that is needed between people who want to provide a rental property and those who need to rent.

The second reason the government has failed is because it has not invested in public housing. When you look at this reform, they are supposed to be saying how well they have done with their target of 80,000 homes a year. In the public housing sector, with the $4 billion that this government has supposedly spent on public housing, you would think we would see more houses in the market. But no, what we are really seeing is 480 houses less. That is less. After spending $4 billion we have got less properties – by 488. From 2015 to 2024 that is the outcome we got from that spend. Yet in New South Wales we have seen public housing increase by 10,454 houses. The same figure in Victoria is just 4067. It is an absolutely dismal fail. Not only that, but most of these properties are smaller single-bedroom units, so we actually have 4551 fewer bedrooms. This is a government housing reform that sets an 80,000-a-year target and fails to meet that target by a whopping 34 per cent.

How it plays out and what it looks like is people who are fleeing family violence having to wait extraordinary amounts of time, such as nearly 20 months, for a home. They are sleeping in their cars and they are trying to raise their children. They have been promised by this government they will be looked after, because family violence is abhorrent and we should care about and protect these women. And that is what happens: they end up on the street when they finally get the gumption to leave. That is how this government is treating them. That is what I see in my electorate office frequently, and that is why we are seeing so many more people sleeping on the streets.

This government’s housing reform is delusional. It is nothing about reform. They have had 10 years in government. The time for excuses is over. They have failed dismally, and the people of South-West Coast are certainly feeling and suffering the consequences of a government has not invested in public housing, has taxed people to the hilt and has sent rental providers fleeing to other states, leaving people needing a rental on the street.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (18:06): I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Consumer and Planning Legislation Amendment (Housing Statement Reform) Bill 2024. I think it is a little bit rich for the Liberal Party to be attacking us on social and affordable housing when they have attacked every build we have ever endeavoured to do and delivered, whether it be in my electorate or whether it be in Hawthorn. Their record stands strong in that regard – they oppose it wherever they can. So we will just dismiss that outright for a start.

Moving forward to the bill proper that we have in front of us, the purpose really is making renting easier, fairer and cheaper. Certainly I think a fundamental premise here is reasonableness, so when we are thinking about landlords it is not about attacking them per se – and I will go into the specific caveats in the bill that are protections for landlords with regard to legislation, because it needs to be fair on all fronts – but also recognising the significant increase in the proportion of people renting in Victoria. A third of Victorians rent, more than ever before, so there is naturally an imperative to make sure that the system is fair and reasonable on all fronts. I know the government has already worked hard to expand and protect renters’ rights, with more than 130 reforms already in place and more to come through our housing statement commitments.

I am somebody who rented for over 20 years. I do not think I should be continuing to reflect on that, save for the fact that I do recall first moving into one property that was in Elwood and I could smell a gas leak. I contacted the agent or the landlord, who fought back and said, ‘No, no, no, you’re imagining it’ and all sorts and did not want to heed my request. I will say: why would I make this up? If a plumber was going to visit, they could tell pretty quickly if there was or was not a gas leak. As it turned out the plumber came in and 2 minutes later said, ‘There’s a gas leak. Oh dear. We need to repair that urgently.’ So I had not made it up; it was a fair and reasonable request. I think if we just think about those fundamentals as the purpose underlying these reforms, we can see that we are not driving for the impossible or the unreasonable but that which is fair and proper in the circumstances in which renters find themselves.

Firstly, we are repealing the no-reason notice to vacate and banning no-fault evictions. It means all remaining no-reason notices to vacate in the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 will be removed and no-fault evictions for fixed-term agreements will not be permitted full stop. But let me say the caveat here: you can still be evicted for the usual reasons, such as damage, not paying rent or if the owner is moving back in. This is not a reform without the appropriate caveats in place, respecting of course that a renter must treat the property that they are in with respect, as I know I certainly did as a renter. That does not mean all renters do, and in that event we can see that is where that reform would have appropriate caveats to protect the landlord and their property.

We are banning all types of rental bidding. The bill will introduce amendments to ban a rental provider or their agent from accepting an unsolicited rental bid or accepting more than a month’s rent in advance. It should go without saying that this kind of reform is absolutely essential, because nothing speaks to inequity more than having to pay any more than you have to in order to secure a rental property and creating a situation, which obviously there has been in the market, whereby some people would receive favour because they would put more money up-front when we know for renters already the costs are enough.

