Wednesday, 15 November 2023

Housing

Samantha RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (10:12): I move:

That this house:

(1) notes that the government’s recent housing statement outlines an intention to demolish and redevelop all of Melbourne’s 44 high-rise public housing buildings by 2051, including a plan to build a majority of private homes on these publicly owned sites;

(2) requires the Leader of the Government, in accordance with standing order 10.01, to table in the Council, within four weeks of the house agreeing to this resolution, all documents relating to the redevelopment of the public housing across any of the 44 high-rise public housing sites, including but not limited to:

(a) those that provide a rationale for the decision to demolish and redevelop the 44 high-rise public housing buildings and associated sites, including documents exploring alternatives to demolition, including refurbishment and renovation;

(b) assessments of the condition of current public housing buildings;

(c) feasibility studies on the cost and options for refurbishment and renovation;

(d) assessments and modelling of the maximum number of public homes that can be rebuilt on each public housing building site;

(e) cost modelling and carbon footprint assessments for the demolition plan versus any alternative options – for example, refurbishment – including a breakdown of costs for public housing tower resident relocation, such as public housing stock acquisition or headleasing of private properties, removalist costs and amounts allocated to workforce redirection towards community engagement;

(f) cost modelling for the public–private partnership approach in Victoria’s housing statement – for example, public sector comparator;

(g) those that provide a rationale for the decision to initially demolish the tenanted buildings in North Melbourne and Flemington;

(h) those relating to public housing tower resident consultation, including any information about whether any consultation occurred in the development of the demolition plan, and with whom – for instance, which organisations, representative bodies or individuals; and

(i) those outlining indicative time frames for the demolition and redevelopment of the subsequent 39 towers to the five already announced.

The announcement by the government that it is planning to demolish 44 public housing towers came as a shock to the thousands of residents living in those homes and to many in the community who appreciate the value of public housing. There are lots of questions about this plan, but the minister is reluctant to answer many of them, at least the ones that we have asked in the chamber. The announcement seemed to come out of nowhere. It certainly was not part of the government’s election platform from less than a year ago. There also have been unanswered questions on the extent to which even Homes Victoria was involved in the development of the plan or indeed the consultants who are being paid $5 million to provide services in relation to the ground lease model 2.

The minister keeps reminding us that this is the biggest social housing project in history, according to them, and it is indeed a significant project – significant because it is signifying the possible end of public housing in Victoria. With such big projects it is incumbent upon the government to be honest and transparent with the community, in particular the public housing residents who are having their lives turned upside down. They should know the basis on which the government made this decision. I have been meeting not only with residents of the towers but also architects and other housing experts, who are bemused, to say the least, but more often deeply concerned by the decision of this government.

This motion is asking the government to come clean with the residents and the community about the rationale, analysis and consultation that have occurred in the development of such a significant shift in housing policy. The government has been dismissive of experts suggesting some of the towers could be renovated or refurbished instead of demolished. We ask merely to see what work they have done to justify such a dismissal. The government is presenting their plan as the only alternative. In quite the Thatcheresque manner, we have a government that underfunded public housing for years and did not keep up with maintenance now turning around and saying it is no good, that public housing must go and only the private sector can do this – a classic example of the Thatcher ‘there is no alternative’ principle in action. Well, we do not believe it.

This motion is asking the government to show us what alternatives were considered and demonstrate why the mass privatisation of public housing is the only solution. I expect we will be met by the government’s excuse that a lot of the information we are asking for is unavailable as it is commercial in confidence. We have met this resistance when we have asked for information about the public housing renewal project and ground lease model 1 projects. This of course just reinforces one of the deep concerns many have with the mass privatisation of public housing – the loss of transparency and accountability. One of the benefits to governments of the privatisation of public goods is that they can keep their wheeling and dealing secret, and then once the public good is privatised they dodge any accountability. So what we are seeking with this motion today is that basic accountability for what is a significant decision is restored.

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (10:15): Well, what we see by way of example is what we knew we would see. The sessional orders were changed last sitting week to dramatically cut the amount of time available to have these sorts of debates, and one of the things that I have just heard and that we have all just heard is what appears to be – well, it does not appear to be, it is – a debate on substantive issues.

Dr Ratnam in rising to address a documents motion has gone into the detail of the subject matter. Now, the great problem with this in terms of the changes made to the sessional orders last week in the name of efficiency is that if I were to stand with the time that I have available – because effectively we have been muzzled in relation to the opportunity to provide contributions – and read out motion 248, this documents motion which we are debating at the moment, I would not get to the end of it before I was told to sit down. And yet what we now see is that the Greens’ Dr Ratnam has not only used the time available to her in what is typically cast by Mr Davis and others in this place as a ‘relatively narrow motion’ to go on an exposition about the subject matter but also in fact stood in this place earlier and endorsed an opportunity cut from those around the chamber to actually speak to it.

