Housing
Samantha RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (12:09): (321) My question is to the Minister for Housing. Minister, I refer to the government’s privatisation of the former public housing site at Abbotsford Street in North Melbourne under Labor’s public housing renewal program, which is a blueprint for the large-scale demolition and privatisation of 44 more public sites. The development of this site was supposed to include priority homes for first home owners. A constituent contacted me recently after having her contract to purchase one of these apartments as a first home owner cancelled. This occurred less than 20 days after she had been reassured by Homes Victoria the project was on track. We now understand the developer, MAB, and Homes Victoria have cancelled their development agreement, leaving those who trusted the government in the lurch. The rationale given by the developer was that they were not selling enough apartments, yet this is a development on public land that the government marketed would help to increase affordable housing. We are yet to find out what happens now. Minister, doesn’t this debacle demonstrate that the privatisation of public housing estates is failing?
Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (12:10): Thank you, Dr Ratnam, for your question. Ordinarily I would begin by perhaps acknowledging that questions on housing, on public social community housing and indeed on the broader work within the housing statement are asked in good faith, but on this occasion I am not going to do that, because in the first instance you have not sought to reach out with any specific concerns that I am aware of about the constituent or the community member that you have referred to in your question, unlike one of your colleagues from the other place – in fact a couple of colleagues of yours from the other place – who have done that. I am really, really prepared and ready and willing and able to assist, as is my office, as is the department, with specific examples or concerns that you raise, but what I will call out in the course of questions like this is the use of individual examples of questions or concerns then being the starting point for a weaponisation of the social housing work and this record investment of more than $6.3 billion into social housing across the state. Dr Ratnam, no matter how many times you or your colleagues seek to characterise a record investment of thousands of additional social housing dwellings across the state as being a knockdown removal of access for people to social housing –
Samantha Ratnam: On a point of order, President, I have tried in good faith to give the minister enough time to respond to the substance of my question, which was about the privatisation of public housing estates and this being an example of the project failing and asking for the Minister for Housing’s response to the failure of the privatisation. I would like her to respond to my question, please.
The PRESIDENT: I believe the minister was relevant to the question.
Harriet SHING: Dr Ratnam, I am quite literally addressing the very core of the question that you got to eventually. When we talk about development of the tower sites and those 44 towers that have reached the end of their operational lives and we talk about an uplift of 10 per cent in the amount of social housing for these sites, the thing that you choose to focus on is some confected myth which weaponises the issue of people’s desire to get information about their futures and seeks to cast a wholesale narrative about people who really deserve access to accurate information being held to ransom by these cheap political shots that you are intent upon pursuing. If you want to have a discussion about the development of these sites and about the $6.3 billion in social housing across the state, then let us do it. But let us do it in good faith.
Samantha RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (12:13): Minister, you just spent the entire answer time attacking the format and the tone of my question. This is a real-life constituent who has had her first home owner contract cancelled by a developer that is contracted by Homes Victoria. Under your watch this program is failing, and you are using it as a blueprint to expand it to 44 public housing towers. It is a matter of public interest. To follow up, we also understand individuals who had contracts for affordable apartments in the development were contacted by MAB prior to the government cancelling their contracts, with MAB offering to facilitate their exit from the contract, refund the deposit, pay the solicitors’ fees and any interest on the deposit and also provide a smooth transition into a contract of sale in any other of MAB’s developments, despite these not being affordable. Essentially MAB was trying to pressure people to give up on their contracts for an affordable home because it was not making enough money, yet Homes Victoria on its website is still spruiking that the development will be given priority to first home owners. Can you confirm that MAB will continue to profit from being allowed to build on public land after it has kicked beneficiaries of your policy out of it in such a disgraceful way?
Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (12:14): Dr Ratnam, again, I referred to this very issue in the answer that I gave to the substantive question. You pulled me up on a point of order after I had done precisely that. I have given you a very, very clear commitment that I am happy to engage with you on specific matters as you raise them – or indeed any of your colleagues or indeed anyone around this place or indeed anyone from the other chamber about matters which people want information about. I am really happy to engage with you. What I am not happy to do is stand here –
Samantha Ratnam: On a point of order, President, once again to the subject of relevance of the response, I have asked a very specific direct question about a constituent and about a cancellation of contract. I seek for the minister to respond to my substantive question, please.
The PRESIDENT: I once again believe the minister was relevant to the question.
Harriet SHING: Dr Ratnam, you have just asked me to respond to your substantive question. I have done that. You have got a supplementary question that you have put to me. As I have said, I am really happy to seek further information for you in relation to these matters, but perhaps if you actually talk and raise these issues, we can get to the heart of them without the need for this weaponisation that will probably make it onto TikTok before the end of question time.