You should be paying a fair price, but you should not have to pay months and months in advance just to get that little bit ahead of somebody else competing for the same property. We certainly made it illegal in 2021 for real estate agents or landlords to solicit or encourage higher offers than the advertised price of a rental property. But we note the pressures of a tight rental market with vacancy rates at record lows has put a lot of pressure on prospective tenants. We see more and more people making their own unsolicited bids either to pay more weekly rent or to pay more than the four weeks in advance to try and give their applications a competitive edge. But in endeavouring to get that property as quickly as possible, that inherently is creating a very unfair situation.

The good thing about these reforms is that the legislation is levelling the playing field for renters by closing this loophole and banning all types of rental bidding for good. I would hate to think anyone would argue against this premise. We will make it an offence to accept bids and introduce tougher penalties for agents and landlords who break the law. I just want to be clear: it is not about demonising the landlords; it is just saying this kind of practice is unacceptable. I am sure decent landlords and agents would agree. It is better for their reputations as well.

On increasing notice periods to 90 days for rent increases and notices to vacate, also in such a tight rental market it is only fair that renters have time to prepare for increases in costs or find a new home. I remember the nervousness prior to all the 130 reforms per se, just wondering ‘Well, they might decide suddenly to kick me out’ – you know, that nervousness, even as somebody who was earning an income, and I can imagine people who are on lower incomes as well. But it is also just availability, isn’t it? It is being able to find that property that you need. Also, even prior to the reforms to do with pets, I always had pets. I was always up-front – I did not hide the pets, I might add – to make sure that the landlord was aware that I had pets so that I did not have that nervousness. But I am not passing judgement on those who may have quietly hidden the pets. I thought in fairness to the landlord that they should know that I had my two cats.

But I am very relieved to see a change, because for someone who may indeed, as many Victorians do, live for the long term in a rental property having to go without pets et cetera or not being able to put up some pictures on the wall and make it a home was really deeply unfair but also emotionally not good for those renters. So it is good that we are seeing better times resulting from important reforms that really value the contribution also that the renter is making to that property. It is a two-way situation. On the one hand the landlord, yes, is providing a place for the renter to live, but the renter in turn is providing rental income to the landlord. So that two-way respect situation is really important. I should say making rental applications easier and better protecting renters’ information through enhanced use, disclosure and collection requirements just seems like common sense. There is also protection of renters’ personal information – no need to share more than is required for an appropriate transaction when it comes to the contract. The bill will standardise rental application forms to prevent requests for unnecessary information and personal data that are often collected by agents and rent tech apps when renters apply for a home – a very pragmatic concern there.

Something that is a big, big issue, I must say, that is reflected locally particularly by a lot of people in Southbank, but not only there – I am sure it is across the state where people are renting – is to do with owners corporations. The bill amends the Owners Corporations Act 2006 to extend registration requirements for owners corp managers to a natural person in effective control of an owners corporation’s management business. As the majority of registered owners corporation managers are currently corporations rather than natural persons, this reform will enable education requirements to be applied to a natural person in control of each owners corporation management business.

When you think of the huge amounts of money they are managing and the incredible responsibility over many, many, many people in a community, it is really important that we have these kinds of, again, reasonable requirements to ensure that the money and the way that the renters themselves and the properties are managed is fair and reasonable.

I am absolutely thrilled to see these changes coming through. I advocated hard to the previous Minister for Consumer Affairs, and I am glad they are being carried through, because this is certainly something that has been mentioned as being really important in my electorate. You can be quite vulnerable to those owners corps, so it is fair enough that they should have to meet certain educational or other requirements to ensure best possible outcomes for renters. This is about reasonableness, this is about fairness and pragmatic changes. I commend the bill.

Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (18:16): I am pleased to rise today to contribute on the Consumer and Planning Legislation Amendment (Housing Statement Reform) Bill 2024. It has been an interesting debate today. I do not know how many on the other side listened to the Shadow Minister for Consumer Affairs the member for Ovens Valley when he made his contribution on this bill, but he basically said 90 per cent of this bill is a good bill and we do not have a problem with it. He was very specific about that. The problem he had and the reason he has moved the reasoned amendment is basically because of the no-fault notice to vacate. That is the only thing he wants changed. He believes that will make the bill a better bill.