It is more than a little bit disingenuous to be having this conversation where yet again the Greens stand up and talk about social housing in a way that misses the point entirely about what this government is doing. The Greens are standing in the way of a record investment, a transformative investment, in social housing across this state. It is so disappointing that the Greens, a party that makes itself and inserts itself into the conversation about equity and about opportunity and about providing means to assist everybody across our communities, oppose social housing. And this is a great tragedy, because what we see time and time again are efforts by governments to invest in social housing, which the Greens oppose.

With the time available to me I would ask the Greens and indeed anybody else who is following this particular issue – as the cost of living, housing affordability, rental properties and the importance of investment in social housing continue to occupy the forefront of people’s minds – why it is that the Greens oppose social housing, why it is that the Greens do not support bringing new homes to communities where they are needed most, why it is that the Greens do not support use of land to address housing shortages across the board and why it is that the Greens oppose developments of social housing which will address that need and face the reality that we as a city and as a state are facing increasingly, with every year that passes, around availability of supply. The hypocrisy that we see will not put people into homes. What it will do, however, is take a narrative, take an ideology, take a theory and apply it in a way that means that people will not have the homes that they deserve.

This is the great disappointment that is the Greens policy on housing. We will proceed with the record investment that we are making to ensure that land across our 44 tower sites is able to accommodate up to 30,000 people to address the issues of population growth, to make sure that we have a 10 per cent uplift in social housing, to make sure that people have the homes that they deserve. What a tragedy, what a disappointment, that those that call themselves progressive in the Greens party cannot stomach the idea of supporting these policies.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (10:21): I rise to support this documents motion brought by Dr Ratnam in the short-form documents motion format. This is an important motion. It goes very directly to some of the key documents that should be in the public domain regarding the government’s public housing building program. The government’s decision to redevelop 44 high-rise public housing buildings and associated sites is a very significant decision. It is a huge amount of public money that is associated with this. And, as a more general point, the government’s housing program is in chaos, as we see on the front page of the Herald Sun today. But this document is a narrower motion that seeks the documents.

Harriet Shing: He has not visited any of them.

David DAVIS: That is nonsense actually. This is a narrow motion that seeks a set of documents. There is no question that the chamber has the power to demand these documents, and it is also important to understand that it is in the public interest that some of these modelling documents, the background documents, the studies and assessments that have been undertaken, that in theory would justify the government’s decisions or may justify the government’s decisions on some of these points, be provided.

I would expect that the government would provide these documents. There is no reason why they cannot be in the public domain, and it is very much in the interests of transparent government to see these documents to enable local communities in those 44 sites to have a better understanding about their future and a better understanding about how the government proposes to proceed in their areas, the reasons for those decisions and indeed how those decisions were arrived at. We think this is a sensible motion. We think it is in the public interest, and we welcome Dr Ratnam bringing this short-form documents motion to the chamber and indicate that we will support it.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:23): Two for two – I am pretty happy that I am able to get up and speak on the second of the short-form documents motions today. I was not certain, given the time limits and restrictions that have been placed on members’ contributions to these debates, that I would, and others would, be given the opportunity to speak, but I am gratified that due to those who have been seeking the call I can make this contribution today. I will not hold my breath for the future.

Mr Davis characterised this as a narrow motion. If it is a narrow motion, then the nine subclauses of the second part of the motion cast an incredibly wide net for documents that are being sought. I reflected on the motion that Mr Davis moved previously, where two quite distinct things were trying to be brought in, and here we have got all of these issues.

I do not have an issue with members seeking information through documents motions. I think it is, as has been previously outlined, an important part of the accountability of the executive government to the Parliament, and one that all members of Parliament should be keen to uphold and protect. The concern I have is that it does not appear as if the members have been listening to the debate or been reading the information that has been put out in the public domain so far, because if they had been, they might have, for example, read the transcript of the evidence provided by the chief executive officer of Homes Victoria Simon Newport when he spent I think it was an hour, or it might have been longer, giving evidence before one of the Legislative Council’s standing committees – this was public evidence; I am not disclosing any committee-in-confidence details here.

