Tuesday,31 October 2023


Questions without notice and ministers statements

Housing


Katherine COPSEY, Harriet SHING

Housing

Members interjecting.

Harriet Shing: Can I get the question again? Sorry, there is a lot of noise.

Katherine COPSEY: Certainly can. My question is to the Minister for Housing. Currently there are 125,000 people on the public housing waiting list in Victoria, yet the Labor government has released a proposal that could signal the end of public housing in our state. Of the new dwellings proposed in the housing statement issued last month, can you confirm how many of these homes are guaranteed to be public housing?

When we talk about the delivery of social housing around this state, when we talk about more than 13,000 new homes to be delivered under this investment of more than $6.3 billion, we are talking about social housing that incorporates and includes public housing and community housing. Therefore, when you distinguish between social housing and public housing, by inference you are saying that community housing represents a departure from the delivery of public housing.

Members interjecting.

Katherine Copsey: On a point of order, President, I can hear interjections requesting a factual question. I did ask a factual question. The minister has 1 minute left to answer the substantive part of my question, which is: how many of the new homes under the housing statement are guaranteed to be public housing? We are all aware of the distinction. How many will be public housing?

The PRESIDENT: A point of order is not an opportunity to repeat the question and add to it. I call the minister to the question.

Harriet SHING: Thank you very much, President. With the time that I have remaining, again I want to take issue with the way in which every question you ask about housing uses the word ‘privatisation’ and then extrapolates into a question as to how much public housing will be made available as part of this investment. That, by extension, to go back to the point that I have made already and will continue to make, invites a conclusion that community housing is in fact something that you are opposed to. If you are opposed to community housing providers and all of the work that they do to support people most in need, then at least have the guts to stand up and say it.

Katherine Copsey: On a point of order, President, I can understand spending time on questioning the characterisation of the question or the tone of the question. There are 9 seconds left. I would appreciate the minister returning to the substance of my question. How many of these homes –

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: Yes, that is fine. If people think that the minister is not relevant to the question, then obviously they are right to call a point of order. My issue is – and it is not necessarily from the area that the member has asked the question from – there is so much noise that I do not know if she is answering the question. If we can keep the chamber to a point where we can all hear the answer, that would assist not only me but the person asking the question and everyone else.

Of those who cannot pay the increased amount, many have told us that they risk becoming homeless due to being unable to secure another suitable home.

So my question is: what increased funding for homelessness services do you have planned, given that the housing and homelessness crisis is set to worsen?

The PRESIDENT: I think the issue I have is that the supplementary is not necessarily relevant to the substantive question.

Katherine COPSEY: On a point of order, President, I would just say that requiring a service response to a deficiency in the housing policy is certainly relevant.

The PRESIDENT: I am happy for the minister to answer as she sees fit.