We are in a housing crisis at the moment, and we continually hear this government blaming other people for it. Let us go back to why we are in a housing crisis. Let us go back to this government being elected in 2014. How many applications were there in 2014 for public, affordable, social housing? There were about 10,000 applications. Nothing happened for six years – nothing. Then in 2020 they came out with their Big Housing Build: ‘We’re going to spend billions and billions of dollars. We’re going to build thousands of houses across the state – 13,000 homes.’ Today there are 60,000 applications. We are committed to building 13,000 or 14,000 homes depending on which statement you read from the government, which is five times less than what is required. It is the lack of investment by this government in housing that is why we have these problems today. It is because of this lack of investment that we have things like rental bidding. People are so desperate. We support that part of the legislation where we take away rental bidding. We support it – we say no, that is wrong. The member for Ovens Valley was very clear on that, but this is why we are in the situation we are in today, because of the government’s lack of action on social and affordable housing. That they are only investing in 14,000 or 13,000 and there are 60,000 applicants is problematic.

It would shock you to know that even non-essential work on a public house is a 99-year wait – 99 years. I was talking to a lady – I will not name her – who works in the department. She was trying to get something fixed on a house. She wanted it pushed up the list. It was an urgent, non-essential item. That item was item 271,000 on that list. At what point in time did this become acceptable? At what point in time does a 99-year waiting list for non-essential works become acceptable? It is not, and it is a direct fault of this government. The government does not realise this – it has its blinkers on. Investment is driving itself out of Victoria with the amount of taxes introduced in this state. Again, this no-fault clause that they are trying to impose on rental providers – they forget that through COVID it was the rental providers that kept people in houses. They forget that. Their memory is so short. People froze rents and reduced rents because people were not working. If they did not do that, we would have had a homeless pandemic, not COVID. It would have been completely different.

A lot of these rental providers were the unsung heroes of COVID, but ever since then they have been punished. Their land taxes have gone up. Land taxes are out of control. Everything this government has done to these people is punishing them, and these are the people – and this is the part the government has to realise – that take the burden off the federal government. When they retire, they will be self-funded retirees.

Here is an interesting fact. The latest adjusted ABS data shows that Victoria is down 11.9 per cent on new construction builds. Where have they gone up? They have gone up in New South Wales, they have gone up in Queensland and they have gone up in South Australia. Why is it going up in those states and down in Victoria? You can look up this data; it just came out today. It has gone up because this government is driving investment out of this state.

Since I have got my new roles – and I am now Shadow Assistant Minister for Planning and the Building Industry – I have had a lot of people reach out. I had one of Victoria’s major developers talk to me, and he was going to invest $400 million into this state. Where has that investment gone? South Australia. Why? The taxes and the penalties that any investor in this state is getting charged. They are driving investment out of Victoria and it is hurting our housing market. Land developers are throwing the anchor out. They are not chopping up land. We have got a housing crisis, but there is nothing to incentivise developers to do subdivisional work, nothing at all. We have got heritage studies that are taking years and years and years to complete. I heard the minister today saying, ‘Well, we are going to speed up this process.’ Are we going to ignore heritage studies now? Are they not going to be applicable? How are we going to speed up this process?

This government is solely responsible for the crisis we are in today. There is no doubt about that. You cannot dispute that. They have been in government now since 2014, and we are in the worst state as far as housing supply goes that we have ever been in. And it is at a critical stage. If this government does not start helping developers and everyone else to get moving again, we will go backwards again. As was pointed out today, and I have said this before in this chamber, if you want the basis of a good economy, you look at the cranes in the air, because you look out across the city now. Look out across the city – how many private cranes are in the air? There are not many, and that is problematic, because that is telling me supply is down. That is telling me our economic activity is down, and we need to fix this. But the government created this problem.

I was talking to another developer. We talk about supply, and the government talks about us being the blockers, but this is a cracker. I am talking about a developer who bought land in Cape Paterson in 2012. It is about a 400- or 450-lot subdivision. It was rezoned in 2014. The developer has been a decade doing all the studies – the heritage studies, the plover studies, all the environmental studies – and finally got it all to a point where this development is ready to go. What happens? The government has stepped in and said, ‘You’re not doing that anymore.’ Four hundred lots; what is that going to house – 1000 people, on average? That is 1000 people that now will not have a home. Four hundred lots in an area that is growing – why? They did everything right. They did all the studies, they did the heritage studies, they did the environmental studies. They have spent hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars getting everything going, and then this government again pulls the rug out from under them – and calls us blockers.