You can read the transcript; it is on the Parliament’s website. He actually went into quite a lot of detail about the rationale for the reason to redevelop the 44 high-rise public housing buildings and associated types. He gave an assessment of the condition of the current public housing buildings, including the two that are uninhabitable at the moment because the sewerage system does not work, and they have been that way for some period of time. He talked about the feasibility and the costs and options for refurbishment and renovation of other sites – on the public record already.

As I recall from that hearing there were members of both the opposition and the Greens who were present to question the CEO of Homes Victoria about these issues. Indeed we did get quite extensive evidence about some of the barriers that exist in terms of both the cost and the feasibility of undertaking large-scale renovations – which I think is also salient to other matters that are raised in the context of this motion – including that, with the big concrete walls of these buildings and the sorts of tools that are required to do these kinds of renovations, the impact that has on noise and amenity means that the residents need to be relocated during any of that period. Concerns are expressed in the context of this motion about the impact of this on residents. The same impacts would be there if we were undertaking renovations. He also talked about the cost of that. He talked about the rationale for the decisions in North Melbourne and in Flemington, as to why they were next off the list.

I could go on, but I cannot because I am running out of time, because there is not enough time being given to members in this debate to discuss these issues. I do not know why the opposition and the Greens are seeking to gag members from making contributions about these issues in the context of important matters that they seek to bring into this chamber – extensive motions requesting documents ‍– and are not providing members with sufficient time to properly debate them. It shows that this is all about politics and not about the substance of providing more homes for Victorians.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:28): I rise with what little time I have today – to pick up from Mr Batchelor’s comments – to discuss this motion. In doing so I also wish to acknowledge that the subject we are talking about today is public housing estates. That has been something that those of us who have been members of the Legal and Social Issues Committee have obviously been looking quite extensively at. I have to say – and I appreciate the contributions of the Greens member and participating member on that committee, and they have been quite engaged with it – I am absolutely astonished to see the absolute refusal to look the evidence in the eye. I believe I heard Mr Batchelor quoting before from Mr Newport from Homes Victoria, who came and spoke to the committee at our most recent hearing, just a few weeks ago, where he laid out in clear, explicit detail the reason why the Allan Labor government is going through the process of rebuilding these 44 ageing out-of-condition high-rise towers. He spoke to us of the decrepit conditions, the sewerage issues in many of them that have already become uninhabitable, that already have no people living in them because they are so out of condition they cannot reasonably have people living there. He told us about the heating and about the cooling. I note my colleague Ms Copsey asked questions yesterday about air conditioning.

These towers are not fit for purpose for cooling or for heating. Whilst we are undertaking works to improve that where we can for those towers, that will be at the later stage of this project; it is a long-term project to renew this. Those of us on this side of the chamber actually believe that people in public and social housing should have the same rights to basic living standards as everyone else. We do not think that just because you are in social housing you deserve to live in a house that is unfit – that is too cold in winter, that is too hot in summer, that is not disability compliant and that has issues with lifts. Every time that there is a lift issue, as we heard, people have to use the stairs for days, and sometimes even weeks, on end. That is part of the evidence that we heard from Mr Newport as well.

Perhaps most staggering of all is that – as we all know in this chamber – there is such a high demand and yet for each of these current units, when they become available, 10 to 20 offers have to be made before they can find someone to take up one of them, because they are unfit. Many of the people who are on our public housing waitlist have disabilities that obviously require reasonable accommodations. These towers do not provide those accommodations, and if you are saying to people, ‘Too bad. Because of your disability we’re not going to home you,’ that is not good enough. That is discrimination. That is exactly why we are rebuilding this tower, and that is exactly why there is going to be a minimum 10 per cent increase in the social housing provided as part of these rebuilds. This is, as the minister said yesterday, a nation-leading plan to rebuild these towers to make them habitable.

In spite of all that, we had questions from the Greens members on the committee back to Simon Newport saying, ‘Well, just renovate them.’ He was very clear on the reasons why that was not going to be practical either. If you do renovate them, even if you could fix all of these issues – and the expense would be ghastly, obviously, for no net increase in housing – they would still be so extensive as to require the residents to be relocated during the renovations anyway. The Greens are saying, ‘Don’t knock them down. Don’t rebuild them. Don’t provide them with the up-to-date and modern facilities that they deserve.’ The reason that they are giving is so that people are not relocated, and this would have to happen anyway. Honestly, growing up, like many young progressives, I saw the Greens as being quite logical, but this debate has once and for all proven to me that there is no logic in what is happening here. This is a far left-wing, populist movement that is trying to scare people and that is trying to undermine what is a very sensible, progressive reform. This is yet one more example of that in what we are seeing today.

Motion agreed to.