As was rightly pointed out earlier, the planning minister blocked development in her own electorate. It was only three storeys high. It was not a massive 30-storey high rise. Three storeys high – the planning minister herself blocked that in her electorate. So this government cannot look at this side of the chamber and say we are the blockers.

When the member for Bulleen was Minister for Planning, something like 200,000 units were developed in a four-year period – 220,000, I think it was. This government are saying, ‘We’re going to do 800,000 in 10 years,’ and they are going to fail at that as well. They are not even going to come close to the 800,000 in 10 years, or the 80,000 a year. I think this year come September it will be two years since that announcement, and my prediction is the government will be, at that point in time, probably about 60,000 to 65,000 homes short of their target – another 65,000 homes that have not been delivered. We have got a social housing crisis, and this government has literally done nothing to improve it. So as I said earlier, the shadow minister, the member for Ovens Valley – (Time expired)

Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (18:26): I too rise to speak on the Consumer and Planning Legislation Amendment (Housing Statement Reform) Bill 2024. I would caution the member for Narracan against speaking too quickly about the member for Bulleen’s contribution in this state in relation to housing and building units, because I would welcome us to jump in a car together and go and have a drive through Footscray on the way through to my patch of Laverton. You will actually see a disaster, an absolute disaster that the member for Bulleen when he was heading up as the Minister for Planning approved, the most appalling state of affairs – apartment blocks that are built almost on the road there in Footscray. I drive past every time that I am coming home from this place. The first time I did it I was with my husband. I clearly remember the first time that these apartments went up, because we both looked at them and were like, ‘What the heck is that?’ And the fact that it was so close to the road – and I am not just talking about any road; I am talking about an ultra busy, busy, busy road, a mini highway in the inner west. That is what the member for Bulleen has left in the seat of Footscray. It is a real shame that the member for Footscray is not here to hear that. Actually, it is probably a good thing that she is not here to hear that.

This is exactly why the member for Bulleen’s face for the last two years has been on a fence in my rental property, blocking the gaps, the holes in my dodgy rental property in the fence that the landlord would not fix for so long. I was so worried that my Beagle Ringo Starr would not only push through the fence but more importantly that he could see out, and he could see people walking around and he would go absolutely ballistic and be bang-up against the fence. So we put up some old corflutes I had, member for Bulleen corflutes. I think it was ‘Matt Guy, the guy that cuts’ – was that the slogan? That was one particular election. That kind of planning lost you guys elections time and time again. But that is the member for Bulleen and what he has done here to this state, particularly one part of the west.

Our government here on this side of the house is determined to ensure that in Victoria renters have fair protections – fair protections over their leases, their living standards and most importantly their finances. We know on this side of the house that the biggest way that we make rents cheaper is by creating more supply of homes and housing, and that is exactly what we have set out to do and we are doing. The Premier has made this the challenge of her premiership, and I for one will gladly support her in that challenge.

Much to the dismay of those opposite we have announced a series of new reforms aimed at jump-starting housing development en masse – projects that are well designed, close to major transport links and, most importantly, where people want to live, not where they absolutely have to live so far out in the burbs they cannot get transport. It is not there yet. These estates are going up from whoa to go before any kind of infrastructure has happened out there. There is nowhere left for them to go. Part of our housing statement is about addressing that fact. You cannot keep shoving families into the outer suburban fringes of metropolitan Melbourne and Victoria and expect that to be the right thing to do.

That is what this housing statement is about. This is also why we need to build more housing. It is why we have a housing plan, and it is why the Premier has made this the challenge of her premiership. Over the last six and a bit years here in this place I have not heard anyone from the coalition ever talk about a housing plan. They come here and they talk about a housing crisis. They seem to get that there is a housing crisis, and it is really great they agree there is a housing crisis. But they have no plan, no strategy and no greater vision that they have been able to communicate to Victorians about how they are going to address that, and that is really scary. That is really dangerous.

As a westie and someone who represents a growth corridor, I have time and time again said the announcements that we have made around not continuing to shove and push people further and further out into already busy and – I am not saying overpopulated, because people in the west and many of the families that I meet in the outer west love living out there. They love their suburbs, but they do not want those suburbs to continue to grow as fast. So it is about slowing that down and building more housing where people, yes, want to buy and, yes, want to live but also close to already existing and extremely accessible, functional and satisfactory public transport. That enhances the standard of living here in this state. That makes for happy Victorians and happy Victorian families, and that is the kind of thing people on this side of the house and this side of the chamber are fighting for. We think about this with a broader vision, we go ahead and we implement it, we create the legislation and legislative reform agenda and we bring it to this place to debate, and time and time again those opposite block it. They block it because they think, ‘We can’t understand how it fits in here.’ They have tried to block other things and have said, ‘But we didn’t get a long enough briefing,’ only for folks like me to find out they did get a briefing but they chose not to attend or they did not ask a particular suite of questions but the minister’s office has spent a considerable amount of time trying to educate those opposite.

Our housing policy and agenda is not just about rental reform and landlord reform and addressing a housing crisis, it is about addressing a population in coming decades, as the Premier has talked about, that will be larger. Melbourne will be larger than the size of London. If anyone has been to London over the past couple of years or happens to be on Instagram looking at all the amazing things they can do in London if they are lucky enough to go over, they can see it is a really busy place. And it is not just during tourist season; it is a really busy city, it is a big city, it is a major city, and that is the size that we are going to become. Not only do we need to be able to build the infrastructure to address that population – stuff like the Metro Tunnel, the West Gate Tunnel and so on – it is also around housing, because people are going to need somewhere to live. Does that mean people are going to have to change the way in which they think about housing and the way in which people at different stages of their life will want to live in particular houses or apartments or townhouses? Yes, it does, and we need to make sure that the housing supply is there.

I feel like this conversation always ends up hitting ‘Landlords versus renters’. Many of us in this place have been both, and we all know – and I would like to think that the member for Richmond would also know, but I will make that assumption after her contribution this afternoon – that is not true. It is not one versus the other. It is not pitting good versus bad. The world does not exist like that. These are laws and reforms that we are putting in place to ensure there is adequate protection for landlords and for renters, because we know more and more people are either choosing to rent or having to rent because being able to afford a house is not like it was when my parents were buying their first home. But is not us versus them. I am guessing, based on the conversation and the narrative of people like the member for Bulleen and the member for Narracan, that they are pushing it as one versus the other. They are saying that Labor is for the renters and the Liberal Party is for the landlords and it is one versus the other. It does not work that way. Everyone deserves to be protected equally, and at the end of the day what we know, what any rational person in this house knows, is that the majority of landlords and renters do the right thing.

But sometimes problems arise, and that is why laws and protection mechanisms like the ones in this reform bill are so important. But it is also important to realise if we continue this divisive debate and pit landlords against renters – because we actually need both in this state – and that one is better than the other or one is more protected than the other or one happens to behave worse than the other, that everyone has stories on either side and it is really important for people in this place to be able to have a balanced argument and not to be fearmongering out in the community for political gain.

I do have to commend the minister for bringing this reform bill before the house in the first sitting week for 2025. It is the right thing to do; it is the sensible thing to do. It is full of great reform, and I would urge those on the other side to go ahead and support this bill. It is about getting things done and protecting people that still need protecting. I commend the bill to the house.

Gabrielle DE VIETRI (Richmond) (18:36): For too long landlords, real estate agents and private companies have been able to prey on renters. Think of the single mother that I spoke to just last week who has had to move five times in as many years – each time bidding against other desperate renters just to secure a roof over their heads for her and her kids, each time slapped with hidden fees and privacy invasions. Until now all of this has been legal.

But now, thanks to the power of renters in standing up for their rights and demanding better, the Greens have won important rent reforms that will make renting fairer and more affordable for everyone. No longer will the real estate agent be able to accept higher bids for a crappy apartment that no-one can afford in the first place anyway. No longer will a landlord be able to kick you out for absolutely no reason. These reforms are welcome, and honestly it is about time. But our work here is definitely not done, because as long as a landlord can jack up the rent just as much as they like, renters will still be forced out of their homes and into homelessness, because an unaffordable rent rise is a de facto eviction.

An Anglicare report last year found that most rentals are unaffordable for nurses and hospitality workers. An out-of-work couple with two children can afford only 0.3 per cent of rentals in Victoria – that equates to just 40 properties out of 12,845 that are available on the rental market. An out-of-work single parent with two children faces even tougher odds, with only eight properties – eight individual homes – being considered affordable across the state. For a young person on JobSeeker, guess how many – zero properties are considered affordable. Eighty-two per cent of Australians are in rental stress, and Victoria has more people in housing stress than any other state or territory across the country.

The member for Laverton said that most landlords do the right thing and referred to false equivalences about needing to protect property investors and renters who are scrounging around for spare change to pay for medication or to put food for the table. Look at how much rents have gone up: 40 per cent in Victoria over the last three years. That is an average. That means that to balance out the landlords who might have put it up only 10 or 20 per cent you have got other landlords who have put up the rent 60 or 70 per cent over three years. That is an absolutely untenable situation, and something has to change.

Our system right now is plunging not just those pushed to the margins and not just essential workers but even families on two incomes into housing stress and homelessness. In a wealthy place like Victoria no-one should experience the stress of being without a home, no-one should have to beg for a couch to sleep on or choose between medication and food and rent. I think I speak for the hundreds of thousands of renters out there when I say the only way to make renting truly fair is to make unlimited rent rises illegal. Until that happens the power imbalances between landlords and renters will mean that all those other protections that have been introduced will not be enforced, because renters will live in fear of a retaliatory rent increase from their landlord if they dare ask for their basic rights to be met or if they dare take their landlord to court, if they have the time and money to do so.

That is why the Greens will keep pushing for rent controls, a two-year freeze on rents to allow the chance for wages to catch up and then a permanent cap on rent increases thereafter, 2 per cent every 24 months. Then perhaps in a couple of decades time that balance between our wages and the rent that we are paying might come into alignment. Sixteen European countries have some form of rent control, and the ACT, where the Greens–Labor government have introduced rent controls, is the only place where rents have not skyrocketed over the last few years. Is it any wonder? It is because they have introduced rent controls. We are willing to negotiate what that looks like. We have a proposal on the table, but 16 European countries cannot be wrong. This is a reasonable and commonsense intervention into a market that has spun out of control.

As more and more renters continue to face untenable living situations, Labor will soon come to realise that, until they come to the table, landlords will continue to have the power to just jack up the rent and force renters out, and they will continue to live in overpriced and substandard homes. There are a few more important things that the government must do to make renting fair and address that power imbalance between renters and landlords. The government promised last year to improve minimum standards for cooling, heating and energy efficiency. They were supposed to come in in October last year, but there has been absolute radio silence. They do not even need legislation to do it; it is actually just in regulation. It could be done with a stroke of the minister’s pen, and we are still waiting for those. They cannot just make a big song and dance about renters rights and then not act on it for months and months on end. These are people’s lives that we are talking about. It is their living situation, and their ability to find work, their ability to look after their children, their ability to participate in civil society is impacted when they do not have a secure and comfortable home to live in.

How is it fair that a renter will still have to pay excessive break-lease fees if they need to move out, often forcing renters to pay double rent during a time when they are already facing the enormous cost and stress of moving home? Why doesn’t this bill include Labor’s promise to make landlords provide evidence for withholding renters’ bonds, to stop them from trying their luck in a system that is geared to reward them? How is it fair that renters can be kicked out just because a landlord decides they want to sell? Renters’ housing security should not be at the whim of their property investor landlords buying and selling their assets. This bill is a step in the right direction, but I challenge the government to go further so that our system truly treats housing as a human right and not as a commodity to be bought and sold. Today here is an opportunity to get hundreds of thousands of Victorians out of housing stress and maybe even give them the chance to save for a house deposit. This is about choices, and the government is choosing to drip-feed renters the basic rights that they should have had a long time ago, when it could just as easily make unlimited rent rises illegal.

I want to speak to a couple of the planning elements and acknowledge that community groups and stakeholders have some feedback about some of the planning changes. We are listening to those groups to understand their concerns. These planning changes increase ministerial power and cut red tape when it comes to large developments, which risks circumventing basic standards and checks and balances to ensure that developments are appropriate to the needs of current and future communities. This comes from a government that insists that fixing the housing crisis is just a matter of cutting red tape for property developers and property investors, when we know in fact that the housing crisis has come from a system that puts landlords over renters, a system that puts property investors over first home buyers, a system that needs to be dramatically rebalanced to ensure that housing is treated as a human right that everyone has access to and not as a commodity to be traded on, withheld and cashed in on when the profit is right. That is why we need to see an end to unlimited rent rises, that is why we need to see an end to property investor tax breaks and that is why we need a massive build of public housing for everyone who needs a home.

Gary MAAS (Narre Warren South) (18:45): I too rise to make a contribution on the Consumer and Planning Legislation Amendment (Housing Statement Reform) Bill 2024. Goodness me, it would be remiss of me not to make a few comments on the preceding contribution by the member for Richmond. I am still unsure if you are supporting the bill after saying it is a step in the right direction, but let us face it: the Greens political party have voted more against housing than they have ever built. Federal level, state level, local level – you oppose everything. No-one on this side of the house is going to be lectured by the Greens when it comes to talking about renting and talking about renters rights. You have got to be in government to be able to make a difference, and this is what we have been doing. What is more, we do not get in the way when you are trying to increase supply, because, as you know, when you increase supply not only do people get into houses but prices go down and there is affordability. The member for Richmond was the mayor of the Greens-dominated Yarra council when she voted down social and affordable housing in Collingwood just down the road from the Fitzroy Gasworks site back in April 2021. Let us not forget that. They do not care about providing housing in the community; they only care about opposing our attempts to deliver it. Our government has built more social and affordable housing than any government in history.

Gabrielle de Vietri: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member is misleading the house. Those were factually incorrect –

A member: What’s the standing order?

Gabrielle de Vietri: I don’t know.

The ACTING SPEAKER (John Mullahy): There is no point of order.

Gary MAAS: Renters in this state know who is on their side. Just the other day I was with a fellow by the name of John Lister in Werribee. John Lister in Werribee cares about renters and he cares about renters rights, and you know why he does? Because he is a renter himself, and he wants to come to this place, he wants to join the aspirations of his fellow people in Werribee and he wants to make a contribution to excellent housing policy. We are very hopeful for him this Saturday, and we want him to join us to be able to contribute to housing and the affordability of housing in this state. This bill goes towards that.

The housing statement reform bill formalises the Victorian government’s commitment as part of the housing statement to increase rent protections for Victorians. The bill gives tenants more certainty about leases, living standards and finances and addresses issues that drive up the cost of living for renters with a range of reforms. These include repealing all remaining no-reason notices to vacate in the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 and ending no-fault evictions for fixed-term agreements, banning all types of rental bidding and increasing the notice period for rent increases and notices to vacate to 90 days. Rental applications will be made easier, and enhanced requirements for the use, disclosure and collection of renters information will be implemented too. As we heard from the member for Wendouree earlier today in her very compassionate and at times emotional but very, very compelling contribution, there will be the extension of smoke alarm safety requirements. We thank her for that fabulous contribution and indeed note the very strong advocacy of the Scarff family in Ballarat, who had to endure the loss of a loved one due to the very simple thing of a faulty fire alarm. Mandating yearly checks will go to fixing that. There will be mandatory licensing and training to deter poor conduct by industry professionals and tougher penalties for real estate agents who break the law as well.

The bill strengthens the Victorian planning system by implementing recommendations and related reforms from the red tape commissioner. These changes aim to modernise the planning system to make it more responsive and better equipped to handle the housing affordability challenges of today. These changes are supported by industry and councils, who will benefit from faster and clearer processes as well as cost savings.

The bill also supports the establishment of Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria to resolve simple rental disputes. The RDRV service will be available to anyone with a lease, including social housing tenants, and will be operational by mid-2025 by phone, online or in person. It means that VCAT will not be a one-stop shop, because it will also alleviate that pressure from VCAT, with applicants triaged into dispute resolution services where appropriate instead of going directly to a hearing. RDRV will sit within VCAT, and if renters have a simple dispute with their landlord, including issues about repairs, maintenance, damage, bond claims or rental increases, they can access that free service.

We know that having a house is key to a good quality of life for Victorians – a life full of community, opportunity and security – and we know housing supply pressures are impacting the price of homes and rent and reducing the ability for many, particularly those from lower socio-economic communities, to secure a home. This is something I hear from my community in Narre Warren South particularly, being an area which has seen and continues to see major growth throughout its corridor.

Our government is getting on with approving and building homes to increase supply, from our landmark $5.3 billion Big Housing Build, which is on track to deliver at least 12,000 new social and affordable homes, to creating more housing options for Victorians through build-to-rent development projects. Melbourne is home to around three-quarters of all build-to-rent projects completed in Australia last year, at 73 per cent of build-to-rent apartments across the country. Eligible build-to-rent developments completed and operational from 1 January 2022 until the end of December 2031 receive a 50 per cent land tax concession for up to 30 years and full exemption from the absentee owner surcharge.

The bill adds to the suite of reforms that have been made under this government to ensure that renters in Victoria have the rights, respect, security and certainty that they deserve. This includes the establishment of a renting taskforce to crack down on dodgy landlords and allows renters the ability to report properties for investigation. We have also invested in our hardworking community service organisations through the $7.8 million rental stress support package, and this responds to the increase in demand these services have faced in light of cost-of-living pressures which renters are facing in Victoria. Past rental reforms have also included allowing renters to keep pets in homes and make modifications such as planting a veggie garden or hanging pictures without having to seek permission. We have also ensured minimum standards for renters, including the availability of amenities like hot and cold water in the bathroom and laundry; functioning ovens, stovetops and sinks in the kitchen; and a permanent heater in living rooms.

The bill is another important aspect of the delivery of the Allan Labor government’s commitment to our housing statement, and as we all know, on this side of the chamber we know how important it is to ensure more Victorians, especially families, younger people, young renters and vulnerable people all have the opportunity to either own or rent a home.

While the Greens can talk big about how much they care about housing, they seem to care more about opposing any attempt that this government makes at delivering it. Rather than being blockers, we are getting on with the job, and we are delivering more homes for Victorians and building upon reforms that make our government the government for renters. I commend the bill to the house.

Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (18:55): I rise today to talk on the Consumer and Planning Legislation Amendment (Housing Statement Reform) Bill 2024. It is great to get up and get underway in 2025 amongst friends in the chamber that are here paying attention and doing what we do, which is representing our community. I hope that the member for Mordialloc has his chart out and moves the member for Morwell along – that he has ticked the box now I have spoken on the first bill of the year. He is not here, so hopefully he is watching back in his office.

I do want to highlight the member for Wendouree, who spoke about smoke detectors in units and houses – rental properties. I have worked on a lot of these rental properties that not only did not have sufficient smoke detectors but in general were not up to scratch for a human being to live in, let alone a family with little kids. There was black mould and there were toilets that did not flush properly. Anything that we can do to protect these people that do rent is a good thing. I think we have articulated that even though we have got a reasoned amendment, we are happy with a lot of the stuff that is in this bill. There are just a few bits and pieces that, unfortunately, we think need a little bit more work.

I move around my electorate, and I talk to our real estate agents. We are trying to get more houses online for people to actually rent, but our rental providers are walking away at the moment and not putting their houses up so people can move in and rent them. They are finding it difficult with the current climate, with taxes and other costs that are being heaped upon them, to actually be able to pass them on because at the other end the people that are trying to rent these buildings and dwellings cannot afford to pay it, so we need to find that happy balance. I know our local hospital down there, which is engaging doctors and nurses and physicians from overseas, is in the same situation – asking real estate agents to work hard to actually find houses that these doctors and nurses can actually move into. It is a really hard thing to get right. Although this goes a long way to ticking off a few checks and balances, there are a few other bits and pieces that need to be done.

Locally in the Latrobe Valley one of the other big issues is about expanding and having land that is available for us to use. One of the big things that we are finding is that, with coal overlays that are 40 or 50 years old, our council cannot release land to be able to start these new subdivisions to welcome new families and new people to the Latrobe Valley. There are a lot of outside influences that are at play for the property developers that are going to turn this vacant land, with these coal overlays on them, into new estates – whether they be industrial estates or, more importantly down our way, housing estates to attract people to the Latrobe Valley, to make sure that they have the right to have a decent, proper, safe roof over their head and that they are able to take their children and put them in schools that are near these developments. Outside what we are talking about in this planning legislation amendment bill here today, there are certainly other factors at play. I have implored the Minister for Planning to look at these coal overlays to help us out in the Latrobe Valley.

As I said, I have been able to work in some of these rental properties that were not actually fit for purpose, but there is also the flip side where we have people that actually rent these properties that – (Time expired)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am required by sessional orders to interrupt business. The member will have the call when the matter returns to the house.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.